A Possible Scenario - Or a Tall Tale!

[Red Knight]

Greetings all. It's a pleasure to appear here after many years of lurking and admiring the intelligence of the debates, and the knowledge of all the resident experts.

I have at last decided to 'stick my oar in' and hopefully provide an occasional talking point. Apologies for a lengthy first post, but I have an itch I need to scratch.

I've been interested in JTR since seeing Barlow and Watts seeking JTR on the BBC many moons ago (yes – I'm no spring chicken!), and have since collected many videos, dvds and books on the subject.

All through the years one thing has nagged at me to the point of distraction – the sightings of MK after her 'death'. I know eyes are rolling to heaven with thoughts of 'Oh no not that one again!', but please bear with me …

My issues are:
1 – the sightings (obviously!)
2 – the fact that it was a memorable day. Ask anyone what they did on a day a few weeks ago and the answer will be a hazy guess. Ask them what they did on Carnival Day, or a town celebration day, their memory will be pretty accurate.
3 – the supposed JTR actions. We are to believe that he stayed for a while, probably had sex with MK, possibly even cuddled up or dozed with her. Strange – he never seemed interested in sex before, and would probably have wanted to set upon her as soon as he got in.
4 – the locked/latched door. Why bother with that detail in the darkness if you just want to get away?

There are a few other things, but those are my main problems. It's really bugged me that we are keen to ignore or pour scorn upon what in literature would be the thing that Poirot, Marple, or Holmes would latch on to as being of prime importance. That which does not fit. What other nationally known murder can you think of where one (or two) witness/es have said – 'No. The police are wrong. The ex partner's wrong. The assumption of everyone is wrong, because I saw that person alive when you all think he/she was dead! Who would raise their head above the parapet without wishing to be cast as mad or a fool?!

I'm not a 'romantic' about Kelly. I like dealing in logic and facts. This has caused me to develop a scenario which adheres to ALL of the facts as we know them, not to discard those which don't conform. I believe if we are quick to do that, then we could just as easily discard any other witness for any victim – a dangerous move.

Please allow me to put to you this scenario. I know I will probably be torn apart by many an expert here, but that's the point – the fun – the excitement of JTR debate, so please let me know if you see it as interesting or possible, or tear me asunder with logic. I welcome both. It's not an off the cuff tale I tell – it's been formulated over many years, so please indulge me …

In the lead up to 8/9 November we know that MJK was worried about the murders and thinking of leaving London. She occasionally lets one (or maybe more) of her friends stay with her or use the room. We know that Barnett still appears to care as he comes back even though he has walked away before.

MJK goes out and brings back Mr 'Blotchy' and Mr 'Gold Chain' at intervals of a few hours. She's slightly tipsy, but in a good tuneful mood.

<Okay here we go ...> After these she still needs money, so heads out again, after 3 (so GH doesn't see her). She possibly meets one of her associates who asks to use her room, or one comes back with a man to ask MJK if she could use the room, but finds MJK out. That man is JTR.

Mary's out looking for custom, or maybe to track down Barnett. She arrives back at around 4, possibly finding the door open. She walks inside and is mortified by what she sees. She whimpers 'Oh murder!' and leaves immediately - terrified out of her wits and wanting to get far away in case JTR is still around.

GH is gone, so she goes to seek Barnett who she knows she can trust. She finds him and tells of her horrific find. Barnett formulates a plan – he knows that this is how he can save her and see her safe in case she was, and would still be, a specific target.

He tells her to stay there while he goes to check the room, and possibly make sure that everyone thinks that it's MK who died. He arrives at the room, sees to the burning of the clothes which would identify that the victim was not Mary, and possibly even (a stretch – I know) makes sure that the destroyed body's face is obliterated. At around 5:45 he leaves with a few of her items for her to take away. He comes back to make sure that the job is done. MJK decides she cannot stay alone any longer and heads back, arriving at around 8 to seek Barnett. She enter to see Barnett bloodied from his 'clear up' work, and sees in daylight the full horror of the scenario. Barnett tells her to wait outside the court for him, and that he'll see her safe. She stumbles to the court entrance and is sick due to the horror she's seen. Lewis sees her coming out. Maxwell spots her and talks to her. Mary quickly passes the sick off as drink in the hope that CM will pass. She does.

Barnett returns (after securing the door through habit) and takes her aside to say that he'll get some friends that he can trust to take her out of harm's way. He goes to gather them, telling Mary to stay out of sight, and that he'll bring them and meet her outside the Britannia at 9. She's waiting outside when CM sees her again, and then she's inside in a huddle with them going through her escape plan when Lewis sees her at 10.

