Exhumation of the victims today.

[mpriestnall]

I really don't think this makes any sense whatsoever.
If Astrakhan feared that a police investigation into her murder would lead to the discovery of a connection between himself and Kelly, then surely killing someone else but making the police *think* it was Kelly would likely lead to exactly the same result.
Better by far to simply spirit her away without murdering anyone. I doubt that the police would have batted an eyelid at an unfortunate who owed a lot of rent doing a midnight flit.

Appreciate the opportunity to revisit this. Will think this over some more and will come back with a more fuller and plausible scenario to justify why I believe the victim was a stand in for Kelly.

[Joshua Rogan]

JTR and Astrakhan arranged the murder of the substitute and the relocation of Kelly because there was a connection between Astrakhan and Kelly. Murdering Kelly was more a risk to JTR and Astrakhan than trying to relocate her because they feared this connection would be discovered by the police on the ground and their involvement with the previous murders discovered, as well as the motivation for the murders.

I really don't think this makes any sense whatsoever.
If Astrakhan feared that a police investigation into her murder would lead to the discovery of a connection between himself and Kelly, then surely killing someone else but making the police *think* it was Kelly would likely lead to exactly the same result.
Better by far to simply spirit her away without murdering anyone. I doubt that the police would have batted an eyelid at an unfortunate who owed a lot of rent doing a midnight flit.

[mpriestnall]

Impressive thinking

Quote
JTR and Astrakhan arranged the murder of the substitute and the relocation of Kelly because there was a connection between Astrakhan and Kelly. Murdering Kelly was more a risk to JTR and Astrakhan than trying to relocate her because they feared this connection would be discovered by the police on the ground and their involvement with the previous murders discovered, as well as the motivation for the murders.
Unquote

Hi MrTwibbs, I missed one important point that may support my belief that the Miller's Court event revolved around the relocation of Kelly and killed another person to stand-in for her and that's is a consideration of JTR's likely personality.

I own a book "The Good Psychopath's Guide to Success" by Dr Kevin Dutton and Andy McNab (of SAS fame). In the "About the Authors" section it states: "Dr Kevin Dutton is a research fellow at the Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford. His is an affiliated member of the Royal Society of Medicine and of the Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy."

He refers to a psychopath as someone belonging quote "to a specific subgroup of individuals with a distinct subset of personality characteristics.

These characteristics include:

* Ruthlessness
* Self-confidence
* Fearlessness
* Focus
* Impulsivity
* Coolness under pressure
* Mental toughness
* Reduced empathy
* Charm
* Lack of conscience
* Charisma"

Unquote

It's not hard to see that JTR displayed many of these qualities during the execution of the first 4 murders of the canon. To effect the relocation of Kelly, with the help of Astrakhan, would take the very same psychopathic qualities. Given the nature of his crimes, I think there's a very good chance that JTR was a psychopath and therefore had the necessary arsenal of qualities to pull off such a misdirection event as I have described.

[mpriestnall]

Thanks MrTwibbs. I 'liked' your post!

[MrTwibbs]

1."Why would people in the 21st century risk their own reputations to protect those of people who died many decades ago."

How do you expect anyone to prove that any specific person today is keeping their knowledge of the case secret? Do you expect that information to be written down somewhere? Hence no reputations can be risk can there.

It doesn't mean that there are not people today who don't know the real details of this case.

2. "In order for your theory (that the Millers Court victim was not MJK?) to have validity there would need to have been a substitute victim killed in her place. To what end and who was she?

The idea that someone else was killed deliberately instead of MJK is exactly what I have said. I have no idea who the victim was, but I'm sure it wasn't Kelly.

I believe the majority of the police on the ground, like Abbeline, were genuinely looking for JTR with honesty and with integrity. If there was a conspiracy to keep Jack from the hangman's noose, then that inevitably means that key top met police (eg Warren, Anderson, Swanson) were part of the cover up.

