Possible explanation for Maxwell Discrepency?

[packers stem]

Hi Packers.
Things may have changed since the war in Wales, but Eire was neutral Wales was not, so we can't judge Eire by taking Wales as an example.

Hi Wickerman
The neutrality of Eire during the war is irrelevant. At the time or the ripper murders Eire was part of the UK and governed by the same laws. If Welsh was not taught or allowed to be spoken in Welsh schools at this time there's a pretty good chance the same applied to Gaelic in Ireland. This mellowed in later years early-mid twentieth century

Kelly, if what we are told is true, more than likely did most, if not all of her schooling in Eire. The bottom line is, we have no idea how literate Kelly was and whether she knew more than one language. Obviously she knew English, but whether the letters from home were written in English or some other language is unknown.

We of course can't know the contents of Kellys letters but best guess after what I've just mentioned with the dislike of the minor languages at the time has to be English, anything else would be wildly speculative in my view

Do you need to present Barnett as a liar, is that what all this is about?
(Were did Maxwell go in all this?)

Maybe it's about defending the two people who are generally looked upon as liars for no good reason maxwell and Lewis.It's about.... Why do we trust the word of Barnett ahead of maxwell and Lewis. Why should we believe he was truthful where for us, looking back now we have a 2 v 1 situation. If you were in a court now with 2 people saying one thing and one person saying the opposite what's your best guess on the outcome?

[Pcdunn]

The more I read about MJK, the more I think Maxwell's was right. I get that she's only seen her on two short occasions but you can't mistake someone for someone else unless it's dark outside.

Something doesn't add up to MJK's story, I can't really put it into words but I can't help but think that the body that was found at Miller's Court wasn't MJK, could be someone who stayed over at her place?

Hello, Jaden, welcome to the site.

Yes, I think this is possible. Mary was known to sometimes allow other women to stay in her room, and Barnett says he left her because of this sort of thing.

I have been thinking that an acquaintance was killed in MJK's place, presumably by accident, if the killer was targeting her... And if he wasn't, then he didn't care.

The problem is the severity of the attack, which some observers take to mean the killer was personally known to Mary. Perhaps he killed first thinking it was Mary, later realized his error and went berserk on the poor corpse?

[JadenCollins]

Hello, Jaden, welcome to the site.

Yes, I think this is possible. Mary was known to sometimes allow other women to stay in her room, and Barnett says he left her because of this sort of thing.

I have been thinking that an acquaintance was killed in MJK's place, presumably by accident, if the killer was targeting her... And if he wasn't, then he didn't care.

The problem is the severity of the attack, which some observers take to mean the killer was personally known to Mary. Perhaps he killed first thinking it was Mary, later realized his error and went berserk on the poor corpse?

I agree on that he might have known MJK but from a distance, not really face to face. I just can't shake the feeling that the body they found isn't her, like you said it can be an aquiantance of MJK, someone who looked similar? While being in her room the killer realizes that the girl isn't MJK, he goes berserk and brutally kills her.

The following morning MJK walks into her room to find the corpse, she's shocked, she doesn't know what to do so she leaves as fast as she can.

That's when Caroline's story adds in, she mentioned that MJK behaved really strange that morning...

[John G]

Hi John
I find this all quite ridiculous.Anything to push a theory. Maxwell is witness number 1..... Bar none.
How can anyone throw things like only spoke to her a couple of times, trying to make calling her Carrie a negative rather than the positive that it is and then go on to 'quote' Hutchinson as if he's real!!! The fella who apparently turns up at 6 on inquest day.Only just heard of the murder? or had it just dawned on the man that he may have seen something??



Why far fetched? How many people came forward to say they'd seen her in the Ringers or any other pub the night before?
And you're wrong about Lewis
He first saw her coming out of her room when playing pitch and toss IN the court that morning.He must have actually seen her coming out of her room.I've mentioned before that if that was a good place to play it chances are they played it there regularly. He would have been used to seeing Kelly entering and leaving her room. He's another top,top witness. In fact, given daylight and location,these two must be by far the strongest witnesses of movement in the entire series of murders.. To dismiss them and attempt to use the testimony of others is ridiculous. Let's not try to make maxwell out to be 'unreliable' and then use a quote from Mr reliable,I'll stand here in the rain for three quarters of an hour in the middle of the night,as some sort of evidence please



Nothing localised about the conspiracy but McCarthy could well have known something

Hello Packers,

The coroner clearly didn't regard Maxwell as a reliable witness. In fact, he said," You must be very careful about your evidence because it is different to other people's." And let's not forget she'd only spoken to Kelly, or the woman she thought was Kelly, on a maximum of two occasions over a four month period. Therefore, before getting carried away with grand conspiracy theories I think it wise to consider the obvious: she made a simple identification mistake of someone she hardly new. And the problem about a conspiracy is that a huge number of people would have to be in on it. For instance, Maxwell said she thought Kelly had been in the Britannia Beer shop, but no one else saw her there, including whoever must have served her. Maurice Lewis' evidence is absurd: he said that he saw her talking to several people in the pub, but again not a single person can corroborate this.

As for Hutchinson, in this context it doesn't matter if he lied about Astrachsn man: he clearly thought that it was perfectly acceptable social etiquette for the period, to refer to an acquaintance,even one you'd known for several years, formally as "Mr." And he had no reason to lie about that.

Conspiracies work well on programmes like the X-Files, but real life is different I'm afraid. I referred to the Austin case earlier. As noted, this involved a woman stabbed and mutilated in Dorset Street, and there was no doubt a conspiracy to cover up exactly what happened, and Daniel Sullivan, William Crossingham's brother-in-law, was deeply involved. And guess what? It fell apart almost immediately. In fact, at the inquest a clearly frustrated Coroner Baxter said Sullivan: "Well, you are about the stupidest witness and most innocent witness I ever met."

