Was it mary kelly?

[mike74]

Anyone who has read the ripper and the royals books will know that there was a suggestion that the body found in millers court was not mary kelly!Iam not saying the book is true but it certainly made me think when i read it.

[Fisherman]

Mike74 writes, about "The Rippe and the Royals":

"I am not saying the book is true"

...meaning that he is on the right track from the outset.

Welcome aboard, Mike! Hope you´ll enjoy the journey!

The best,
Fisherman

[KatBradshaw]

Anyone who has read the ripper and the royals books will know that there was a suggestion that the body found in millers court was not mary kelly!Iam not saying the book is true but it certainly made me think when i read it.

Hi there and welcome.
The book is vert persuasive but it mostly rubbish. The idea that it was not Mary has been bannded about a lot but I for one and am convinced of the fact that it WAS Mary.

[steje73]

Or was it...?

[mike74]

But how do we know for sure, if it was a cover up the public are never going to know. The goverment and scotland yard would want us all the believe it was just a lone madman because it's good for tourism!!.
If it was a cover up and it got out it would be very damaging to the goverment and the royals.

[Mitch Rowe]

But how do we know for sure, if it was a cover up the public are never going to know. The goverment and scotland yard would want us all the believe it was just a lone madman because it's good for tourism!!.
If it was a cover up and it got out it would be very damaging to the goverment and the royals.

No one knows who JTR was for sure but how likely is it that he was not just a lone killer? Not very. It is no more likely the Royals were involved than it is for George Bush to be involved in a series of Streetwalker Murders in Washington DC.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

In fact, it's bloody easy to find a stand-in for Mary Jane Kelly;

All she has to be, is to be as tall as the men of the time(5'7") and have a hair, that could be red or reddish-blonde!

Yes, I mean, that the woman in Miller's Court is certainly Mary Jane Kelly!

The only thing being, that she probably used and alias...

All the best
Jukka

[KatBradshaw]

But how do we know for sure, if it was a cover up the public are never going to know. The goverment and scotland yard would want us all the believe it was just a lone madman because it's good for tourism!!.
If it was a cover up and it got out it would be very damaging to the goverment and the royals.

Hi again Mike,
I was just wondering if the Ripper and the Royals is the only book on the case which you have read. If it is a really recoment you look at some more. Although the books appears very logical and persuasive it is truely full of holes which you will see if you look a bit deeper in to the story. Just thought that it might help you to put your case well if you had another reference. Hope this doesn't sound bad. I am BY NO MEANS an expert on this but I know that knowing more always helps.

[emlodik]

Anyone who has read the ripper and the royals books will know that there was a suggestion that the body found in millers court was not mary kelly!Iam not saying the book is true but it certainly made me think when i read it.

To be fair, the "Mary Kelly's roommate was killed in her place" theory does not just apply to the "Royal Conspiracy" story... In fact, in Stephen Knight's book, he makes no mention of someone being mistaken for Kelly and murdered in her place.

[Graham]

Joe Barnett said that he identified the body found at 13 Miller's Court by, quote, "the ear". I think it can be taken as read that he habitually dropped his aitches and meant "the hair". And the photo of the body does show that whoever it was possessed luxurious fair hair, for which Mary Kelly was known.

Whether or not 'Mary Kelly' was the given name of the woman with whom Barnett lived for a time is now impossible to determine. Barnett knew her as 'Mary Kelly', said he saw letters addressed to her by that name, so I think we have to assume that 'Mary Kelly' was at least the name by which she went.

Cheers,

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

If it was a cover up and it got out it would be very damaging to the goverment and the royals.

I'm sure Her Majesty's Secret Service would've found a much less attention-grabbing means of disposing of any conspirators, Mike. Instead, the extreme mutilation dished out on the Ripper victims makes Annie Crook's forced abduction appear as subtle as a casual jab in the leg with a ricin-tipped umbrella.

[FromHell_JacktheRipper]

.....all very good posts. I have no doubt that it was Mary Kelly.

[Dan Norder]

I think it's perfectly plausible that Joseph Barnett saw something distinctive about the ears: unique piercings, a mole or blemish, or so forth. I see no reason to assume that he meant her hair.

[The Good Michael]

Dan,

I agree with that, and getting back to the question, why wouldn't it have been Kelly? I think that is what people have to come to grips with. It has been so easy, after the fact, to create scenarios wherein a stand-in was killed, yet why create them at all? Why this desire for romanticizing Kelly over everyone else?
The simple fact is that police investigation had proven that the victim was Kelly beyond any reasonable doubt. How? She was found in Kelly's bed. Her boyfriend said it was her. People heard an saw he in the court and in her room the same evening she was killed. No one thought differently aside from two people who may have got their days mixed up. 2 out of very many being wrong is really good in witness questioning, yet some hang their hats on them. The only reasons to suggest Kelly wasn't the victim, is one of agenda, or one that comes from reading too many conspiracy books. If someone comes along and shows me a photo album of Kelly living in the south of France with valid documentation, I'll happily eat my words. A parting shot: Kelly was a prostitute like the others. She was quite probably a heavy drinker like the others. Severe mutilation makes her, perhaps a bit more tragic, but not any different in my book.

Cheers,

Mike

[anna]

Hi all,
Actually,what Barnett called Kelly differs...

We have on this thread the fact that he knew her as Mary Kelly,and yet in his statement,when he is talking the history of their relationship and about his situation with her lifestyle,he refers to her as Marie....obviously from the Marie Jeanette.
People around them,refer to her as Mary Jane.So who uses the Marie...just Barnett??Nobody around mentions that he calls her something different than they do.
It's early,so maybe I haven't got my head together,but it just went through my mind that I'd seen the statement on another thread,where he'd referred to her differently.