|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 9:41 pm: |       |
Mrs. Maxwell stated that she saw Mary Kelly on Friday morning on the 9th. Mary supposedly died the night before. This was the situation when Mrs. Maxwell was questioned by the Coroner:
Coroner: "Did you speak to her?"
Mrs. Maxwell: 'Yes, I said "Why Mary, what brings you up so early?" She said "Oh! I do feel so bad! Oh Carry! I feel so bad. I have the horrors of drink upon me, as I have been drinking for some days past."'
Then Mrs. Maxwell said to her, "Why don't you go to Mrs. Ringer's and have half a pint of beer?"
Now, does this statement not sound fishy? Mrs. Maxwell's account of what Mary says already sounds comical and fabricated.
But the most suspicious part is the fact that Mrs. Maxwell suggests that Mary go the pub and get beer! Mary just told her she has had "the horrors of drink upon me." Why would any person suggest to someone to get a beer when the person is already complaining about drinking too much. Later on, Mary supposedly pointed to vomit. One would conclude that Mary looked terrible.
At first, like many of us, I was confused about Mrs. Maxwell’s initial statement about seeing Mary early on the 9th, but this statement draws the arrow even more to her maybe being a publicity seeker.
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 10:49 pm: | |
Hair of the dog, Phil 
Besides that, I don't know what to make of Mrs. Maxwell's strange tale.
Cheers,
Dave |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 4:55 am: | |
Hi Phil.
I am ashamed to admit , that I have on several occasions resulted in the famous Hair of the dog.
It actually does improve the situation, so I can see nothing fishy in her statement.
As i have said before on these boards Mary Kelly was a pleasent and familiar figure in that area.
Even Walter Dew knew her by sight, in a densly populated area such as spitalfields , she obviously stood out amongst her class.
Therefore the possibility that Maxwell was mistaken, is highly unlikely.
Of course she may have been lying, but that would make Maurice Lewis, and the unnamed woman[ mrs goode?.]both liars as well.
Also as all the other murders occured in darkness, why would she say she saw her in broad daylight, of course as the body was not found until 1045am, she might have imagined she had only just been killed. However when she became aware that the police believed she had been killed in the night, she could have easily retracted her statement, saying ' I was obviously mistaken' exspecially when she was warned she was under oath. But she swore to it.
The above points have always led me to believe. that this woman told the whole truth.
Leanne and myself will proberly disagree about the time of death, but we will have two endings, and the reader can ponder over both posibilitys.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 839
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 5:29 am: | |
Let's assume for a moment that Maxwell was right. The morning being wet, would it be reasonable to conclude that the vomit, if pointed out by Kelly, would have contained some solid matter (fish and potatoes?) if it was discernible in the street? If so, one wonders when the police actually first spoke to Maxwell - solid matter might well have left traces that would still be visible and could be checked.
Unfortunately we don't (as far as I know) have any info as to when the police spoke to Maxwell. In any case, the crowds around the Court would probably have dispersed all traces of the vomit.
Sorry to get gross here!
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 6:08 am: | |
Robert.
The crowds around the court would proberly have dispersed all traces of vomit.....
My thoughts entirely.
Her statement, has a lot of intresting points.
What Brings you up so early.
I have the horrors of drink[ english or Irish expression?.]
Why dont you have some beer?
Indicates some vomit on the roadway.
The following statement I have read but where I Cannot say .
Her eyes looked queer, as if she was suffering from a heavy cold.
Similar to Donald Mccormacks ' All muffed up like a cold'
This is not in the statement of maxwells.
But files have gone missing?.
What I am saying is Mrs Maxwell seems to give a very good and realistic account of telling the truth,
Richard.
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 8:02 am: | |
Hi, all:
I also don't find it surprising, if the statement is true, that Caroline Maxwell told Kelly to have some more beer, since "hair of the dog" is a longstanding remedy for the after effects of drinking. To answer Richard's query about whether "the horrors of drink" is an Irish or English expression, it is just, I think, a period expression, although it could be more Irish than English. The question of when the police first spoke to Maxwell is, I think, key here. It occurs to me that if she did not come forward until some time after the body was found she could have been mistaken about the day she spoke to Mary. However, it is not inconceivable that the statement is true and the conversation took place exactly as Maxwell reported it, and that Kelly then went back to her room and was then killed. There would have been enough time for this to have occurred. Possibly in this scenario, the murderer was waiting for her back at 13 Miller's Court.