From there she vanishes to safety. Barnett identifies 'MJK' from an ear and a discoloured, bloodied eye in an obliterated orbit (could he really?! Could you with your partner?), and the Mary killing enters into lore, with CM & ML getting the day wrong/ not knowing her well enough/ seeking fame, or maybe – just maybe – telling what they actually witnessed.

It's a tale I know. It requires a leap of imagination. It can never be proved. It's fanciful. But it does tally all of the witness reports, which no other scenarios do satisfactorily IMHO.

Thanks for your patience. Let the deconstruction of my long formulated, fanciful scenario begin! Glad to be here, and hope to initiate some interesting debate.

PB

[lynn cates]

spotted

Hello RK. Welcome to the boards.

You have obviously thought much about this scenario. And I, too, think it a mistake to dismiss the "MJK" sightings.

I have tried to envision an "escape" just as you do. I think my largest problem comes from "MJK" continuing AFTER being spotted. So far, no answer satisfies me.

Of course, any solution to this killing must surely begin with an account of whom she was. But, so far, we have all fallen short here.

Good luck with your theory.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

It's a tale I know. It requires a leap of imagination. It can never be proved. It's fanciful. But it does tally all of the witness reports, which no other scenarios do satisfactorily IMHO.

PB

Welcome P.B.

"...But it does tally all of the witness reports,..."

And that in itself is refreshing, finally we have an hypothesis that does not rely on cherry picking choice witnesses and dismissing the rest as liars, or press creations which "never existed".

Congratulations.

As for the specifics, well there's not a lot of elbow room for criticism.
I notice you, quite rightly in my opinion, include the 3:00 am sighting, which gets Astrachan off the hook and possibly provides another suspect in the form of the Britannia Man.
However, as you say, you have included all the witness observations so what 'tools' are left to cut you up with?

None!
You do at least provide another answer which you failed to mention.

The most interesting contender (arguably?) for Mary Kelly is the one from Brymbo, who can't be considered because she is known to have been alive after 1888.
Now we know why..


Seriously though, you show courage for an introductory post. Others have done a lot worse.

[Red Knight]

Sincere thanks to you both. It's been niggling me for years, and every time I see a Holmes, Poirot or similar adaptation or read a book, I do notice that it's the little irregularities around which the plot usually hinges.

I just cannot think that anyone in their right mind would go against the grain of everyone to say that the person was alive unless they had real courage and conviction.

Thanks for the votes of confidence & look forward to the challengers, because it's the debate that ensnares us all and keeps the interest flowing.

Thanks!

[Cogidubnus]

Welcome PB...a very different and well thought out first post...It's all downhill from here mate!

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

the little things

Hello RK.

"I do notice that it's the little irregularities around which the plot usually hinges."

Not to mention a good many real world cases.

I see a good bit of skill in your observations.

Good luck, again.

Cheers.
LC

[C. F. Leon]

Please clarify if I'm mistaken, but is it actually reported that Barnett identified the body by JUST the eyes? She could have had tattoos, scars, etc that Barnett would have known about and not mentioned in public. Certainly her hair seems to be intact from the photo, and he probably recognized the nightie as her's.

"Yeah, I can see the scar on her left arm that she got when she fell off her bike when she was 10, and there's the hickey that I gave her the other day [or whenever]."

Right build, right height, the hair matches, wearing what he knows is MK's clothing, he'd certainly think it was her. As if the body WASN'T MK, then he's either incompetant as a witness, has something to hide, or is in on either or both the murder or her 'disappearance'.

[Damaso Marte]

Strange – he never seemed interested in sex before, and would probably have wanted to set upon her as soon as he got in.

Is there any evidence that Kelly had intercourse with anyone that night?

One thing I never see in these Victorian inquest reports is a discussion of whether or not the victim had any sign of recent sexual activity. Is it that the technology was not there to detect this, or is it the legendary Victorian social discretion at work?

[Red Knight]

[QUOTE=C. F. Leon;263491]Please clarify if I'm mistaken, but is it actually reported that Barnett identified the body by JUST the eyes? QUOTE]

Thanks for the response. The book I have handy - The Crimes of Jack The Ripper by Paul Roland - states that he identified her 'only by the shape of an ear and the colour of her eyes'. An identification by 'ear' is pretty thin to say the least, and the fact that her eyelids were cut off, along with the other facial/brow mutilations, has to mean that surely that the eye shape would be destroyed, and the eyeballs must have been glazed with blood. I'll have to confirm this with my other books but I do recall this to be the case.

If that's the extent of the 'identification' then it's remarkable - or a deliberate misidentification - and if it is, there must be a reason behind it.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi again PB

The Paul Roland book is in my collection too, (very readable!), but lets just say it isn't without its faults...

The Kelly ID is always going to be controversial because of the bloody mess that was left of her body...but let's be honest, if you live with someone that long, you do know what their various bits look like...so in these particular circs you can do an ID...and if you're asked (as a point of law) on what basis you made that ID, then you might well reply:......

