|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 411
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 11:17 am: |       |
I really think it inconceivable that Mary was killed after daybreak. Even indoors this would be too great a risk for the killer. By daybreak, people were milling about and the killer could be heard through the broken window, and perhaps seen by nosey neighbors through the same window (flimsy, makeshift curtains notwithstanding). There would also be the risk of someone coming to the door and then peering through the window after getting no response to a knock. I just think it nearly impossible.
Lewis' sighting took place the night before, not on Friday morning. I'm afraid there is no really good explanation for Maxwell's sighting. I believe that she just became confused in her recollection as to the day.
Incidentally, 5'7" would have made Mary almost a giant among contemporary women. Even 5'3" might have been considered rather tall for a woman.
Andy S. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 730
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
Andy,
What makes you think that Lewis' sighting was the night before? Also I don't think it's likely that Maxwell got the day mixed up. She would have found out about Mary's death only hours after seeing her so I don't think she would forget that day in a hurry. She was also probably thinking "Oh God!! I only saw her a couple of hours ago", so it's not like she remembered it on a later day.
Sarah |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:04 pm: | |
Wait a minute.
"In English it's Bridget(te), in German it's Birgit or Brigitte, in French it's Brigitte.
I know how to spell my own name and my name is Birgitte".
So the Scandinavian spelling of the name is Brigitte.
You don't know Glenn do you?
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
Brigitte, you wrote.
"Has it ever occurred to you that MJK might not have told her the whole truth? Just imagine:
Caroline Maxwell: "Gee Mary, you look pale!"
MJK: "Yeah I just saw a mutilated corpse on my bed and lost my breakfast. Look it's right over there! But I'm fine now, thanks for asking, dear."
You also wrote earlier.
"Well couldn't it have been MJK yelling "Oh murder!" that night upon discovering the mutilated body in her room on her bed?"
At what time in your opinion did Kelly find the corpse upon her bed?
The cry of murder was heard at approx 4 a.m. if this was Kelly crying murder, then what was she doing vomiting in front of Mrs Maxwell 5 hours later.
was it delayed action?
I of course was not present to witness these scenes, but neither were you.
But it just seems to me in my humble opinion, that the body found in Millers court that day in November 1888 was non other than Mary Kelly.
You further quoted me and replied.
"I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but fish and potatoes, had she I wonder visited a fish and chip shop, or stall, shortly before her murder?"
Either that or the body wasn't Mary's. Really, the food argument isn't a very firm one".
The fish and chips quote was not linked to my argument of Kelly vomiting, but was just a thought that came to me, on realising that fish and potatoes had been found in her stomach
By the way the confusion which led me to think that you were a nom de plume, lies in the fact that my original criticism was of Sarah.
The fact that she you jumped to her aid, so to speak, and the fact that you had only posted to these boards on 3 prior occasions, and also that your grammar was similar to hers,(not that mine is all that good, some of us were terrible wastrels during our school lives you know!) led me somewhat, to mistakenly think that you were one and the same person. The spelling of Brigitte as Birgitte also threw me.
My apoligies to you, and to Sarah.
There is a lesson to be learned here though.
For when we are presented with a mixture of facts, it is only too easy to misinterpret reality.
This applies to as wide a range of subjects as a President and a cigar, to a murderer running amok in Whitechapel 1888.
By the way who are the Scandinavians?
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 412
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:36 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
Mr. Lewis did not testify at the inquest, therefore his statement is immediately suspect anyway since we have it only via the press. But to quote from the Illustrated Police News of 17 November 1888:
Maurice Lewis, a tailor, living in Dorset-street, stated that he had known the deceased woman for the last five years. Her name was Mary Jane Kelly. She was short, stout, and dark; and stood about five feet three inches. He saw her on the previous (Thursday) night, betwen ten and eleven, at the Horn of Plenty in Dorset-street. She was drinking with some woman and also with "Dan," a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields markets, with whom she lived up till as recently as a fortnight ago.
http://casebook.org/press_reports/illustrated_police_news/il881117.html
So, with Lewis' statement out of the way that leaves only Maxwell. I agree that it is strange for Mrs. Maxwell to have mixed up the days. But I have had this happen to me as well. I have sworn that I remember something happening on a particular day only to have it proved to me that it happened on a different day.
As I said, there is not really a good explanation for Maxwell's statement. It is even remotely possible that she could have been an accomplice who was trying to confuse the investigation.