Best regards
Chris George |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 158
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 9:27 am: | |
Although anything is possible and it is worth considereing that Mary was alive and seen by Mrs. Maxwell on Friday morning, it is actually not at all implausible that the witness was merely mistaken as to the day of the week. This has happened to me a number of times, e.g. when I was sure that I remembered an event happening on a Friday but then finding out I was wrong and it happened on Thursday. This is even more likely to happen when some shocking event intervenes -- for example, right after Sept. 11, 2001 I was confused about what day it was for the rest of the week (the normal cues that help us keep time straight are disrupted by such an event).
Andy
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 9:54 am: | |
Hi, Andy
The thing about Mrs. Maxwell is that she couldn't be confused about the date because the police first interviewed her the same day of Mary Kelly's death. Sometimes I think she's just lying, but it's not that easy with Maxwell--she never elaborated on or changed her story. Maybe she's just mistaken about who she saw, but then we've got Maxwell talking with whoever this person was.
Once in a restaurant, I was approached by a man who was convinced I was a friend of his. "Hey, what are you doing here?" he asked. "I thought you were in medical school!" Since I'm mischievous and a little cruel, I let him go on for some minutes, thinking he'd realize his mistake eventually. He never did--I finally had to tell him he had mistaken me for someone else. Even after that, I'm still not sure he believed me.
Maybe something similar happened to Mrs. Maxwell?
Dave |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Hi Dave, All,
I seriously doubt that anyone with the horrors of drink upon them would have been up for a mischievous game of letting Carrie Maxwell mistake her for someone else - extremely mischievous if she actually knew Carrie and put two and two together afterwards, realising exactly who she had been mistaken for, and what had happened to poor Mary.
I suppose it's possible that the woman would not have been in any fit state to notice or concern herself if Carrie did mistake her for someone else. It's also possible that the woman didn't know Carrie, by sight or by name, although Carrie's testimony suggests otherwise.
But the overall feeling I get is of a woman who knew - or at least believed she knew - exactly who she had been addressing.
I too don't see how Carrie could easily have got what happened 'yesterday morning' mixed up with 'this morning' - especially on the day of the Lord Mayor's Parade, which would have helped her focus on any consequent changes to her routine.
Love,
Caz |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 161
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 2:06 pm: | |
Hello Dave,
I had forgotten that Mrs. Maxwell gave her statement on the same day. That does make it peculiar. However, I still think the most likely explanation is that Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken. This is really not so unbelievable, given the shocking events of the day. Has anyone considered the possibility that Mrs. Maxwell may have been a little "tipsy" with drink as well? Of course, there is no evidence to support this.
Andy
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 3:41 pm: | |
Hi, Caz and Andy
I agree with Caz that it's unlikely Mrs. Maxwell mixed up her mornings, not when she's being questioned only a few hours after the event. I don't know what to make of her testimony. Just when I think I've got a handle on MJK's murder, along comes Mrs. M and makes me question what I thought I knew.
Somebody on the old boards made a good point, and Robert has touched on it in an earlier post--if Mrs. Maxwell saw her Mary vomit just a few hours before her death, how is it that food was still found inside her at the autopsy?
Cheers,
Dave |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 29
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 10:48 am: | |
Hi All,
Caz, Andy, Dave,
I seem to recall reading that Mrs. Maxwell had run an errand that same morning, went to a milk shop in Bishopsgate-street to fetch her husband's breakfast, or something of that nature. The police investigated, and were able to corroborate her visit to the milkshop. So, I'd agree it's unlikely she confused the day, since she was able to place other events of that same morning.
