|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1908
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:41 am: | 
|
G'day,
Caroline Maxwell was called to Mary Jane Kelly's inquest. She started her testimony with: "My husband is a lodging-house deputy. I knew the deceased for about four months. I believe she was an unfortunate. On two occasions I spoke to her..." When the Coroner asked her if she spoke to Mary Kelly she said: "I spoke to her across the street, "Why MARY, brings you up so early?" She said "Oh CARRIE, I feel so bad."
The Central News said: 'Mrs. Maxwell, the wife of the deputy of a lodging-house in Dorset-street, situated just opposite the court where Mary Kelly lived, said to a Central News reporter: 'I assist my husband in his duties, but we live next door, at No. 26 Dorset-street. We had to stay up all night and yesterday morning, as I was coming home, carrying my lantern and other things with me, I saw the woman Kelly standing at the entrance of the court. It was then about half-past eight, and it was unusual for her to be seen about at that hour I said to her, "Hallo, what are you doing up so early?". She said, "Oh, I'm very bad this morning. I have had the horrors...."
Notice the inclusion of the name-exchange was added to her Inquest testimony. I's say that it was added by Maxwell to kill the belief that she was talking to another woman.
No one is saying that Caroline Maxwell LIED under oath in court. I just don't believe she was talking to the person she thought she was talking to.
As a wife of a lodging-house deputy Caroline Maxwell would have had alot of names and faces to get aquainted with.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1584
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 3:35 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Good account the woman Maxwell is essencial in trying to piece together Mary Kellys murder.
I Agree with you that as the wife of a lodging house deputy she became familiar with many women of similar class, of all ages.
But this woman lived in the same house as Mary that being 26, Dorset street, she would have known the residents of the court if not by name by sight.
Most important of all, Mary was by observations made at the time quite a respectably dressed person, her clothes were well used but she poccessed a coat , a Bonnet, a thick crossover and other dresses and considering her plight was always respectably dressed.
She also was not displeasing to the eye, she had a fine head of hair, and was of a buxom appearence.
She appeared to have been the type of woman that stood out in the crowd, hense Walter Dews observation' I often saw her parading down the whitechapel road with women of her class, always wearing a spotless white apron.
Taking all of this into account do we still believe that Mrs Maxwell talked to the wrong woman that morning and if she did did not realize her error by the monday when she attended the inquest.
A mistake in the day is unlikely as her story of her errands that morning were found to be true.
A deliberate lie would achieve nothing but run the risk of perjury and in the case of a serious act of murder such as this would have imposed severe punishment.
Mistaken identity ?.
I have gone through my defence of her in my opening of this post.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3288
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:47 am: |
|
Hi all
Mrs Maxwell is certainly treading the boards here isn't she!!! Three of 'em at last look!!!!
As I've posted somewhere as 'Carrie' is a diminutive of Caroline,it suggests to me that this addition came from Caroline herself,as a way maybe of suggesting that she was more familiar with Mary than was in fact the case,thus endearing herself to the Press.
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3289
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:51 am: |
|
Hi-
Shall we keep all the Maxwell stuff here now???Getting lost here...nothing new there but...........
Cheers
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1909
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:53 am: |
|
G'day Rich,
I don't believe that Maxwell got the day wrong, nor was she lying to the court about what she, (Caroline Maxwell) did that morning! She was just mistaken about who she saw and spoke to WITHOUT EXCHANGING NAMES! It was no great error!
She hadn't seen Mary Kelly for three weeks, and by her own admission had stayed up all night with her husband the night before, so was likely still waking-up. Maxwell told the press that her and her husband: "We had to stay up all night."
What has Mary's clothes got to do with it?. Maxwell told the Coroner that the woman was wearing: "A dark skirt, a velvet body, a maroon shawl, and no hat." Nothing about a 'spotless white apron.'
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1910
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:56 am: |
|
G'day Suzi,
Yes, that's why I started this board specifically about Caroline Maxwell. I was surprised to find that no 'Caroline Maxwell' board already existed.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1585
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
I mentioned the clothes she owned as Kelly was better attired then the majority of the local unfortunates and because of this maxwell may have been more likely not to have mistaken another person for Mary.
But let us just assume that Mrs Maxwell did see Mary Kelly at 815am on the friday morning, and she was absolutely telling the truth, then what implications would that involve.
