|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 307
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 5:56 am: | 
|
Richard - someone can be genuinely mistaken and tell the absolute truth as they see it. They would be unshakeable as someone more accurate. I don't doubt that Mrs Maxwell was convinced, or had convinced herself, that what she remembered was what happened. but I think on balance she was probably mistaken/wrong.
I think she probably confused the date. hence the relative accuracy/believability of the rest of what she said.
Phil |
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Hi Phil, Leanne, Richard and Kane,
I still can't accept "confusion as to date" as an explanation for genuine error by Maxwell.
Let us go back to Chris’s observation in his Chapter on Maxwell and note that that her witness statement was given to the police on the 9th November i.e. THE SAME DAY THAT THE BODY WAS FOUND. In giving her statement, she was therefore referring to what she saw, heard and did ON THE VERY SAME MORNING. I would therefore think it extremely unlikely that she would confuse the events of that very same day, i.e. a matter of only hours beforehand, with any earlier occasion. ( I think it is easy to overlook the timing of Maxwell's witness statement to the police, because in formal fashion it refers to the specific date of 9th November rather than her saying "this morning" or "earlier today").
I also tend to agree with Kane that Maxwell was talking about Mary Kelly and that there was no confusion as to identity.
However, I cannot accept her testimony as "solid". The more I look at a comparison between Maxwell's statement to the police and the record of her testimony at the inquest, the more sceptical I am becoming about her credibility and her "motive" as a witness.
Even allowing for human fallibility in discrepancies appearing in two different accounts of the same events given by the same person on different occasions, note that:
(1) Being "on speaking terms" in the police statement (suggesting a degree of familiarity) is diluted by being revealed at the Inquest to have only ever been twice (and it is not clear whether this actually includes the alleged conversation of 9th November)
(2) As Leanne observes, her police statement given on the 9th makes no indication of an exchange of names in the alleged conversation. Even if this is because it was not considered a significant enough detail for inclusion in the statement, it is interesting that at the inquest testimony, not only are the names included, but the way Maxwell relates them, also suggests wanting to give an impression of having known Kelly well, when this doesn't appear to be the case at all. Not only is Kelly referred to as "Mary", but apparently Kelly addressed her by the extremely informal "CARRY". Note this is not "Mrs. Maxwell" or even "Caroline". This strikes me as odd for someone who had only had two exchanges of conversation with the woman.
(3) As Leanne also rightly observes, there is the curious reference at the inquest to Maxwell saying:
"I took a deal of notice of deceased THIS EVENING seeing her standing at the corner of the Court on Friday from 8 to half past. I know the time....etc."
Surprisingly, this doesn't seem to have been challenged (unless it was a transcription error of "Evening" for "Morning").
The more I think about it, I believe that Maxwell at the very least "embroidered" her testimony. Of the Options posed by Sugden and analysed by Chris, ie, she was either lying, drunk, or mistaken (and if we add to this list of options that she was telling the absolute truth), I am leaning towards the first of these. I suspect that she was lying to achieve “ten minutes of fame”, but having given her statement to the police, she had gone too far down the road to retract anything at the inquest, despite being under oath.
Clive
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 309
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
Clive,
You start by saying: "I still can't accept "confusion as to date" as an explanation for genuine error by Maxwell.
And you end by saying: The more I think about it, I believe that Maxwell at the very least "embroidered" her testimony.
Would not one way be to bring forward a real event and make it more dramatic, and this give Mrs Maxwell a more central place in events?
You then say: Of the Options posed by Sugden and analysed by Chris, ie, she was either lying, drunk, or mistaken... I am leaning towards the first of these.
By which I take it you mean lying?
I suspect that she was lying to achieve “ten minutes of fame”, but having given her statement to the police, she had gone too far down the road to retract anything at the inquest, despite being under oath.
This seems to tie in with the compromise explanation I have just given.
BUT please note, I do NOT maintain that she was lying. I actually give her more credit for honesty (a genuine mistake), than you do (a lie)!!
Pardon my confusion but what you say in your last post doesn't add up!!