Andy S.
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 184
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
Hi Sarah & Andy S.,
Might it not be possible that she just didn’t know Mary that well and that she mistook another young woman to be her? I mean, Mary seems to have associated with at least 4 women, some of whom had stayed in her room overnight and Caroline Maxwell gives the impression (to me at least) that she didn’t know Mary that well, so she might have seen one of those women come out of her room on one or several occasions, which made her believe this was Mary Jane Kelly.
All the best,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 710
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 3:04 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
But they addressed each other by name, There can be no doubt that she saw the supposed deseased, that morning , which is supported by at least two other witnesses.
She was such a well known figure in that area, her identification was unmistakable.
She obviously stuck out, even Walter dew, had seen, the victim parading around whitechapel, she was obviously not the type of person, that one would be mistaken about.
And as I said in my first post on this thread, all common sense evidence points to , either she was killed after Maxwells sighting, or she was not the victim, and if not by keeping silient after the event was most proberly involved in these murders, in some way. In what capacity is pure specualtion.
Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 415
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Richard,
Who are the two witnesses that support Mrs. Maxwell's sighting of Mary on Friday morning?
I agree that misidentification of Mary by Mrs. Maxwell is nearly impossible. That leaves four possibilities:
1. Mrs. Maxwell was lying and did not see Mary on Friday morning.
2. Mrs. Maxwell was in error in remembering the day of her encounter with Mary.
3. Mary was still alive Friday morning, was seen by Mrs. Maxwell, and was killed later in the morning.
4. Mary was not killed at all and so was very much alive Friday morning and seen by Mrs. Maxwell.
Of these, I find (3) totally unacceptable for reasons I mentioned earlier (much too risky in broad daylight, even indoors). I find (4) quite implausible as it would involve too many improbabilities. Number (1) in a possibility, but there is nothing to suggest it. That leaves us with (2). There is really nothing so strange here. If Mrs. Maxwell often saw Mary at that time of day, she could have mis-remembered the day. This is especially true after the shock of Mary's murder jostled here memory a bit. It would be interesting to know when Mrs. Maxwell first made this claim. If she made this statement to police shortly after the murder was discovered I would be more inclined to accept it at face value. But if it were hours later or a day or two, I think there is a lot of room for an error in memory on her part.
Andy S. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 263
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
How about this? Maxwell knew very well who JTR was and wanted to protect him. For some reason connected to an alibi, she wanted everyone to think Mary was still alive that morning. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 416
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
Diana,
That is the gist of my #1 above, i.e. that Mrs. Maxwell was an accomplice and wanted to confuse the investigation. Certainly possible, but there is nothing to suggest this.
Andy S. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 711
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 4:13 pm: | |
Andy,
Starting with point [3] you find it unacceptable, that she was killed in broad daylight [too risky].
I would suggest the opposite, sound is more noticeable at night, rather then morning activity.
The two witnesses, are obviously Lewis , and a unidentified, tailoress, named as Mrs Goode.
Number 2, is wrong in assuming that Maxwell, always saw her at that time of the morning ,Her statement is 'it was strange to see her at that time of the morning'
Robert , the fact of the matter is that , taking in consideration, that she was returning items, that morning , and the owner of the said items confirmed, that the items were returned to him that morning the 9th, suggests that as she had the said items in hand, when she conversed with kelly, she is almost certain to have told the truth.
I can find no flaws with her statement, and I suggest nor could she, by her adamant swearing on oath.
Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 417
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
Richard,
Lewis has been taken care of. It appears from the IPN that he actually saw Mary between 10-11 PM Thursday night. Is there another Lewis sighting I'm forgetting about? I'll have to check on Goode. I don't think she testified, did she? OK, I will concede your point about Maxwell not customarily seeing Mary at that time of day. I wasn't basing my objection on that supposition, however. I'll bet you could find a hundred people who are just sure they saw the events of Sept. 11 happen on Monday morning (it was a Tuesday). When a shocking event occurs, this disrupts the normal memory "filing" system. Maybe this is more of a personal opinion, but I don't find it that unlikely that Maxwell got the day wrong.
As to killing during the day, I still think that's all but impossible. With the broken window, sound would travel to the outside where people could be walking by (sound might travel better at night, but it is far less likely that someone would be wandering by to hear the sound). Also, someone could come to the door -- as a neighbor did earlier and as Bowyer did later. After getting no response to a knock, the natural reaction would be to peek in the window (as Bowyer did). Much too risky!