A] The medical reports estimating the time of death of the millers court victim were either completely wrong, or the millers court victim was not the woman Kelly.
The latter suggests some kind of conspiracy that would not go amiss in a Hitchcock film.
The former would show a gross misjudgement on behalf of Bond and co.
Either scenerio does not seem right , but taking Mrs Maxwells account at face value its got be one or the other.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3290
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
G'Day Leanne!!!!
Ok, great will rally the ranks from this end!!!!,,Am working on some Mrs Maxwell paintings here will post em at a later date!
Suzi x |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 71
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 8:02 pm: |
|
If Mrs. Maxwell was indeed fond of Mary, her death would have been quite upsetting to her. In addition, living in such close proximity to the murder site would have also been an emotional shock. Could such a traumatic experience impact her ability to recall exactly when she last spoke to Mary?
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1911
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 1:34 am: |
|
G'day,
RICH: 'Hi Leanne,
I mentioned the clothes she owned as Kelly was better attired then the majority of the local unfortunates and because of this maxwell may have been more likely not to have mistaken another person for Mary.'
There was nothing in Maxwell's recollection of the mysterious woman's attire that suggests she was better dressed than anyone else.
She said that the woman wore a maroon shawl and no hat, and we know that Mary Kelly never wore a hat and owned a maroon shawl, but where's the proof that other females ALWAYS wore a hat and no one else owned a maroon shawl?
Remember it was the morning of 'Lord Mayor's Day', everyone who intended to attend would have made an effort to at least look presentable, (hence the maroon shawl).
I remember you once suggested that Hutchinson's suspect may have been dressed up for the show. I've seen a photo of the event taken in 1895, and believe me alot of people attended then.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1912
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 3:00 am: |
|
G'day Rich,
The London 'Times'- 13 November 1888 mentioned, (while talking about George Hutchinson statement): 'His appearance contrasted so markedly with that of the woman that few people could have failed to remark them at that hour of the morning.' But you would have us believe that Mary Kelly was always remakably dressed! Even at an early hour in the morning!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1591
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 3:51 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
I am not stating that Mary always walked around in her sunday best, just mentioning that her overall appearence ie.. more than one outfit, and her physical appearence fair and buxom may have made it more likely that she saw Mjk that morning. and not made a mistake in identity.
Refering to your statement that Kelly never wore a hat, i must dispute this, for on the evening of the 8th around 9pm , Mrs prater had a conversation with Mary at the corner of the court entrance she was then wearing a jacket and Hat...
Walter dew never saw her in a hat during the day time but she obviously poccessed one for evening
wear.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3291
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne
Right everyone seems to think that Mary never wore a hat and there's a fair amount of evidence,mostly oral, I spose for that,but a maroon shawl isn't that uncommon I reckon,and the Lord Mayor's Show may have brought one out or certainly the borrowing of one......what was that thing about someone coming to Mary's room am to borrow a shawl????
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3292
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Richard-
WHY did she 'obviously possess one for evening wear'?????..Mrs P's statement re the 'hat/bonnet' ...come on she could have borrowed one !! I'd put money on the fact that Mary had a 'thing' about not wearing a hat.........showing off her hair and all that!!!
Leanne -'Remarkably dressed!!!!!!!'-- at that time in the morning (8.30 am!) I think it was 'REMARKABLE' that Mary was dressed and up at all 'eh?!!!!
Suzi |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 646
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Hello all,
If Ms. Maxwell was lying, what would have been her reason? I can only think of two; either she wanted the attention or she was covering for someone. If so, who?
I'm not discounting that she was just mistaken or telling the truth either. As has been stated before, if the latter is true, then Kelly was killed much later than thought or the victim in #13 wasn't her.
Stan |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1941
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 8:36 pm: |
|
G'day Stan,
Why can't people understand that Maxwell was not a liar because SHE thought she was 100% correct?
She had only spoken to Mary Kelly twice, she didn't get the day wrong, she just got the person wrong.
Why argue Kelly's estimated time-of-death just because of one person's error?
OK, if she was deliberately lying, who was she covering for?
LEANNE
(Message edited by leanne on December 02, 2005) |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 647
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 10:33 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
She was covering for her secret lover Joseph Barnett who was the real killer and who didn't have an alibi for the actual t.o.d.
Stan
P.S. That's a joke. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