Phil
} |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Hi,
It is rock solid that Maxwell claims to have seen Kelly on the Morning of the 9th, as she mentioned that she was doing errands and had visited somewhere that she had not been for some time[ sorry place escapes me milk?]and the visit was checked by police and was confirmed.
Mary Kelly was well known at least by sight by residents in the surrounding area, she stood out amongst the crowd, even Walter Dew had observed her on occassions, Maxwell said she used to hang about the lodging house, surely there can be no indication of wrong identity?.
As for going to far down the path to retract her statement all she had to say was 'As medical evidence contradicts my statement i will not swear on oath incase I am mixing up days'
We are really guilty of disbelieving someone who was described as a respectable person just because most people on this site and others who study this case assume that she must have been killed during the night.
I happen to believe that she was killed around 9am and that the sightings by three people were correct.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 311
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Richard - your enthusiasm is commendable, but your last sentence undermines all you say. You are not evaluating this evidence objectively. I have no axe to grind whatsoever - but I am afraid your arguments do not tally with my observation of human nature, AND what we know of witnesses and the behaviour of people in this case.
I simply say that, at present, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest way through the thicket is that Mrs Maxwell was wrong.
Phil |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 4:58 am: |
|
G'day,
RICH: 'It is rock solid that Maxwell claims to have seen Kelly on the Morning of the 9th,' No one is doubting that Richard. It's a question of whether it really was Mary Kelly that she saw. Maxwell may have been convinced and willing to swear under oath that she was right but that doesn't prove she was!
If she collected the used breakfast plates from a lodging house that was directly opposite (13 or 15 Dorset Street), would she have taken the dirty plates with her to shop at Bishopsgate? She never mentioned leaving them with her husband first. She seems to have been confused.
'We are really guilty of disbelieving someone who was described as a respectable person just because most people on this site and others who study this case assume that she must have been killed during the night.'
Wrong again Rich! Most people believe that she was killed during the night because that's what the magority believed then!
LEANNE |
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 5:55 am: |
|
Hi All,
Phil, in my earlier post there is a distinction between "genuine error" and "lying".
I tend to discount "genuine (honest)error" as to time, because of the proximity of events which she was claiming to describe, and I also discount confusion as to identity because it does seem that she was referring to MJK because of the detail given.
Exactly as you suggest, she may have "brought forward" something that really did happen to give her a more dramatic place in events" but I would see this is having been done intentionally, with full knowledge that those events did not occur on the morning of Friday 9th November, and therefore she was lying.
Richard, we have to remember that witnesses at the time would not have had access to the same information that we have with the benefit of hindsight and now widely available documents.
As pointed out in an earlier post, I doubt that Maxwell was even aware of the medical evidence as to the time of death when she gave her testimony at the inquest, so she could not have made reference to it as a justification for "backing out"
The time of death was not discussed at the Inquest, she would not have had access to Bond's report (although the coroner would) and the only (limited) medical evidence discussed at the inquest was the testimony of George Bagster Phillips. This was given AFTER Maxwell had testified and this didn't mention time of death. Hence my comment earlier that she might well have been bemused by the Coroners warning, because she would not have known what the other evidence was that contradicted her own testimony (and there is no record that the coroner explained to her what this other evidence was).
It cannot be completely ruled out that MJK was murdered in the morning, but to me this looks less likely than her being killed during the night.
Clive |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne,
I get the impression that you believe that Maxwell was embroidering upon her original her statment for some reason or maybe just lying.
I would be interested to know what your fundamental reason for disbelieving Maxwell is.
Is it the clash with the estimated T.O.D?
or the cry of"Oh Murder" in the early hours?
Do you think Maxwell's story is a pack of lies or can we agree on something fundamental like:
Maxwell did actuall see and speak to a woman.A woman she knew lived in Millers court?
As I mentioned in an earlier posting,don't you find it odd that the coroner didn't question Maxwell regarding the appearence of the woman she saw?The confusion could have been resolved quickly,with a few simple questions.
Details like hair colour,hair length,age,complexion.
If Kelly's hair was ginger as her nick-name suggested,then what are the chances that there were two ginger haired women living in Millers court?