I believe JTR was arrested post the double event and at that point was known to his potential protectors in the top end of the Met. This is the real reason that Packer was ignored by the police and his timings put back by A.C.B. To protect Jack, the Met bosses discredited Packer as they didn't want Packer's description of JTR to be matched by the police on the ground (eg Abbeline) to the description of the arrested JTR.

3 people, Packer, Schwartz, and Hutchinson were at the very epicenters of their respective murders but none were called to the inquests. Coincidence? Also two of them (Packer and Hutchinson) both independently claimed they were ignored by the police. Coincidence? Were they both lying? If so, why?

JTR and Astrakhan arranged the murder of the substitute and the relocation of Kelly because there was a connection between Astrakhan and Kelly. Murdering Kelly was more a risk to JTR and Astrakhan than trying to relocate her because they feared this connection would be discovered by the police on the ground and their involvement with the previous murders discovered, as well
as the motivation for the murders.

What did Astrakahn mean when he said to Kelly (paraphrasing from memory) that "you'll be alright for what I have told you". Did such a well-dressed gentlemen need to persuade Kelly he's good for the cash for a supposed sexual encounter, or was he reassuring her about her relocation?

4. "I'm not going to be persuaded to an alternative viewpoint by nebulous speculation about "the authorities" and a supposed conspiracy. If you have evidence that MJK was not the victim then please publish it because I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one interested in reading it."

I'm not trying to persuade anybody about anything. I just give my honestly held views on the case based on my research since 2016 into my candidates for JTR, Astrakhan, and Kelly.

I'm glad to see you will be interested in reading my book.

Impressive thinking

[mpriestnall]

Imaginative.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

[Michael W Richards]

1."Why would people in the 21st century risk their own reputations to protect those of people who died many decades ago."

How do you expect anyone to prove that any specific person today is keeping their knowledge of the case secret? Do you expect that information to be written down somewhere? Hence no reputations can be risk can there.

It doesn't mean that there are not people today who don't know the real details of this case.

2. "In order for your theory (that the Millers Court victim was not MJK?) to have validity there would need to have been a substitute victim killed in her place. To what end and who was she?

The idea that someone else was killed deliberately instead of MJK is exactly what I have said. I have no idea who the victim was, but I'm sure it wasn't Kelly.

I believe the majority of the police on the ground, like Abbeline, were genuinely looking for JTR with honesty and with integrity. If there was a conspiracy to keep Jack from the hangman's noose, then that inevitably means that key top met police (eg Warren, Anderson, Swanson) were part of the cover up.

I believe JTR was arrested post the double event and at that point was known to his potential protectors in the top end of the Met. This is the real reason that Packer was ignored by the police and his timings put back by A.C.B. To protect Jack, the Met bosses discredited Packer as they didn't want Packer's description of JTR to be matched by the police on the ground (eg Abbeline) to the description of the arrested JTR.

3 people, Packer, Schwartz, and Hutchinson were at the very epicenters of their respective murders but none were called to the inquests. Coincidence? Also two of them (Packer and Hutchinson) both independently claimed they were ignored by the police. Coincidence? Were they both lying? If so, why?

JTR and Astrakhan arranged the murder of the substitute and the relocation of Kelly because there was a connection between Astrakhan and Kelly. Murdering Kelly was more a risk to JTR and Astrakhan than trying to relocate her because they feared this connection would be discovered by the police on the ground and their involvement with the previous murders discovered, as well
as the motivation for the murders.

What did Astrakahn mean when he said to Kelly (paraphrasing from memory) that "you'll be alright for what I have told you". Did such a well-dressed gentlemen need to persuade Kelly he's good for the cash for a supposed sexual encounter, or was he reassuring her about her relocation?

4. "I'm not going to be persuaded to an alternative viewpoint by nebulous speculation about "the authorities" and a supposed conspiracy. If you have evidence that MJK was not the victim then please publish it because I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one interested in reading it."

I'm not trying to persuade anybody about anything. I just give my honestly held views on the case based on my research since 2016 into my candidates for JTR, Astrakhan, and Kelly.

I'm glad to see you will be interested in reading my book.

Imaginative.