Cheers!
Andy S. |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 186
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 4:36 pm: | |
Andy,
Just a question, and I'm not discounting your theories at all, just curious: How loud do you think a sharp knife cutting through flesh would be? I would imagine the noise would be almost non-existant. Provided he killed her quietly while she slept there shouldn't be much problem.
And not many people just look into other people's windows. Granted McCarthy got whats-his-name to, but they were looking for rent. And I've always wondered what it would have taken for Jack to kill someone other than his 'prey'? Is it not possible that when someone knocked on the door he froze, waiting to see if they would walk in? Might he have had his knife at the ready, just in case?
-K |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 157
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
Just a suggestion, based on personal experience, but one that might explain the Maxwell testimony. I still live in the reasonably small town where I grew up and where most of the residents think they "know" most of their fellow townspeople.
Anyway, infrequently (but at least several times a year) I will be greeted on the street by someone who has mistaken me for someone else and usually rather than embarrass that person I smile, nod, even make small talk and then hurry along on my way. No harm done, but if the person with whom I spoke thought I were "Joe Smith" and something were to happen to him that day I'm sure that person would be convinced they had seen and spoken to Joe that day even if were actually many miles away and dead.
By her own admission, Mrs. Maxwell did not know Mary Kelly well -- spoken to her twice in four months -- and had not seen her for three weeks. I would think it not out of the question that she thought some other woman was Kelly and, since every fifth woman in Whitechapel in 1888 seems to have been named Mary or adopted that name, the other woman might not even have been aware Maxwell thought her someone else. Even if she were, if the "horrors of drink" and vomit embellishments were true, she might have gone along with the mistaken identity in order to get away the quicker and find some succor for her hangover.
Don. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 418
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 9:22 pm: | |
Kris,
I think there would have been some sounds of a struggle. I think that a frenzied knife attack would produce some noise. I think that an instrument hacking into bone would definitely produce noise. And I think that peeking into the window when no one answers a knock on the door is perfectly normal behavior. Then there is also the problem of the murderer entering and exiting in the light of day for the world to see! I don't think he'd have risked it.
Andy S. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 185
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 11:39 pm: | |
Hi Don,
I’ve had the same personal experience and I couldn’t agree more with what you said. It was exactly what I meant in my earlier post.
And hi Andy (S.),
Although I don’t think the whole attack would have produced any noise (sounds probably, but no noise) I do agree with the rest of your post.
All the best,
Frank
|
Birgitte Breemerkamp
Police Constable
Username: Birgittesc
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 3:12 am: | |
"So the Scandinavian spelling of the name is Brigitte."
No, it's BIRgitte. Just look at my name on the left side of this post. That's how you spell it: Birgitte. See it?
"You don't know Glenn do you?"
Not personally.
By the way, just to make things even more complex: my name is Scandinavian, but I'm not from a Scandinavian country. I'm actually a Dutch woman living in the Netherlands. The only thing that's Scandinavian about me is my name.
Birgitte |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 734
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 4:31 am: | |
Cludgy
What are you implying with my grammar? I see nothing wrong with it and I also don't see why you thought that Birgitte and me were one and the same considering that I've never heard of that name before.
Andy,
Lewis also saw Mary the following morning around 10 am, so if he was able to recognise her the previous evening I don't see why he couldn't recognise her the next morning.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 469
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 5:40 am: | |
I don't personally see Mary and Mrs Maxwell greeting each other by name to be conclusive evidence that Mrs Maxwell did not mis-identify the person she was speaking to. I doubt very much she greeted her "Good morning, Mary Jane Kelly". She would have said something like "Morning Mary". There were literally thousands of people living in Dorset Street, 233 in Crossinghams alone. I'm sure more than one of them was called Mary!
I personally think misidenfication is the most likely explanation, and what leads me to this is the contradiction between the food found in the stomach and the fact that the person seen by Mrs Maxwell had just vomited the contents of her stomach all over the pavement. For reasons stated earlier I discount the idea that the body found in the room was not Mary as pure fantasy.
On the other hand I am still unsure as to time of death. Shannon's wet/dry blood question worries me, as does the state of rigor mortis described by Dr Bond at 2pm. My list of questions (containing both of these) is now apparently sitting on the desk of the State Forensic Pathologist of Ireland, so hopefully she might be able to shine a light on things. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 737
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 6:04 am: | |
Alan,
But what was the likelihood that Caroline Maxwell called out to a woman whom she believed to be Mary Jane and just happened to be addressing another Mary. Also, I'm sure that I read somewhere that many people called her Mary Jane and not just Mary but I'll have to try and find that again now.