At the risk of repeating myself,I think Maxwell was initially taken seriously at the inquest because she described a woman who lived in Millers court,who fitted Kelly's description rather well.She also desribed the maroon shawl that was later found in Kelly's room.
However unfortunately their misplaced faith in the accuracy of the medical evidence forced them to conclude that Maxwell must have been confused as to the date of her encounter with Kelly.
Kane |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 8:17 am: |
|
Hello,
I have now examined both the police statement and the inquest deposition given by Caroline Maxwell.
Now,some have claimed that Maxwell simply wanted her 15 minutes of fame and therefore "Padded out" her original statement when she gave her deposition at the inquest.
What I see is in fact exactly the opposite.
I see a conscientious woman who had collected her thoughts and was able to to recall futher details she had neglected to include earlier.
Allow me to explain.
In her police statement,Maxwell doesn't indicate that there was an exchange of names when the two women greeted.However at the inquest she says:
"Why Mary what brings you up so early she said Oh!I do feel so bad!Oh Carry I feel so bad!She knew my name".
Now all Maxwell has done here is clarify the fact that she knew Kelly and Kelly knew here.
Some may dissagree,but the fact that Maxwell added the phrase "She knew my name",makes her sound more genuine.
Now,if Maxwell and Kelly had Known each other for four months and only spoken twice,is it likely that Kelly would have been so over familiar and called Maxwell "Carry"?
Well if everybody else called her Carry,then of course it is likely!
This is not over familiarity at all.
We know her as Caroline only because of the formalities and conventions of police and inquest procedure!
In her police statement Maxwell says to Kelly:
"Why don't you go to Ringers and have half a pint of beer"?,to which Kelly replys:"I have been there and had it,but I have brought it all up again"
Now,at the inquest Maxwell gives us an indication that she is aware that with hindsight,she had in fact only ASSUMED that Kelly had gone to Ringers for her beer.
She now says:
"I CONCLUDED she meant she had been to the Britannia at the corner".
None of this sound suspicious to me.
Kane |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1728
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 6:21 am: |
|
G'day Kane,
I disbelieve that Maxwell was definately speaking to Mary Kelly because that appears to be the option that those who heard her chose and they are the best judges of her character, not us.
Clive is right in pointing out that Mary's time-of-death wasn't even discussed and that points to her inquest being too short. He also made a good point about no witness having access to Dr. Bond's report.
I don't believe that Caroline Maxwell was lying in order to mislead the investigation. She believed she was right, but may have 'embroided' her story to save her own reputation.
'Maxwell said she saw the woman standing by the entrance to Millers Court,therefore she was talking about the house over the road,opposite the entrance. '
She did not! In her statement to the police she said that she saw the woman "standing at the CORNER of Miller's Court in Dorset Street". Her testimony at the inquest reveals that she was standing "at the CORNER of the Court".
I've been looking at photographs of the entrance to Miller's Court and I can't find the CORNER.
She wasn't directly across the road. Caroline Maxwell lived at 14 Dorset Street, which would have been about six doors away from Miller's Court which was No. 26. She told the Coroner that she went to the lodging house across the road. Did she mean the lodging house across the road from where she lived or the lodging house across the road from Miller's Court?
Maxwell's story does not represent a 'spanner in the works' of my theory at all! Richard believes that Maxwell saw and spoke to Mary Kelly and our theories are almost identicle.
Thanks for pointing out another difference between her statement and testimony i.e: 'She said "I have been there (Britania) and had it..."
then 'I CONCLUDED she meant she had been to the Britania at the corner...' The 'Daily Telegraph' said on NOV. 13 that Maxwell said: "I IMAGINED she had been in the Britania beer-shop.."
This newspaper and the 'Daily News' Nov. 13 reported the words spoken at the inquest as though the reporters pen was on 'auto-pilot'. In the 'Daily News' report Maxwell didn't state the colour of the woman's shawl, but described it as a 'knitted shawl'.
LEANNE |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 453
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
Didn't the enquiry find that Maxwell knew Kelly far less than she claimed she did?
I don't go in for theorising much, but I would suspect she was just being human - she was mistaken about the day but wasn't SURE she had seen MJK and consequently thought she was being helpful by making this statement when in fact she was muddying the waters. When backed into a corner she said "Yes" when in fact she was wrong.
