Possible explanation for Maxwell Discrepency?

[spyglass]

That's what we're trying to say. But Abby doesn't agree with us.

Hi,

Sorry, haven't read all the back posts.
It was just that I've been thinking about this all day ( coincidence )
I hope I haven't plagiarised someone else's theory by accident.

Regards

[packers stem]

That's what we're trying to say. But Abby doesn't agree with us.

Hi Jaden
Abby can't find her way past Hutch the make believe lookout I suspect

[JadenCollins]

Hi,

Sorry, haven't read all the back posts.
It was just that I've been thinking about this all day ( coincidence )
I hope I haven't plagiarised someone else's theory by accident.

Regards

I'm actually glad you're thinking that too. Most of the people only see what they wanna see; the same old theory.

[spyglass]

I'm actually glad you're thinking that too. Most of the people only see what they wanna see; the same old theory.

Hi,

What got me thinking about this today was by chance reading Simon Woods casebook article about the Kelly crime scene photo's possibly being tampered with, and possibly staged.

One thing also bothered me is that if Maxwell did see Kelly alive and well returning from the milk shop, then where was she going ? Surely not I hope to a carved up body.


Regards

[packers stem]

Hi,

What got me thinking about this today was by chance reading Simon Woods casebook article about the Kelly crime scene photo's possibly being tampered with, and possibly staged.

One thing also bothered me is that if Maxwell did see Kelly alive and well returning from the milk shop, then where was she going ? Surely not I hope to a carved up body.


Regards

It's an excellent piece spyglass MJK3 was probably a total fake as Simon says
But MJK1.... therein lies the answer

[Abby Normal]

cue the "twilight zone" music

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman
I think there's a really good chance that Wynne weston Davies may have found her by chance anyway.
What good reason do you have for believing Barnett above all others? There quite frankly is none.

Hi Packers.
It isn't a case of believing Barnett. If you dismiss him altogether you have nothing, no name, no history, no named relatives, nothing.
You may prefer to invent your own version of who the victim was, and if you do, what name are you going to use to start your search?

If Kelly was disappearing then Barnett could have covered for her anyway so all other arguments become irrelevant.

Ok, so lets say everything we have been told is a lie, so where do we go from here?

Anyone killed in that manner would end up with red hair

And this is because it is not possible to tell bloodstained hair from a true redhead?
Are you being serious?

[Rosella]

^ As far as mistaken identities are concerned can I tell you a story and I'll make it short!

For over twenty years I have been working part time in a community centre, with many of the same staff. On Mondays I work in the same office with a woman I've become friendly with, we are about the same age, both short, plump, short hair.

We have lost count of the times Dawn has been greeted with an 'Hello, Ros' by fellow workers as we pass in the corridors, and I have been greeted with a 'Hi, Dawn!'. Over the years it must run into the hundreds.

The people who mistake us, and have done for years, includes a man I serve on committee with. This is not someone who has seen either of us occasionally, as Caroline Maxwell did with the woman she saw.

I can assure you that my fellow worker and I are not twins, nor do people see us in a half-light in the early morning.

[Rosella]

Hi,

What got me thinking about this today was by chance reading Simon Woods casebook article about the Kelly crime scene photo's possibly being tampered with, and possibly staged.

One thing also bothered me is that if Maxwell did see Kelly alive and well returning from the milk shop, then where was she going ? Surely not I hope to a carved up body.


Regards

Spyglass, I post on the Lizzie Borden Forum, and photographers fiddling around with the crime scene and moving furniture happened in the Borden home too after Lizzie's parents were murdered. In one photo Andrew Borden may well have had his shoes put back on to have his photo taken, with half his face caved in! The couch where he was killed was certainly moved. (This was August 1892.)

While I was looking on that particular occasion for crime photos something bobbed up about photos taken in the (Julia) Wallace home, where objects/furniture were moved in the process of being photographed. This was Liverpool in the early 1930's! You would think by then the police and their photographers would have been better, but apparently not.

[packers stem]

Hi Packers.
It isn't a case of believing Barnett. If you dismiss him altogether you have nothing, no name, no history, no named relatives, nothing.
You may prefer to invent your own version of who the victim was, and if you do, what name are you going to use to start your search?

Hi Wickerman
Didn't say there's a reason to doubt the details he gave about her past. He would have seen them as irrelevant details anyway so no reason to make anything up.
Let's not forget he 'had to read everything about the murders to her'.... Do you believe she was illiterate then despite McCarthy saying she was receiving letters? Because that's what Barnett's comments suggest.
There's now no way on earth to know who the victim was other than she was almost certainly in my view one of the two women seen by Kennedy with Kelly being the other but the only way to prove it would be to look for Kelly AFTER November which would be difficult as she would not be using that name and probably not in the UK....I have my suspicions that dieppe may be a good port of call

And this is because it is not possible to tell bloodstained hair from a true redhead?
Are you being serious?