If the body on the bed wasn't really Mary Jane then the food found in the stomach wouldn't be a contradiction at all.
Why do you discount Mary Jane not being the body as fantasy? Where is your evidence that it was her on the bed? Until we can absolutely prove that she was the body found then I don't see why some of us can keep an open mind. Maybe I have a more open mind than other people but I don't see how it can be disregarded with no evidence.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 471
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 6:43 am: | |
Sarah
You have to turn that first question on its head. I don't think that Caroline Maxwell did call out to a woman she thought was Mary Jane Kelly. I think she called out to a woman whose name she knew to be Mary, possibly even Mary Jane. So the question about probability is irrelevant, as if the woman's name had not been Mary then Mrs Maxwell would not have told the story in the first place.
Then later, when she heard that a woman named Mary Jane Kelly had been murdered, she mistakenly thought that it was the person she knew. She had only spoken to her twice before, and only knew her by sight because she had been around the lodging-house, even though there is no record of Mary ever having lived at that lodging-house. Plainly the person that Mrs Maxwell met did not live in the lodging-house any more, so it may have been many weeks before she encountered that person again, by which time it would be too late to change her story. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 740
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 6:49 am: | |
Alan,
Your explanation in your second paragraph is a very good explanation but I think she would have noticed if she had seen the Mary Jane or Mary that she saw that morning again in the street. She also said that she saw her coming out of Millers Court so I still think it's more likely that she saw our Mary Jane.
Sarah |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 186
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 9:03 am: | |
Hi Sarah (and Alan),
I don’t want to be a pain in the but butting in, but Caroline Maxwell didn’t say she saw Mary (Jane) coming out of Miller’s Court, she saw her standing at the corner of the court.
All the best,
Frank
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 11:43 pm: | |
Richard wrote:
"There can be no doubt that she saw the supposed deseased, that morning , which is supported by at least two other witnesses.
She was such a well known figure in that area, her identification was unmistakable. "
These are pure assumptions, and ones which run contrary to other evidence. She could very easily be (and quite clearly to me at least was) describing a completely different person, one she hardly knew. The fact that this other person responded to the name "Mary" does not mean she was MJK, as there were lots of people named that or using that name as an alias (and, as Donald points out, whoever it was may not have wanted to embarass the woman for getting her name wrong). The description of her appearance and her personality (supposedly not interacting with anyone) does not match everything we know about the actual MJK.
And if she had been to the pub that morning, such a well known and "unmistakable" person would have been noted by the people she would have had to have interacted with there. She wasn't. Thus it's highly likely that Maxwell was completely wrong.
Add that into the sheer implausability of a serial killer working in such crowded conditions during the day when people are awake and about, and we have a nearly iron clad case for totally dismissing Maxwell. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Sarah, you wrote.
"What are you implying with my grammar? I see nothing wrong with it and I also don't see why you thought that Birgitte and me were one and the same considering that I've never heard of that name before".
Once again I apologise for mistakenly jumping to the conclusion that you and Bridgitte are one and the very same person.
And there are nothing wrong with your grammar It's every bit as good as what mine is.
Birgitte, It’s oh so easy for an Englishman to get that name wrong, seeing as we spell the name "Bridgit", although Sarah(who is English) spelled your name correctly (well done Sarah!)
Breemercamp sounds decidedly Dutch to me, is it only your first name that is Scandinavian?
My apologies by the way, to everyone, for straying from the subject in hand.
Regarding the time of death of Kelly.
The police were of the opinion that she had been murdered during the hours of darkness, as the killer had made a fire in her room of old clothes, that he had found therein, in order to better see what he was doing.
But I know someone is going to say that he lit the fire because he was cold, not because he had insufficient light, and therefore could still have murdered Mary Kelly during the daylight hours, after the sighting of Mrs Maxwell.
The other alternative of course, for the sighting of Mrs Maxwell, is that it wasn't Kelly lying on the bed.
I believe, for what It's worth, that it was Mary Kelly lying upon the bed, and that the time of death was approx, 4:00 a.m. a cry of "murder", being heard at that time, by two different people, in two separate locations.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