I don't believe Maxwell to be a liar. I believe her to be under pressure to give information. And I have no doubt whatsoever MJK was dead by about 4am.
Unless MJK was a ghost (but that's a different area altogether!)
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3356
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
Hi Philip,
It's quite true. Accordingly, Mrs Maxwell didn't seem to know Mary Kelly very well and had only met her a few times.
There are a few disturbing elements, though...
1) Considering Lord Major's Day, I find it hard to believe that she was mistaken about the time. It is not impossible, but seems a bit of a stretch. Her first statement was given only a short time after the murder, not several days. She would have been pretty confused if she was mistaken about the day.
2) She described Mary Kelly's clothes to be the same that actually were found inside the room (like the velvet body and the maroon shawl), which in itself also delivers a problem for the theory that she might not have been mistaken by the day, but about the PERSON.
Still, I believe you are right, that there is a possibility that she was under pressure to give information and may have found herself stuck inside a corner at the inquest.
To me there are reasonable indications on that Kelly was killed around 4 AM and not later in the morning (like the cry of Oh Murder!). As for the clothes, Maxwell had probably seen her wear those at another occasion; another problem for those who believe Mrs Maxwell and Maurice/Morris Lewis saw Mary kelly at that time also have to face the fact that there are no other witnesses who appear to have seen her.
Still, there are a lot of problems to face here, in each direction.
As for the idea, that Lewis and Maxwell may have seen a ghost... those who know me, also know that I am not prepared to rule that out altogether.  But as Hutch says... that is a different area of study....
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Leanne,Leanne,Leanne,
Now you are suggesting Maxwell didn't even know where Millers court was!Blimey!
The fact that it had a bloody great name plate and was in Maxwell's street is neither here nor there?
You really do have this woman down as some sort of drooling cretin!
Regarding Maxwell's actual words,you are correct and I remember reading Maxwell said"standing at the CORNER of Millers Court in Dorset Street"
However when I originally read that,I automatically had a picture of the brick corners of No.s 26 and 27,flanking the archway that led into the court.
I have no problem with the term "Corner" whatsoever.
Also,just to clarify,I was not suggesting that Maxwell was a spanner in the works of your own personal theory,I was speaking generally.Infact I had no particular individual in mind.Not even Bob Hinton.
So Leanne,to summarise:
You believe Mrs.M.had the wrong woman,the wrong location and was generally very confused,but suddenly realised all this and tried to save face by embroidering upon her original statement when making her inquest deposition.
Now,neglecting the content of their individual statements,the fact that two other,independent witnesses claimed they had seen Kelly that morning,only reinforces the acuracy of Maxwell's statement.
If we look at Lewis'statement however,he does seem to have been confused over the name of the man with whom Kelly had been living.
But trashing Lewis' statement completely is like throwing the baby out with the bath water in my opinion.
We must consider the possibility that the information that Lewis gave was garbled somewhat by the press.
My guess(and it is only a guess)is that the press had already got hold of the information that a man called Barnett had been living with Kelly and that he was still visiting her on a regular basis.
If Lewis told the reporter that he had seen Kelly drinking with amoungst others,Dan BARNETT who sold oranges,then they may have merged it all together thus:
MORRIS LEWIS SAW.. DAN BARNETT.ORANGE SELLER...BOYFREIND OF KELLY..HAD LEFT HER ONLY RECENTLY...
If the press had known that it was actually Joeseph and not Dan Barnett that had lived with Kelly,then they would surely have stated as much when they published Lewis'statement.
Incidentally,the "Julia"that Lewis described was probably not Julia Venturney,as she mentioned nothing about drinking with Kelly when she spoke at the inquest.
Another point I wanted to make is that BOTH Maxwell and Lewis described Kelly as being short and stout. Actually "Little" and stout were the adjectives Maxwell used.
I think Walter Dew described her as stout also.
"Ahh,gotcha" I hear you cry,"Kelly was 5ft7""
Was she? I challenge anybody to give me anthing like an accurate physical description of Kelly,quoting their 100% reliable source.