All the best

Dave

[C. F. Leon]

[QUOTE=Red Knight;263499]

Please clarify if I'm mistaken, but is it actually reported that Barnett identified the body by JUST the eyes? QUOTE]

Thanks for the response. The book I have handy - The Crimes of Jack The Ripper by Paul Roland - states that he identified her 'only by the shape of an ear and the colour of her eyes'. An identification by 'ear' is pretty thin to say the least, and the fact that her eyelids were cut off, along with the other facial/brow mutilations, has to mean that surely that the eye shape would be destroyed, and the eyeballs must have been glazed with blood. I'll have to confirm this with my other books but I do recall this to be the case.

If that's the extent of the 'identification' then it's remarkable - or a deliberate misidentification - and if it is, there must be a reason behind it.

You're missing a couple of other possibilitities such as it's an error at some point in the line of reporting or Barnett perhaps just simplified his identification points as I suggested. As for being able to identify her by just the shape of the ear- in actuallity it wasn't JUST that as I pointed out in my previous post, although that may have been the clincher. Remember, JB saw that ear every night for 18 months or so. I apologize if this is gross or inappropriate, but if it was YOUR wife/gf/mother/daughter/sister hacked up to that extent in YOUR bedroom, how would YOU be certain the body was your loved one?

[lynn cates]

connexion

Hello Damaso.

"One thing I never see in these Victorian inquest reports is a discussion of whether or not the victim had any sign of recent sexual activity."

I have found that Polly and Kate both had their thighs examined for semen traces. Vaginal openings are also checked for signs of "recent connexion."

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi PB,
Welcome to Casebook, I applaud your first contribution, the notion that Kelly escaped death by a stroke of luck is plausible, for it was reported that she actually rented out her room to another woman that night.
However..that was only a press report, and they were many inaccuracies in the aftermath of Millers court.
I cannot agree with the degree in which you place Barnett's involvement , for instance why burn the other woman's clothes, instead simply bundle them up, and leave with them, also they would be a financial asset.
And I cannot visualize Joe ''Making sure'' that the body on the bed was completely obliterated , that would be taking his love for Mary a touch ''too far''.
The Maxwell sighting has to have a explanation, for you are right in assuming , that it would be most unlikely for mistakes on such a memorable day, especially when interviewed by the police on the very day of the sighting,
The cry heard at 4am has a very simple explanation also, and it does not involve a death scream, or a surprised visitor.. it was what Mrs Prater described as a cry ''like awakening from a nightmare''.. simply that... Mary Kelly wakening suddenly [like we all do on occasion] and uttering a cry.
I feel that the most likely event is Mary Kelly was alive at daybreak, and was seen by Maxwell and possibly Maurice Lewis, but unfortunately met her killer [Maxwell's porter] around 830am.
This would explain the mysteries attached to this crime, and also the scene of the interior of the room when the body was discovered, ie, the positioning of the bedroll, the undressing to a chemise, and more.
Apologies for the ranting, but like you, I am no ''spring chicken'' and have been raving on about Jack since the middle sixties, and have formulated many theories.
Best wishes,
regards Richard.

[DVV]

Hi RK

if you want to be dead, why wait near to a pub and talk to people ?

Cheers

[Red Knight]

Thanks again all. Glad to see i've sparked some debate.

CF & Dave - True - the reports may have been simplified, but an 'ear' i.d still doesn't cut it imho. I would struggle there. Much better to identify a conglomeration of factors - the hair being the same, right build, right age, or any scars. The hair should be of major importance in volume, colour & style, although the breadth of styles seems pretty limited in that era.

Richard - yes i know the taking part in the obliteration is a leap, so maybe her features were destroyed already by Jack. The burning of the clothes would be logical though - otherwise you have to remove a pretty bulky bundle, and leave very little of Mary's as she's already wearing them! The waking nightmare cry is certainly possible, but a real coincidence if she'd only done it that night, and if she were predisposed to talk or cry in her sleep i would have thought we may have heard that she'd done it before from the witnesses.

DVV - yes - another good logical point. She could have hidden and met others elsewhere, and probably be seen elsewhere. My main thrust is that I tried to construct the scenario to match what was reported, not to produce something that forgets or ignores the things that don't fit the 'clean' sequence as accepted by most. Basically if she was seen where she was seen then maybe it just happened like that.

My scenario does require some leaps of faith, and is tough to swallow in some ways. I do know this. But at the same time i would love to see someone work the happenings round the reported evidence - to work from the reports and experiences 'backward', rather than making the witness statements bend to the 'accepted' scenario and rejecting those that don't.

Fine debate & good to get some well expressed answers. I think i'm going to like it here! Thanks all.