I think it,therefore, pretty obvious that the police and the authorities were highly unlikely to be fooled by such nonsense.

[John G]

Hi Falstaff
Possible of course. I too don't know how a gang member would know how to do the dissection. Along with that I also think most of the evidence points to someone a little more sophisticated than a thug-a higher class than that in terms of steady employment.

If someone could show any kind of precedent of a single serial killer coming from a gang environment then I would more amenable to it.

Hello Abby,

How about the Ripper Crew, also known as the Chicago Rippers? This was a satanic cult comprising Robert Gecht, who once worked for John Wayne Gacy, and three other members. They are thought to be responsible for the disappearance of at least 18 women, mainly prostitutes. Characteristics of the crimes include cannibalism, rape and mutilation.

[curious4]

Hi Packers.
Things may have changed since the war in Wales, but Eire was neutral Wales was not, so we can't judge Eire by taking Wales as an example.

Kelly, if what we are told is true, more than likely did most, if not all of her schooling in Eire. The bottom line is, we have no idea how literate Kelly was and whether she knew more than one language. Obviously she knew English, but whether the letters from home were written in English or some other language is unknown.

Do you need to present Barnett as a liar, is that what all this is about?
(Were did Maxwell go in all this?)

Hello Jon

Always thought that Mary came to Wales as a baby and the fact that she spoke Welsh does point to this, small children pick up a language easily. Not a Welsh speaker myself but Gaelic and Welsh have a few similarities
I believe.

Best wishes
Gwyneth

[packers stem]

Hello Packers,

The coroner clearly didn't regard Maxwell as a reliable witness. In fact, he said," You must be very careful about your evidence because it is different to other people's." And let's not forget she'd only spoken to Kelly, or the woman she thought was Kelly, on a maximum of two occasions over a four month period. Therefore, before getting carried away with grand conspiracy theories I think it wise to consider the obvious: she made a simple identification mistake of someone she hardly new. And the problem about a conspiracy is that a huge number of people would have to be in on it. For instance, Maxwell said she thought Kelly had been in the Britannia Beer shop, but no one else saw her there, including whoever must have served her. Maurice Lewis' evidence is absurd: he said that he saw her talking to several people in the pub, but again not a single person can corroborate this.

As for Hutchinson, in this context it doesn't matter if he lied about Astrachsn man: he clearly thought that it was perfectly acceptable social etiquette for the period, to refer to an acquaintance,even one you'd known for several years, formally as "Mr." And he had no reason to lie about that.

Conspiracies work well on programmes like the X-Files, but real life is different I'm afraid. I referred to the Austin case earlier. As noted, this involved a woman stabbed and mutilated in Dorset Street, and there was no doubt a conspiracy to cover up exactly what happened, and Daniel Sullivan, William Crossingham's brother-in-law, was deeply involved. And guess what? It fell apart almost immediately. In fact, at the inquest a clearly frustrated Coroner Baxter said Sullivan: "Well, you are about the stupidest witness and most innocent witness I ever met."

I think it,therefore, pretty obvious that the police and the authorities were highly unlikely to be fooled by such nonsense.

Hi John
As for maxwell being unreliable, the coroners belief or intention to make people believe,whichever you choose,requires a rough time of death of somewhere between 2 and 6 as per the medical testimony BUT this is dependent on the accuracy of the ID from Barnett.
If Barnett had been unable to say one way or the other if it was Kelly, do you think the coroner would still have difficulty in believing her? The one and only reason for any doubt cast upon maxwell by anyone is quite simply.Joe Barnett
As for Lewis you've once again skirted round the important sighting in millers court which is impossible to find an alternative explanation for. He must have seen her leaving and reentering her room.How can this be ignored?
The only totally unreliable witness who needs to be totally ignored has to be Hutchinson. All others should be considered on an equal setting and given equal weight.
We have Barnett against maxwell and Lewis. If it was just one I could accept it maybe but it's not it's 2 v 1... I've got to go with the 2... I just prefer to build a theory around the facts than to twist the facts to suit a theory, nothing to do with creating a grand conspiracy but it would be foolish to believe that conspiracies are/were a myth in the victorian era. They've always been a part of life
The times on the 10th also remind us that the identification of Eddowes in mitre square proved difficult due to mutilations(though they mistakenly said Chapman). Why was identification of Eddowes difficult by John Kelly? The mutilations were a tiny fraction of what Kelly suffered?

[curious4]

Hello Jon

Always thought that Mary came to Wales as a baby and the fact that she spoke Welsh does point to this, small children pick up a language easily. Not a Welsh speaker myself but Gaelic and Welsh have a few similarities
I believe.

Best wishes
Gwyneth

Of course we only have her word for that and she may have wanted to seem younger than she was. And if she spoke Gaelic the Londoners wouldn't have known the difference between Gaelic and Welsh.

Best wishes
Gwyneth

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I thought you were asking a question because you did not know.

Apology. English is my second language. I thought you were arguing with me.

Cheers.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

The more I read about MJK, the more I think Maxwell's was right. I get that she's only seen her on two short occasions but you can't mistake someone for someone else unless it's dark outside.

Something doesn't add up to MJK's story, I can't really put it into words but I can't help but think that the body that was found at Miller's Court wasn't MJK, could be someone who stayed over at her place?

From a fiction writer's point of view, like the movie From Hell, it's an interesting angle that the body wasn't MJK, and her seeing the horror of what happened in her room after returning, she felt very ill and started vomiting in the Court. That's when Maxwell saw her.

Then, thinking that someone might have tried to kill her, a case of mistaken identity, she fled, vanished.

I know it's more a Ludlum scenario, but it's interesting.