The full length photograph doesn't help either.
Kane |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 4:14 am: |
|
Hi Kane and all,
Maxwell did make a statement that I thought was odd. She stated that "Kelly was a young woman who never associated with anyone". I find the statement odd because you would think that a woman who knew Kelly for four months would have known that Kelly was living with a man and yet she makes no mention of the fact. Kelly was an outgoing woman. A robust woman. She was often seen in the company of others. She was well known and well liked from what I understand. I find it odd that Maxwell would discribe her as someone who kept to herself. I realise that this is all very columboish and Maxwell may have seen Kelly. I just find it odd.
Your friend,Brad |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1729
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
G'day Kane, Kane and their brother Kane,
I did not suggest that Maxwell didn't know where Miller's Court was at all!!!! You just didn't understand!!!!
Caroline Maxwell lived at number 14 Dorset Street and told the Coroner that her husband was A lodging house deputy. She didn't state that this lodging house was Crossingham's.
I just read in the 'Daily Telegraph News' that he was the night watchman at 'Commercial Chambers'.
Please, please, please name the TWO other witnesses who claimed to have seen Mary Kelly that morning. I know that one was the tailor Lewis, but who was the other?
The last mentioned newspaper said that Lewis was playing 'pitch and toss' in the court at 9:00a.m. An hour before that he saw her leave and return with milk. The 'A-Z' just tells me that he saw her in the 'Brittania' at 10:00.
Now if both saw the same person:
* Lewis saw her leave a room to get milk at 8:00a.m.
* Maxwell saw her standing at the corner of Miller's Court between 8:00 and 8:30 but says nothing about her carrying milk.
* Lewis saw her return to her room with the milk but wasn't specific about the time of her return.
* Maxwell returns from Bishopsgate and sees her talking to a man outside the Brittania. The time was about 8:45.
* Lewis claims he saw her in the Brittania at 10:00a.m.
Can anyone make something out of that?
LEANNE
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 456
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 6:36 am: |
|
Hi Kane and all too...
An interesting point above, Kane. "The full length photograph doesn't help either".
I wonder...
I bet it COULD help, you know! Has anyone with expertise in this field actually looked at this photo, done some calculations and come up with a height for MJK?
If I've missed the boat I shan't jump in the shark-infested waters, but it sounds interesting!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3360
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 7:00 am: |
|
Hi Hutch,
Well, this is certainly not my area of expertise, but wouldn't it be necessary to know the length of the bed? If we had that, I think it would be possible to figure out somehow, although maybe not down to the tiniest inch.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 459
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
I was thinking more of the idea if you took the measurement from the size of her head and worked down. Obviously, we don't KNOW this, but most people's heads are of a similar size in relation to the shape of the skull. Given that info I could probably even have a go myself!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Debra J. Arif
Police Constable
Username: Dj
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 6:55 pm: |
|
Hi Philip
There are certain specialist areas of forensics now, where the stature of suspects caught on cctv and video can be worked out using things such as the length of their nose!
If this is possible I am sure it would be possible to determine the same of Mary from the photograph ( using something other than the nose obviously)
Forensic anthropologists use complicated formulae to work out stature from actual long bone measurements and I believe that femur length is one of the most reliable indicators of height.
But I am sure a rough estimate of height could be possible from the photograph. |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Leanne and her two equally lovely sisters,
Come on now,you were clearly implying that Maxwell was confused as to the location of Millers court because she had used the word"Corner" and you couldn't see any corners.
CB,You quoted Maxwell as having said "Kelly was a young woman who never associated with anyone".
My impression is that Kelly was quiet,shy even,WHEN SHE WAS SOBER!
McCarthy said of her: "She was a very quiet woman when sober but noisey when in drink"
Also(although I cannot locate the source right now) McCarthy made a statement in which he refered to Kelly as "Exceptionally quiet".