Of course I'm serious.You're forgetting that there are many different types of redhead...you seem to be presuming a 'ginger'. Truth is like much about Mary Kelly, we just don't know.You're also forgetting again the possibility that Barnett's ID is a deliberate lie to help her disappear, doesn't have to be a mistaken ID at all

[John G]

Spyglass, I post on the Lizzie Borden Forum, and photographers fiddling around with the crime scene and moving furniture happened in the Borden home too after Lizzie's parents were murdered. In one photo Andrew Borden may well have had his shoes put back on to have his photo taken, with half his face caved in! The couch where he was killed was certainly moved. (This was August 1892.)

While I was looking on that particular occasion for crime photos something bobbed up about photos taken in the (Julia) Wallace home, where objects/furniture were moved in the process of being photographed. This was Liverpool in the early 1930's! You would think by then the police and their photographers would have been better, but apparently not.

Hi Rosella,

Regarding the Wallace case, if you look at the two photographs closely it becomes clear that items were even moved between the taking of the first and second photograph. In fact, by the time the official police photographer arrived numerous people had been in the room, including the police and neighbours. One of the neighbours, Mrs Johnstone, pointed out that the police were "rooting round everywhere", and on the witness stand she even went as far as questioning the position of the body on the photograph and remarked that the room looked "faked-up".

And, crucially, the the crime scene photograph depicts the blood stained Macintosh by the side of the body, near the rug. However, Mrs Johnstone said that when she first saw it it was almost hidden beneath the body (which I believe significantly undermines the case against the husband.)

[Rosella]

Fascinating, John, and it certainly does undermine the prosecution's case. Like the Borden case the Wallace murder remains officially unsolved. When Lizzie Borden went on trial the first person to find her stepmother Abby murdered (the family doctor, Dr Bowen) was given photographs of the corpse taken by the photographer and stated that he felt the upper part of Abby's body was in a slightly different position. It's hardly surprising that photos of some of these crime scenes look staged.

[JadenCollins]

”Mrs. Caroline Maxwell, the wife of a lodging-house deputy, was very positive that she saw and spoke to Mary that very morning. It was 8.30, and Mary had just come from that evil room. We all know the conversation, but what is important is that she was shocked by Mary's appearance, and her words "I have got the horrors of drink upon me" concealed the horrors of something of which she dared not speak; the horrors of murder.“

Try to be openminded here, Joe only had a quick look at the body that was found at Miller's Court, the woman had blue eyes and so did Mary, so there you have his statement, that's all he got though. Her clothes were all folded, tidy..her door was locked. Unless you believe that "Jack" locked the door and left. Funny thing about that is, the key was lost and then finally found, really? Like seriously, a serial killer that leaves a piece of evidence behind? Nope, that person was not 1 but 10 steps ahead from everyone.

[John G]

I just don't see Caroline Maxwell as a reliable witness, and Maurice Lewis even less so. For instance, Maxwell admits that she only spoke to Kelly on about two occasions over a four month period. I therefore really don't see how she could be certain of correctly identifying Kelly based upon such a casual acquaintance. She also points out that, when she spoke to her on the Friday morning, Kelly referred to her as "Carrie". The coroner clearly thought this strange, I.e because they'd only spoken on two occasions and I think he was right to do so. And it's worth noting that people were generally more formal in the way they addressed each other in the nineteenth century, particularly if they didn't know each other well: George Hutchinson, for instance, claimed that Kelly referred to him as "Mr Hutchinson", even though they'd known each other for about three years.

Maxwell, also claimed to have seen Kelly outside the Britannia at around 8:45, talking to a man, but no one else verified this sighting. As for Maurice Lewis, is claim to have seen Kelly drinking and talking to some people in the Ringers after 10:00am seems totally far-fetched, I.e. because not a single other person recalls seeing or talking to Kelly in the pub at that time.

Could it be a local conspiracy? Well, I very much doubt they'd have got away with it. There was clearly a conspiracy involving the later Austin murder, also in Dorset Street. Nonetheless, the police quickly realized what was happening, as did the coroner at the inquest when several witnesses were caught out lying. And this was a conspiracy involving Daniel Sullivan, Wiliam Crossingham's brother in law, and possibly even Crossingham or John MCCarthy. I doubt, therefore, if a conspiracy in favour of a penniless local woman would have succeeded.

[curious4]

”Mrs. Caroline Maxwell, the wife of a lodging-house deputy, was very positive that she saw and spoke to Mary that very morning. It was 8.30, and Mary had just come from that evil room. We all know the conversation, but what is important is that she was shocked by Mary's appearance, and her words "I have got the horrors of drink upon me" concealed the horrors of something of which she dared not speak; the horrors of murder.“

Try to be openminded here, Joe only had a quick look at the body that was found at Miller's Court, the woman had blue eyes and so did Mary, so there you have his statement, that's all he got though. Her clothes were all folded, tidy..her door was locked. Unless you believe that "Jack" locked the door and left. Funny thing about that is, the key was lost and then finally found, really? Like seriously, a serial killer that leaves a piece of evidence behind? Nope, that person was not 1 but 10 steps ahead from everyone.

Hello Jaden

I believe the door locked itself when closed. Can't quite remember the name of the lock but she would have only needed the key to get in.

Best wishes
C4