FWIW, I think she was confused over the identity of the woman she spoke to, despite addressing each other by name. As we have seen, "Mary" was a common name, used by many women in the area at that time. Since Maxwell admitted she had spoken to Mary Kelly on only two previous occasions, I don't think she knew MJK all that well, and the most probable explanation was that she spoke to another young woman named Mary.
Re the food found in MJK's stomach during the autopsy, when this was discussed on the old boards, someone made the point that her stomach contents may not have been fully evacuated by a single instance of vomiting (lovely topic this, eh?). It was pointed out that it may take several such instances before the stomach is fully emptied and the condition known as "dry heaves" is reached. Personally, I think this is another indication that the person to whom Maxwell spoke was not Mary Kelly.
On that note, off to breakfast,
Jim |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 865
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 1:46 pm: | |
Hope it's not a fry-up, Jim, with lots of greasy sausages and .....Excuse me one moment....
Anyway, does anyone think it's a bit odd that the Coroner warned Maxwell to take care with her evidence because it was different from that of others? At that point in the inquest, the only thing already heard that was out of step with Maxwell's evidence was Prater's report of hearing a scream in the night.
I suppose the Coroner said what he did because he'd already seen the police statements of the other witnesses, including that of Lewis with her confirmation of a cry at around the same time, and maybe also because the doctors had privately told him their estimated time of death for Kelly.
But then I'm surprised that he didn't question Prater more closely as to the number of cries she heard, because in her police statement she said two or three, but in her inquest testimony it was just the one.
Robert |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 11:36 am: | |
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-desmary.html
I tend to think the above link to a dissertation about MJK surviving is actually a good point to be taken into account. Most people belived she was murdered but I disagree. To be quite honest I'm not going to delve into it again as I have on other boards. I just want to say that I am entitled to my opinion so please do not have a go about my thoughts. If you have not read the above dissertation then I suggest you do as it does provoke many thoughts and questions. It also has an explanation about Mrs Maxwell saying MJK looked ill and vomiting.
Just one more thing, I have never once believed that MJK was murdered, even before I knew much about this case. It may seem strange but even before I'd read any witness statements suggesting that she may have survived I always said that I don't believe that it was her body found in 13 Millers Court. Just my intuition I guess or maybe I'm just crazy.  |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 898
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 6:54 pm: | |
Hi Sarah
No one's having a go at you. I doubt if there is anyone on these Boards who isn't in a small minority on at least one issue.
And even if there is, they're probably the only one.
Robert |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 4:50 am: | |
The main reason I believe that Mrs Maxwell was mistaken and or lying is very simple. Mrs Maxwell is as far as I can recollect the only person who definitely said she saw Mary Kelly that morning. Maurice Lewis's story is so confused and incorrect in many aspects I think it must be discounted. As for the statement by an 'unknown woman' that doesn't even merit thinking about.
So can anyone tell me how Mary Kelly, a well known figure in the neighborhood according to Mr Richard Nunweek, could get up, go to the Ringers have a drink, return to Millers Court, throw up, return to her room and only be seen by one person!
What about the other patrons in the beer house? What about the person who served her with her beer? What about the people in the street going to and coming from the Ringers?
Too much emphasis is placed upon dissecting Maxwells every word and not enough in asking the basic question. If Kelly was alive that morning, if she did what she told Maxwell she did, then several people would have seen her - they didn't!
If someone can explain that I might be more inclined to believe Maxwell!
Sarah,
I don't want to put you off, but you are right everyone's entitled to an opinion. If however you decide to make your opinion public then the public have the right to disagree with you.
Bob |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 901
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 5:30 am: | |
Hi Bob
I myself believe that Kelly was killed in the night and that her last cries were heard by two people.
It's true that one would expect Kelly to have been noticed if she'd been alive in the morning. On the other hand, though, the police were only able to produce Cox at the inquest - no barmaid who served her and blotchy-face, no one in the pub who noticed her with him, etc. So I feel an element of doubt remains.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 274
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 4:59 pm: | |
Hi Bob.
What about any remains of the Quart of ale that the so called Blotchy faced man was carrying , according to Mrs Cox, could she have not consumed any remains of that?.
The statement 'I have had some' does not have to be that she frequently a pub.
