|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | 
|
Hi,
If it is possible the year 2005 will achieve one thing. ie. to begin to accept the truth of Mrs Maxwells statement.
Every book i have read , every documentary I have seen, seems to accept Mrs Maxwells observations as either a Lie, or a mistake on the day , or mistaken identity.
Lets make some clear points.
Mrs Maxwell claims that on the morning of the 9th november, she was helping her husband at his lodging house and left just after 8am, carrying her lantern and other items, when she saw Mjk,standing at the entrance to Millers court, she stated that she had known this woman [the deseased for approx four months , and had seen her many times in the kitchen of the lodging house in which her husband worked.
She claimed to have spoken to her, and observed that she appeared unwell[ the comment 'Her eyes looked queer, as if she was suffering from a heavy cold']Appears to have been part of her statement to Abberline, which is no longer traceable.
She not only claimed to have spoken to her, but gave a description of the clothes she was wearing, which included a Maroon wrap around, which was found in Kellys room amongst her clothing.
The above proves that at least there was no mistaken identity.
Was she mistaken on the day in question?.
She stated besides returning some plates she had borrowed, and visiting a milk shop, that she had not visited for some time[ both verifed by the establishments] she also went to fetch some breakfast and it was when she returned home, that she saw kelly for the second time talking to a man dressed as a market porter[ a unnamed source identified this person as [ J Barnett].
The above is her accounts of that morning.
Yet we still doubt this lady, that was considered a well respected person and of honest character, Inspector Abberline interviewed her , and stated 'he could not break the woman'.
She was warned at the inquest that her testomony was different from the medical evidence and what was believed to have happened, and she was to be careful on her swearing on oath.
Yet besides all of this, and considering she had every chance of retracting her evidence, she still swore that she was telling the truth.
So Taking all of what i have observed so far, why do we doubt her identity of Kelly, and the day she claimed to ahve seen her.
Lets look at some more facts.
Catherine Pickert a friend and neighbour of Kellys knocked on her door at approx 8am that morning in order to borrow her shawl[ proberly the same one that Maxwell claimed to have seen Kelly wearing] as it was raining .
On receiving no reply she went on her way, however it was shortly afterwards That Kelly was seen to leave her room and return shortly afterwards with some milk[ Maurice Lewis].
it is a pity that we have no details of the contents of a pail near Kellys fireplace concerning its contents....
Another woman [ claimed as a Mrs Goode[ reported to the police that she had also seen the deseased in Dorset street that morning , but when further enquirys were made she was not to be found.
I am therefore to sum up of, the sound opinion that mrs Maxwell should be considered of sound mind and a truthful woman , we have no reason to doubt this, the medical reports were simply way out.
on the Eve before the body was discovered, Mrs prater stopped to speak to Kelly around 10pm, kelly was wearing a jacket[ black velvet] and hat.
Maxwell saw her in the very same shawl that was present in kellys room after the police forced entry, that could suggest that would be suitable attire for the bleak drizzly rain that was present on the early daylight hours of the 9th november, that is proberly why Catherine pickett wanted to borrow such a garment.
the facts are there , so why do we not believe them.
Regards Richard.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1333
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Richard,
one of the people who come to preoccupy my thoughts on who JtR was happens to have been the keeper of this very Crossingham"s Lodging House.
a Mr Timothy Donovan,the last person to see the sick and frail Annie Chapman alive and who had refused her plea for a bed for the night and sent her on her way-a pretty callous act considering he knew her over many months as a regular for renting a bed for the night.This same Donovan appears to have also been convicted for murdering his wife some 10 or 12 years later.Chris Scott dug up some of this information and I must look it up again to be sure of the facts of that case, He also found something on a "Donovan" sometime earlier who was charged and put in jail[hope my memory serves me right here] for mugging and viciously wounding an elderly man in or near Whitechapel.He wasnt absolutely certain that it was the same Donovan but it certainly looked like it.
I am wondering therefore if any pressure may have been put on Mrs Maxwell by her husband,the Deputy Manager via his boss Timothy Donovan?By morning many people,including Timothy Donovan could have got themselves fool proof alibis.Whereas who better than someone like Donovan,living only yards from Mary Kelly and on duty all night to have been able to have slipped undetected in and out of Mary"s room and known too about the doorlock from various neighbours and gossips?
Just some thoughts on the controversial testimony of Mrs Maxwell.
Best
Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
A good post, intresting, however at least to my mind i have reservations.
You are suggsting that Maxwells husband the Deputy manager asked his wife Caroline to say that she saw the deseased[ Kelly[]alive and well in the morning when the said Donovan had a proven alibi.In the case of A Chapman if Donovan was her killer , why did he wait a number of hours before killing her, also how did he know where she was?.
