Possible explanation for Maxwell Discrepency?

[Harry D]

Hi Harry
With all due respect.


"neighbors I've known for years." and
spoken to twice in four months


Please tell me you see the difference.

And yes of course my "theory" is pure conjecture. Conjecture based on the all the known evidence, logical analysis and common sense.

How long does it actually take to acquaint yourself with someone? Regardless of how often she spoke to Mary Kelly, she worked across the road from her dwellings and no doubt saw her on a regular basis. People talk, Abby. You don't think the women in the area had a good old gossip about one another? I think any doubts Maxwell had about MJK's identity would've been quickly dispelled. Mary Kelly was apparently the type of woman who stood out among the rest of her crowd. I find it difficult to believe that Maxwell had mistaken her for another woman for months, particularly when we have no evidence that Mary Kelly was taking in prostitutes at that time.

You need Maxwell to be completely confused, not only of the person's identity but also how long they actually knew them, for your theory to work.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
The police thought that Kelly was killed in daylight, and they obviously believed Mrs Maxwell to allow her to contradict, their own police doctor's at the inquest..
I would say that, either she was deliberately lying, in order to confuse the T.O.D..or she was being totally accurate..
I still cannot get out of my mind that letter penned from the very place where Maxwell lived, its all too much of a coincidence to me, and conjures up foul play...
Regards Richard.

[Rosella]

We don't know that Mary 'stood out from the rest of the crowd' at all. If she had done then the reporters milling around Dorset St would have got a decent description of her. Instead, we don't even know her hair colour, 'Fair Emma', 'Ginger,' 'Dark Mary' etc.

Walter Dew supposedly remembered her and called her young and good-looking, but a lot of the other epithets 'fair as a lily' and so on could have been people speaking to reporters in the nicest way possible and not wanting to speak ill of the dead.

Others may have been caught up in the excitement after the murder. There might well have been a fair bit of 'Oh, Yes! I knew her, I did, let ME tell you about her!' when speaking to press representatives and the police.

Mary was young, she may have been tall, and she probably was reasonably attractive, especially in comparison to the other victims. However, I doubt very much that she was so heartbreakingly lovely that every eye was drawn to her when she went out. If she had been, she would have been working in the West End, not existing in one room in a slum dwelling.

[Abby Normal]

How long does it actually take to acquaint yourself with someone? Regardless of how often she spoke to Mary Kelly, she worked across the road from her dwellings and no doubt saw her on a regular basis. People talk, Abby. You don't think the women in the area had a good old gossip about one another? I think any doubts Maxwell had about MJK's identity would've been quickly dispelled. Mary Kelly was apparently the type of woman who stood out among the rest of her crowd. I find it difficult to believe that Maxwell had mistaken her for another woman for months, particularly when we have no evidence that Mary Kelly was taking in prostitutes at that time.

You need Maxwell to be completely confused, not only of the person's identity but also how long they actually knew them, for your theory to work.

Hi Harry
You keep using the word theory like its some complicated, big bad thing.

It's really quite innocuous really.

Not very complicated. Mistaken identity. Happens all the time.

The consensus among people then and now, is that maxwell was incorrect. and rightly so, all other evidence considered.

What theory are you trying to protect?

[Harry D]

Hi Harry
You keep using the word theory like its some complicated, big bad thing.

It's really quite innocuous really.

Not very complicated. Mistaken identity. Happens all the time.

The consensus among people then and now, is that maxwell was incorrect. and rightly so, all other evidence considered.

What theory are you trying to protect?

Hello, Abby.

What you're proposing is a theory in the literal sense of the word. Semantics aside, I'm not assuming it's anything more sinister than that. I'm just running the rule over what you've proposed and giving you some feedback.

Caroline Maxwell swore under oath that the woman she spoke to that day was Mary Kelly. On the face of it, there is no reason to doubt her credibility as a witness and her account is supported by two independent sources. That isn't to say I believe her, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting is that plausible for the reasons already given.

[John G]

Hello Abby,

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me. What I find remarkable is tgat, according to Maxwell, they only spoke to each other twice and yet Kelly apparently addresses Maxwell was "Carrie". Now considering that Caroline Maxwell had status in the local cal neighbourhood this type of familiarity, towards a casual acquaintance at best, seems a little unlikely to me

As the coroner observed:" And yet you say you had only spoken to her twice previously;you knew her name and she knew yours?"

[Harry D]

Hello Abby,

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me. What I find remarkable is tgat, according to Maxwell, they only spoke to each other twice and yet Kelly apparently addresses Maxwell was "Carrie". Now considering that Caroline Maxwell had status in the local cal neighbourhood this type of familiarity, towards a casual acquaintance at best, seems a little unlikely to me

As the coroner observed:" And yet you say you had only spoken to her twice previously;you knew her name and she knew yours?"

It could be that this little exchange of names was an embellishment on Maxwell's part to give her story more credence, as she knew her testimony went against the grain.