The phrase made in respect of a possible pardon, includes .'There are cetain aspects in this case that were found wanting in the others , which makes it more likely that the killer , had a acclomplice. Does that imply that the police believed the murder was commited in daylight hours, therfore increasing the possibility, that the murderer was seen or helped by dome associate, oweing to the possible appearence of the killer.
I have never said that Kelly visited the Ringers that morning, it is obvious if she had done so, there would have been more Mrs Maxwells telling that story.
Dont Forget Rumour had it in the area, that she had been murdered at a later date...Why?
Regards Richard.
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 4:26 pm: | |
I think too much emphasis is placed on the hard core empirical evidence, period. It is not just a matter of "dissecting" it not enough or too much. It is that the whole notion of the Ripperlogical idea is too empirical in itself. We are simply too much involved with putting on our pseudo-intellectual white laboratory coats, surgical masks, and plastic gloves every blessed time we undertake to handle the case evidence. We have too high a respect for, and too much worship for, empiricism. We can't see the forest for the trees. We really don't NEED the case evidence to solve the case so bloody much as we think, except I believe in a general sense.
But does anybody hear the call of reason? Can we please have one new book that suggests a new meaning for the case evidence taken as a whole, without substantially and arbitrarily changing what the case evidence is just to suit the theory? Nobody here knows how to look away from himself, nor is anyone ashamed to see himself looking.
When we feel our nausea approaching at the sight of the vesica pisces superimposed over the street map of Whitechapel, why can't we just sweep the whole of the empirical away for one minute and pay attention to what we think? Why can't we realize we're always being conned by the evidence?
Saddam
|
Candy Morgan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 10:26 pm: | |
Just a thought, could "I have the horrors of drink upon me" mean, possibly, the DT's instead of a hangover?
 Happy Halloween! |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 952
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 6:51 pm: | |
Hi Candy
Whether or not Maxwell really did see Kelly, it is I suppose possible that "Oh murder" may have been Kelly having a bad dream, possibly alcohol-inspired.
I believe there is mention somewhere (can't remember where) of Kelly telling a friend that she had dreamt that she was being murdered. I imagine several women may have had dreams like this.
Still think she was killed in the night, though.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 3:54 am: | |
Hi Robert,
Your post above, refers to an incident which is discussed fully in our book, I believe, there are some extremely good points to discuss, regarding that statement from Lottie.
Regards Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 8:00 am: | |
Dear Richard,
You ask in your posting 4 Oct that rumour had it that she was killed later and you ask why? Simple, rumour is an insubstantial theory that doesn't have any basis in fact.
You may have read recently that a series of murders that happened in 1973 in Swansea were recently solved. The case was extremely interesting and I am covering it in my next book.
Doing my research I found an overwhelming belief amongst local people that the murderer was a Mr X. This was rumour, and completely wrong without any basis in fact. I then moved on to 'official' rumour - the police. I was told in no uncertain terms that the three murders were not connected as the police 'knew' without any doubt who had committed the first. Having studied the cases very closely I was unconvinced, and made myself rather unpopular by insisting, that not only were they all done by the same hand, but a fourth previously unnconnected murder was also part of the series.
DNA evidence has since proved me right(at least about the three - I believe the police are not investigating the fourth) - but the rumour was..........
all the best
Bob
PS Saddam - what on earth are you talking about? |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 1:37 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
I was merely stating on my post 4th october, that it was widely believed in the area, following the death of Kelly, that she was killed in the morning.
Obviously Mrs Maxwells statement might have been the reason for this, but it is also entirely possible that she may have been seen by many people that morning, that simply saw no reason to get involved, in what was becoming a highly strung, and suspicious police force, to cooperate with the law , especially in the Dorset street vacinity, would not have been the norm.
Richard. |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 12:45 am: | |
Here's another explanation for Maxwell's "sighting" of Kelly: Maxwell saw a spirit masquerading as Kelly. I've heard many accounts of people claiming to see relatives or friends and later finding out that they had just died. I know this is all far fetched, but if you're like me and believe in a spiritual world that interacts with ours, you can see my point.
Any thoughts? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