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1335
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Hi Richard, Yes I have wondered about that too but then Hanbury Street is only a few minutes walk from Dorset Street so maybe he just knew her beat!
Must watch Sherlock Holmes now![see Gull Thread BBC1 at 9.25
Nats |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:11 am: |
|
I have never doubted the SINCERITY of Mrs M's testimony, but I DO question her memory. As I think Abberline's words about being unable to "break" her, show he did too. Why try to "break" someone if you know their testimony is probably accurate - you'd use different words: probe; cross-examine; test...
Lets look at some of the other points:
...it was when she returned home, that she saw kelly for the second time talking to a man dressed as a market porter[ a unnamed source identified this person as [ J Barnett].
So the identification of Barnett is by an UNNAMED source; the inference being that Mrs M did not recognise or know the man. She seems to have noted only his dress - market porter - which must have meant he resembled half the working men in the East End.
Moreover, Mrs M knew MJK apparently, but did not recognise or could not identify her lover.
Yet we still doubt this lady, that was considered a well respected person and of honest character...
As I said above, all that may be true, but she could still have been genuinely wrong about the day.
Catherine Pickert....knocked on [Kelly's] door at approx 8am that morning ... On receiving no reply she went on her way, however it was shortly afterwards That Kelly was seen to leave her room...
If MJK was alive at 8am, as she must have been to leave afterwards, why did she not respond to her friend's knocking? The lack of response might indeed indicate equally that she was dead at that time. there is no statement that Catherine P saw her leave or ever again!!
As other pres reports indicate (about the MJK killing) once a rumour started it gained strength and momentum, with people stating as their own experience things they had heard others say. the multiple reports could be the result of this phenomena.
Mrs M's steadfastness under oath etc might simply be a desire for "5 minutes of fame".
Another woman [ claimed as a Mrs Goode[ reported to the police that she had also seen the deseased in Dorset street that morning , but when further enquirys were made she was not to be found.
Odd in a neighbourhood where everyone seemed to know everyone else. this could either be a press reporter picking up a wrong name, or a witness giving a false name to different reporters - it might even be Mrs M herself. All we know is there was NO Mrs Goode!!
the facts are there , so why do we not believe them.
Because they are not, to me at least, FACTS. they are unreliable testimony. I do NOT discount them - if other evidence 9say about the hour of MJK's death, or that she might have survived, emerges, it may be that the true significance of this material will be widely recognised. But at present, it is not, to my mind, convincing.
I respect your acceptance of the material, and understand the reasons for it. You may be either a prophet unrecognised at present; or a false messiah. But that is your right. I feel as obliged to point out the flaws, call me cynic if you will.
I'd love to accept this interesting and exciting evidence, but I simply cannot.
Phil
|
Steve Murray
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 4:35 am: |
|
Richard your on the money...spot on!
Phil leave it out, she gave her statment the same day as the body was found. How hard is it to remember the very same morning! Abberline did not want a statment that went against Dr Bond as it gave him all kinds of problems, it was less hassle to brush a nobody like Maxwell aside and stick with a Doctor. However I believe that Dr Bond got it wrong about rigor mortice setting in around 6-12 hours after death. Modern day Doctors say 2-4 hours. Maxwell saw Kelly, the joke is that so much crap surounds the case and always has. Maxwell is probably one of the few credible people in the sad saga and she has been swept aside. No wonder everyone is looking for one man and not several copy cat killers! |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2153
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
Steve,
Well it beats me that Elizabeth prater who lived directly above Mary Kelly and knew her well described her as
"Tall and fair as a lilly"
while Mrs Maxwell describes her as
"small and dark"
The police give her height as 5 ft 7 ins and they had her in their mortuary.
I think Mrs Maxwell had muddled Mary up with another "Mary"---a very common name.
Furthermore Elizabeth prater was astonished she had heard nothing but the cry "Oh Murder!" at around the same time as her kitten Diddles woke her by pawing the bed clothes.A kitten pawing like this usually means they want milk/comfort
so this could be the clue that Jack had started his work immediately beneath them.Only a thin partition separated the rooms apparently. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 892
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Witness statements are always problematic and an investigator should give preference to more objective evidence such as medical post mortem testimony. Always remember that the "best evidence" is the corpse.
There are two very plausible explanations for Mrs. Maxwell's error and a third possibility that she was merely lying for the sake of notoriety. Maxwell may indeed have been mistaken about the date. This is not so outlandish, particularly if she slept before giving her statement. Sleep has a way of disorienting us with regard to time. The other possibility is the one given by Natalie, that she had Mary confused with someone else. Her inaccurate description of Mary suggests this.
Andy S. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