Kane
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 10:01 pm: |
|
G'day,
Here is the statement Caroline Maxwell gave to police on the 9th of November: "I have known the desceased woman during the past 4 ["or5" - deleted] months, she was known as Mary Jane and that since Joe Barnett left her she was obtaining her living as an unfortunate. I was on speaking terms with her although I had not seen her for 3 weeks until Friday morning 9th * [here there is a marginal note- "* about half past 8 o'clock"] instant, she was standing at the corner of Millers Court in Dorset Street. I said to her, what brings you up so early. she said, I have to horrors of drink upon me, as I have been drinking for some days past. I said why dont you go to Mrs. Ringers...."
Here is what she said to the reporter of 'The Daily News' also on the 9th of November: "I have known the murdered woman well for the past six months. This [Friday] morning, as near as possible about half past eight, I saw Mary Jane (the murdered woman) standing outside the court. I said "What brings you out so early, Mary Jane?" and she answered "I feel very queer. I cannot sleep. I have the horrows (sic) of the drink on me, as I have been drinking this last day or two." I said, "Well, I pity you," and passed on. I went to Bishopsgate....."
Now here's what she said at the inquest on the 12th of November: "I live at 14 Dorset Street my husband's name is Henry Maxwell he is a Lodging House deputy. I knew the deceased for about 4 months as Mary Jane. I also knew Joe Barnett, I believe she was an unfortunate girl. I never spoke to her except twice - I took a great deal of notice of deceased this evening seeing her standing at the corner of the Court on Friday from 8 to half past I know the time by taking the plates my husband had to take care of from the house opposite. I am possitive the time was between 8 & half past I am positive I saw deceased I spoke to her I said Mary what brings you up so early she said Oh! I do feel so bad! Oh Carry I feel so bad! She knew my name -["she as" -deleted] I asked her to have a drink, she said oh no I have just had a drink of ale and have brought it all up, it was in the road I saw it - as she said this she motioned with her head and I concluded she meant she had been to the Britania [sic] at the corner, I left her saying that I pitied her feelings. I then went to Bishopsgate...."
As 'Mary' said she had been drinking for some days past I'd say she wasn't specifically sick because she had just viewed a mutilated corpse on her bed. That goes against the theory that another woman was killed while Mary Kelly escaped.
Maxwell telling the reporter that she had known the deceaqsed for 6 months was an exaggeration. She also told this reporter on the 9th that she called the woman "Mary Jane", so the exchange of names wasn't just added at the inquest to make her story more 'colourful'.
Hand on a minute, she only stated that the woman referred to her as "Carry" at the inquest, then stressed that the woman knew HER name!
Notice how on no occasion did Maxwell say what she did with the plates. Did she take them with her to Bishopsgate?
Should I have posted this on the Caroline Maxwell thread?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Hi,
Refering to Kelly being a shy and reserved person i would dispute that.
She was well respected in the neighbourhood amongst the unfortunate, a person who would feel pity on the depraved, to parade around Whitechapel with other women of hardship , to drink in the Ten Bells , [and the Ringers ]to be accused by modern research of being a woman of being a mugger of seaman, nicknamed 'Black Mary' All of which indicates to me she was a woman who lived by her means , and had a air of self importance in her character.
Lets not beat about the bush she was a harlot, who had a kind side, but looked after number one[ and who could have blamed her]
Regards Richard.
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 337
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Frankly, I'm not sure this sort of evidence will bear this level or weight of analysis.
There is, as we know, a tendency for the press to mishear, misinterpret or edit evidence in ways that mislead.
Note, in one version, Mrs M says she's suggested MJK went to the "Ringers". In another, MJK HAS BEEN drinking and Mrs M only expresses pity. and goes off to Bishopsgate. In a third, Mrs M asks MJK to "have a drink" but it turn out the latter has already had one (or more) and been sick. Mrs M then concludes that MJK HAS BEEN to the Britannia, and goes away expressing pity.
So what do we have here. If anything the third variation could be a basis from which the other two derive, either in edited form (I can imagine Victorian editors not wanting vomit on their readers' breakfast tables); or because things were misunderstood. Equally, the testimony might have become elaborated with repetition, but I lean to the former view. This, of course, has nothing to do with the basic truth of what was said (sincere or mendacious).
But this leads to a further discussion: how much was left out even of the longer/more comprehensive account. Unless hitherto unknown press accounts are found, or notes discovered, we can never know. Did reporters miss out crucial statements like "I thought she looked like" MJK; qualifications, or details that we might find valuable.