[Michael W Richards]

There is so very little that assures us that the woman found in the bed was actually the woman known as Mary Jane Kelly, and nothing at all that validates she was actually who it is claimed she said she was, with the same backstory she allegedly gave Barnett and friends.

Thats an honest appraisal of what is on the table, and it hardly makes a "case closed" kind of statement.

I believe the real truth maybe be in the details of her experiences in Paris as a "consort". More appropriately Escort probably, but you get the drift. It appears she fled Paris within a fortnight of arriving there, and thats around the time she ends her association with Buki's Brothel.

[mpriestnall]

Why would people in the 21st century risk their own reputations to protect those of people who died many decades ago? In order for your theory (that the Millers Court victim was not MJK?) to have validity there would need to have been a substitute victim killed in her place. To what end and who was she? I see no reason to believe that the victim was not MJK and I'm not going to be persuaded to an alternative viewpoint by nebulous speculation about "the authorities" and a supposed conspiracy. If you have evidence that MJK was not the victim then please publish it because I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one interested in reading it.

1."Why would people in the 21st century risk their own reputations to protect those of people who died many decades ago."

How do you expect anyone to prove that any specific person today is keeping their knowledge of the case secret? Do you expect that information to be written down somewhere? Hence no reputations can be risk can there.

It doesn't mean that there are not people today who don't know the real details of this case.

2. "In order for your theory (that the Millers Court victim was not MJK?) to have validity there would need to have been a substitute victim killed in her place. To what end and who was she?

The idea that someone else was killed deliberately instead of MJK is exactly what I have said. I have no idea who the victim was, but I'm sure it wasn't Kelly.

I believe the majority of the police on the ground, like Abbeline, were genuinely looking for JTR with honesty and with integrity. If there was a conspiracy to keep Jack from the hangman's noose, then that inevitably means that key top met police (eg Warren, Anderson, Swanson) were part of the cover up.

I believe JTR was arrested post the double event and at that point was known to his potential protectors in the top end of the Met. This is the real reason that Packer was ignored by the police and his timings put back by A.C.B. To protect Jack, the Met bosses discredited Packer as they didn't want Packer's description of JTR to be matched by the police on the ground (eg Abbeline) to the description of the arrested JTR.

3 people, Packer, Schwartz, and Hutchinson were at the very epicenters of their respective murders but none were called to the inquests. Coincidence? Also two of them (Packer and Hutchinson) both independently claimed they were ignored by the police. Coincidence? Were they both lying? If so, why?

JTR and Astrakhan arranged the murder of the substitute and the relocation of Kelly because there was a connection between Astrakhan and Kelly. Murdering Kelly was more a risk to JTR and Astrakhan than trying to relocate her because they feared this connection would be discovered by the police on the ground and their involvement with the previous murders discovered, as well
as the motivation for the murders.

What did Astrakahn mean when he said to Kelly (paraphrasing from memory) that "you'll be alright for what I have told you". Did such a well-dressed gentlemen need to persuade Kelly he's good for the cash for a supposed sexual encounter, or was he reassuring her about her relocation?

4. "I'm not going to be persuaded to an alternative viewpoint by nebulous speculation about "the authorities" and a supposed conspiracy. If you have evidence that MJK was not the victim then please publish it because I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one interested in reading it."

I'm not trying to persuade anybody about anything. I just give my honestly held views on the case based on my research since 2016 into my candidates for JTR, Astrakhan, and Kelly.

I'm glad to see you will be interested in reading my book.

[Bridewell]

I believe that the identities of JTR, Astrakhan and Kelly and their relationships were known to a small powerful subset of the "authorities" back in 1888. That information would have persisted right up to today amongst a select subset of the "authorities".

Obviously it would be very problematic for the supposed corpse of Kelly to be exhumed, but let's say, for discussion sake, the body was exhumed and DNA suitable for a reliable identification of the corpse could be extracted. In this hypothetical scenario, I'm confident the person thus identified wouldn't match the Barnett's derived Kelly.