[curious4]

If the "had a cold" story was true and "Mary" was bundled up in a shawl and "her eyes looked strange" it could well have been the killer in Mary's clothes. And if "Mary" had only said "hello Dearie", not Carrie, the rest of the conversation being more nods and gestures, she could have been anyone in Mary's clothes. One thing strikes me as being odd is the fact that only women's clothing seemed to have been burned in the fire. Was the killer a woman after all, or a man in women's clothing who came to the door begging for a bed for the night and Mary with her kind heart letting her in? Can't see Mrs M being right though, if Mary wanted to go to the Mayor's show - and I can't see her going alone - friends would be knocking on the door from, I imagine, 9.30ish, looking forward to the free sit-down meal for the poorest at ten.

Best wishes
C4

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
The ''eyes looked queer'' version . I read on a train journey, but I do not know if it was from a book, or a manuscript ?
The 'Muffled' up version I was told, came from a separate source, that being McCormack.
Therefore two different accounts..
The clothes Mrs Maxwell allegedly saw Kelly wearing at her sighting, were actually found in her room, therefore the killer could not have made their escape in them.
She was intending to go to The lord mayors show,the man Hutchinson[ alleged] saw, was apparently over dressed,which could lead to the impression that he was to be her morning escort.
We know Mrs Harvey, left her bonnet for Mary's use [on the Thursday],,she is quoted to have said,''I shall be leaving my bonnet then''.
She is seen in a jacket , and bonnet by Mrs Prater at 9 PM, when both were off out.
This alone gives credence to Praters account, as she never had a bonnet , until that evening...
Both the Velvet Jacket , and bonnet, were burnt by someone in that room, the police suggesting '' because they were bloodstained''.
Regards Richard.

[RivkahChaya]

I doubt very much that she was so heartbreakingly lovely that every eye was drawn to her when she went out.

I agree. I tried to do a reconstruction that to my eye was just the pretty side of average, but which struck a lot of people as very beautiful. Maybe she just looked healthier than most people in the East End.

We don't know that Mary 'stood out from the rest of the crowd' at all. If she had done then the reporters milling around Dorset St would have got a decent description of her. Instead, we don't even know her hair colour, 'Fair Emma', 'Ginger,' 'Dark Mary' etc.

I think we have pretty good evidence that she was around 5'7, which was pretty tall for the time and place. She was also known for not wearing a hat, and I wondered if the reason she didn't wear hats was to make herself appear shorter, because many of the men in the area weren't much taller than 5'7.

Anyway, her being notorious for not wearing a hat I think strikes a blow to the "killer wore her clothes." He maybe could have pulled of a bit of cross-dressing with a large Victorian hat to distract the viewer from his face, but without a head-covering, there's no way a man could pull off cross-dressing.

Too bad we can't prove the cross-dressing. It would eliminate every suspect with facial hair, and make "broad shoulders" unlikely.

[curious4]

Hi.
The ''eyes looked queer'' version . I read on a train journey, but I do not know if it was from a book, or a manuscript ?
The 'Muffled' up version I was told, came from a separate source, that being McCormack.
Therefore two different accounts..
The clothes Mrs Maxwell allegedly saw Kelly wearing at her sighting, were actually found in her room, therefore the killer could not have made their escape in them.
She was intending to go to The lord mayors show,the man Hutchinson[ alleged] saw, was apparently over dressed,which could lead to the impression that he was to be her morning escort.
We know Mrs Harvey, left her bonnet for Mary's use [on the Thursday],,she is quoted to have said,''I shall be leaving my bonnet then''.
She is seen in a jacket , and bonnet by Mrs Prater at 9 PM, when both were off out.
This alone gives credence to Praters account, as she never had a bonnet , until that evening...
Both the Velvet Jacket , and bonnet, were burnt by someone in that room, the police suggesting '' because they were bloodstained''.
Regards Richard.

Hello Richard

Shot down! It was a lovely theory :-). I suppose he/she could have gone back to the room having obtained fresh clothing from, say, plaid man. I don't know how long and how brightly a velvet jacket and a bonnet would burn, but I suppose if she was murdered in daylight, extra light wouldn't have been needed.

Still think Mrs M was mistaken, though, and that the murder was commited when the screams were heard. Why ignore the obvious?

Best wishes
C4

[Harry D]

At the risk of sounding like a chauvinistic pig, even if Mary Kelly was only a 6/10 she probably would've stood out among the rest of her sort.

[RivkahChaya]

At the risk of sounding like a chauvinistic pig, even if Mary Kelly was only a 6/10 she probably would've stood out among the rest of her sort.

If she wasn't pock-marked, had good posture, and didn't have scurvy, she probably would have stood out.

[curious4]

If she wasn't pock-marked, had good posture, and didn't have scurvy, she probably would have stood out.

She probably met a lot of sailors, but I shouldn't think she ever sailed the seas. I think you mean rickets :-). Although she would have been short in stature if she had had it.

C4

[c.d.]

Why is the idea that Mrs. Maxwell simply made a mistake so hard to accept? Granted that that notion is not nearly as intriguing as the killer running around in Mary's clothes but come on folks....

Most likely Maxwell either got Mary confused with someone else or it was Mary that she saw and somehow confused the day and/or the time in her mind. It happens all the time.

There is simply no need for wild theories when the simplest explanation will do quite nicely.

c.d.