The danger is that, as a result, we can assume that we have ALL that Mrs Maxwell knew or said and extrapolate on that basis; or we seek to deconstruct the testimony and focus on inconsistencies (which Mrs M in life could easily have rectified).
Arguments about what the "corner" meant (in a previous post; or discussion of which lodging house is meant; is in my view wasted time. If Mrs M meant anything, ten she presumably knew what she meant by the corner or the lodging house. She clearly knew what her husband did and where he did it.
But DID she know Mary Kelly? Did she mix things up; or embroider or make a mistake? I don't think we can ever know.
The way forward, IMHO, is a judicious discarding of such material until other details emerge that either corroborate, allow us to wholly discard it, or give us a further dimension which throws new light on what was said.
That, of course, will not put off those who have a particular theory to peddle and seek to use special arguments to allow use of certain aspects of these reports (akin to the Brady St chase and Polly Nichols' death which has been discussed in another thread) to support their contention. But to me, at least, such arguments are similar to theorising about the number of angels that could stand on the head of a pin.
At whatever loss to local colour, we must surely strive for some standards and consistency in our evaluation of evidence?
Phil
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1738
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
G'day Phil,
Anyone who read a newspaper article about Jack the Ripper at the breakfast table deserved to have vomit on it.....their own!
I take the version Maxwell gave at the Inquest as the nearest to the truth, (except maybe the DOUBLE exchange of names). The woman may have called her "Carry", but if she regularly helped her husband with his work, she was probably familiar to a lot of people.
In her testimony after Maxwell suggested the woman have a drink, 'Mary' said "Oh no I've just had a drink of ale..." She didn't say that she had one at the 'Ringers'. She just motioned her head and Maxwell 'CONCLUDED' that she had been to the 'Ringer's' on the corner. She could have been pointing to the vomit with her head.
In Maxwell's police statement, she raved on about not seeing her for 3 weeks, which was really unneccesary, and there wasn't a single exchange of names.
LEANNE |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1915
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Hi folks
A quick update. The Kelly book is now at the printers and I have signed off the final proof which comes in at 150 pages. The cover is below. As soon as I know the retail price and ordering details I will let you know for anyone who wants to treat themselves to a copy.
Chris
 |
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Chris,
Look forward to it and I think it will be a good antidote to the latest commercial "This is the definite solution (at least until the next one)" offering.
I assume that you will be giving the details on this thread ?
Incidentally, have you ever thought about combining some of your other work and research outcomes (that have appeared on these boards or otherwise) into an anthology of essays on JTR ?
Best Wishes,
Clive |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1933
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Hi Clive
Thanks for the comments.
If you go to earliest parts of this thread it gives details and some sample chapters.
The anthology idea is a good one which I will give some thought
All the best
Chris |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2002
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
I have finally received the following details from the publishers today:
Will the Real Mary Kelly...?
Christopher Scott
154 Pages
ISBN: 1-905277-05-9
Released 2005-04-05
£9.99 GBP
The book can be ordered initially from the publisher's website at the following address:
http://www.pabd.com/2005/books/marykelly
If anyone has any problems let me know and I will take these up.
Again, thanks to everyone for the kind and constructive comments and I hope you enjoy reading the work as much as I enjoyed writing it.
Chris |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2003
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
I have been in contact with the publisher today and we have dropped the selling price to £8.99 GBP
I consider this a more reasonable price.
Chris |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2026
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Just to let folks know the book is now on Amazon at
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1905277059/qid%3D1116696734/026-0441677-8207626#product-details
(but it's cheaper to buy direct from the publisher!!)
Chris |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1953
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Congratulations Chris.Wonderful to see it in book form.Great cover too!
Natalie |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 359
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Chris,
I order mine a week or two ago from the publisher, through the link here on the Casebook. When will they be shipping out? I can't wait to get it.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2027
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Hi Tom
I have forwarded your message to the publisher this evening and will let you know a soon as I hear
Natalie - thanks for that - appreciated:-) |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 362
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 1:32 am: |
|
Chris,
Thanks! It's probably just because I'm in America that I haven't received it yet. I ordered in on the 8th.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Christian Jaud
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 5:10 am: |
|
Hi Chris, Hi Tom,
I ordered on the 6th, got a confirmation the same day, book being "in stock".