I don't believe the successors of the various parts of the "authorities" (The Met, freemasonry for instance) would welcome the revelation that their predecessors had hoodwinked the public over the identification of Kelly and the fact it wasn't Kelly who was buried at St Patrick's cemetery.

Besides which there might be a more important reason why the "authorities" of today might not want the truth about the murders to come out. If the identity of JTR was known back in 1888, as I believe, then there has to be some serious "heavy duty" reason why his name has not been revealed to date over and above in keeping secret a cover up from the late Victorian age...

Why would people in the 21st century risk their own reputations to protect those of people who died many decades ago? In order for your theory (that the Millers Court victim was not MJK?) to have validity there would need to have been a substitute victim killed in her place. To what end and who was she? I see no reason to believe that the victim was not MJK and I'm not going to be persuaded to an alternative viewpoint by nebulous speculation about "the authorities" and a supposed conspiracy. If you have evidence that MJK was not the victim then please publish it because I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one interested in reading it.

[caz]

It wasn't necessary, because Joe Barnett was in the best position to make the ID and he was able to do it without having to look at the remains below the neck.

Love,

Caz
X

[mpriestnall]

If the badly mutilated body was partially covered during a viewing and identification I would attribute that to fundamental human decency on the part of those conducting the process and a desire to preserve the dignity of a murder victim.

I appreciate those two points, but would not just covering the corpse, leaving the feet and hands on show, not meet those concerns and still allow a better means for the corpse to be identified?

[mpriestnall]

You think that "the authorities" in 2021 are in league with "the authorities" in 1888?

I believe that the identities of JTR, Astrakhan and Kelly and their relationships were known to a small powerful subset of the "authorities" back in 1888. That information would have persisted right up to today amongst a select subset of the "authorities".

Obviously it would be very problematic for the supposed corpse of Kelly to be exhumed, but let's say, for discussion sake, the body was exhumed and DNA suitable for a reliable identification of the corpse could be extracted. In this hypothetical scenario, I'm confident the person thus identified wouldn't match the Barnett's derived Kelly.

I don't believe the successors of the various parts of the "authorities" (The Met, freemasonry for instance) would welcome the revelation that their predecessors had hoodwinked the public over the identification of Kelly and the fact it wasn't Kelly who was buried at St Patrick's cemetery.

Besides which there might be a more important reason why the "authorities" of today might not want the truth about the murders to come out. If the identity of JTR was known back in 1888, as I believe, then there has to be some serious "heavy duty" reason why his name has not been revealed to date over and above in keeping secret a cover up from the late Victorian age...

[Bridewell]

Nice one!

++

I don't believe for minute that Kelly was the Miller's Court victim.

Further Wicks post #215 on the "The Legend of Mary Jane Kelly" in response to mine.

Identifying the victim by the eyes and ears of a brutally mutilated face seems a highly unreliable means of identification.

Using the blood splattered hair wouldn't have been much better.

Surely the remains of the arms and legs would have provided better evidence for identification? If the body was shown to JB
or anyone else, wrapped up in a shroud as Wicks seems to suggest, and thus hiding this better means of identification, was that because the authorities was trying to pass off A.N Other as MJK?

Was the authorities adding smoke to the mirrors? I thank you!

If the badly mutilated body was partially covered during a viewing and identification I would attribute that to fundamental human decency on the part of those conducting the process and a desire to preserve the dignity of a murder victim.

[Bridewell]

G' Day DJA,

I have a candidate for Kelly too and we can't all be right!

I have a lot of time for Prosector's book. I thought it was very well written.

My candidate for JTR (got one of those too) was a surgeon's son and I found some interesting and useful material in his book regarding JTR's supposed anatomical skill and/or knowledge.

FWIW my take on the Miller's Court event is that another person (not Kelly) was murdered to kill off the investigation and to provide cover for Kelly's relocation.

Notwithstanding one should never say never, the authorities will never allow the exhumation of the supposed body of Kelly to avoid the possibility of DNA being extracted from it and used to prove it wasn't Kelly after all.

My 2d.

You think that "the authorities" in 2021 are in league with "the authorities" in 1888?