But it hasn't arrived so far.
Sent an email to the publisher on May 19., to ask what happened. Kirstie Lamont answered "I'm really sorry that you haven't received your book, this is most unusual. We will look into this and get back to you ASAP (...)"
But no news since then.
Anyway, maybe there were some holidays (whitsun??) that delayed things? I'm sure everything will be fine.
looking forward to reading it
Christian
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2519
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 6:36 am: |
|
Hi Chris
Have ordered it from Amazon and have a delivery date for about 3 wks time!
Looking forward to reading it and I agree with Nats......Love the cover!!!....
Best
Suzi |
Christian Jaud
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
Hi,
Just got an e-mail reply from the publisher, saying
"Sorry for the delay in getting your book to you. It's being posted tomorrow (23/05/05) and should be with you mid week (...)"
Well, ...
I feel it helped having posted here.
Christian
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2029
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
The publisher replied this morning and included this:
All ordered books should be out by now. The person to ask is Kirstie (kirstie@pabd.com), who is responsible for production. I'll talk to her on Monday about this.
All should now be on their way
Suzi,
The publishers say the quoted times on Amazon are wrong and speaking to them to get them amended
Chris |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3245
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Will the Real Mary Kelly...?
Christopher Scott
PABD, 2005
Softcover, 154pp. ISBN: 1-905277-05-9
If you've been at all active in the "Ripper community" over the past several years, you're probably well aware of the work of researcher Chris Scott. His tireless efforts at unearthing and transcribing press reports, census records and other genealogical information related to the case has featured prominently in the recent literature. Will the Real Mary Kelly is his first published book (he previously released a book-length work in electronic format only) and here he brings together all his research and findings concerning the life, loves and background of Ripper victim Mary Jane Kelly.
Mary Kelly is undoubtedly the most mysterious of all the Ripper victims. What little we know of her comes mostly from the testimony of her live-in lover, Joseph Barnett, and from a few snippets here and there from people who knew (or claimed to know) her in the years before her death. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know how much of this information is actually accurate. For that reason, no researcher has yet been able to positively identify Mary Jane Kelly.
Scott spends quite some time covering Mary's background, skillfully reviewing the evidence given in police interviews, press reports and inquest testimony. Using these details he offers a few possible identifications, finding the most likely candidate to be a Mary Ann Kelly who had ties to both Carnarvon and Flint. He admits, however, that this is only one of many possible identifications, and far from conclusive.
In other chapters, Scott reviews the numerous myths and mysteries surrounding the Kelly case? What happened to the key? What was burned in the fireplace that night? Did Kelly have a child, and was she pregnant at the time of her death? Each of these items is carefully examined and interpreted. Although he offers answers to some of these questions, Scott isn't afraid to admit in several places that there's just not enough information to go on.
Although a relatively short book and a quick read, this book is chock-full of important information, much of it never previously published. Really, what we have here is a new sort of book - one that is marketed strictly to the experienced Ripperologist. There is no general overview of the case, or even much mention made of the other victims. The author presupposes that the reader has this knowledge already. This sort of book is a welcome change and I can only hope more works of this sort are on their way. Without question Will the Real Mary Kelly will become a "must-have" resource for any serious Ripperologist.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2038
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Hi Stephen
many thanks for the review and real glad you enjoyed the read
All the best
Chris |
Stef Kukla
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 8:49 pm: |
|
*sigh*
Well, even if it WASN'T Mary Kelly who was found hacked up, SHE'S BLOODY DEAD NOW!!! Tempus WINKET Omnia!
Maxwell MIGHT INDEED have seen her on the 9th. On the other hand, Maxwell, MIGHT have been MISTAKEN.
What is both sad & sickening to witness in this thread [& Ripperology in general] is the ever-increasing tendency to either endorse or insult evidence based on nothing more than personal bias----often fortified with obstinence & arogance. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page