General things

[Maggyann]

Hi

First proper post.

Just some general things to throw into the pot really and I apologise in advance if they have already been covered. I have spent days reading through the boards but that is not to say I have taken it all in or that I have not missed long discussions on these points.

I am taking my time with this to try not to end up posting a garbled bundle of words but if I don't make sense sometimes please bear with me. My thoughts, brain and fingers are sometimes not in synch at all at the moment.

Of all the victims I have always been most interested in MJK, I think she is perhaps the one most people latch onto. There are so many ifs, buts and maybes concerning her, her room, her mutilations, her history etc. So this post is mainly things which I have always been 'struck' by as far as MJK goes.

Her room
I wish I was as bright as some of the people on here and could actually upload diagrams or photos of what I am trying to say/ask but here goes anyway with just words. In the photo of her body on the bed it has always seemed to me that the bed was not against the partition wall because my to my eyes there is an indent (?) of perhaps about 9" which then turns and heads to the external wall (one with door in) by at least 1' 6" and seems to be panelled in sort of Victorian tongue and groove? For some reason I have always had it in my head that her bedhead was at least that distance from the wall and there was some sort of old fashioned wash stand in the space between headboard and external wall. In the photo of the court (external) if you look past the door a bit (though it is dark) it does look like a 'corner'. Am I way off in this, was the room straight walls?

The bolster
I have always thought of this more as a sort of palliase (sp?) a kind of spare mattress/bed for anyone stopping over. She did at one point have Joe and another woman in that room with her.

The mutilations
I know it is a touchy subject but if this lady was not the MJK who had been living in the room all those months is it not possible (I am sorry I am off into wild theory time now) if she was not MJK is it not feasible that she was selected to 'double' for MJK (perhaps some other 'unfortunate' it was felt no-one would miss). Enticed to the room somehow (there was talk of another woman going there that night somewhere - 2 men and 2 women one of whom was MJK - my memory is awful), chloroformed (the red hankie), throat slashed and face mutilated to cover any small discrepancies in the likeness to MJK then stripped of remaining garments with bloodstained ones being burnt. They then discover she has much larger/smaller breasts than MJK and/or some birthmark, mole, scar which Barnett (the most likely person to identify the body) will not recognise so the dreadful mutilations are inevitable. They have come this far they have to go the whole way. Initially I think they perhaps hoped it would just be another Whitechapel murder and not necessarily a JTR one. Then they thought to use the JTR murders by distributing body parts etc. Perhaps they only knew of the JTR murder scenes from the newspapers and perhaps got a bit carried away placing bits here and there. I could go on but I'll stop there. E.G. could Blotchy face or Mr A be her MJK's father, brother, secret lover (was the dead woman a secret lover's wife). Were they involved in some plan to 'get her away' from the life she was leading - mess she was in - or to have a 'happy' life together. All a blur, you really wouldn't want to be in my head it is really muddled.

Sightings of MJK
She may have dressed in the dead woman's skirt etc and hung about, feeling very sick but having to see the thing through now, to find out if the body is accepted as being 'her' before meeting up with whoever and leaving Whitechapel.

I think I will stop now, very tiring this is, I am sure you all heave a sigh of relief but thank you for sticking with me this far.

Just one last thing, sorry, does anyone know who decided on the words for the MJK gravestone?

Maggyann

[Phil Carter]

Welcome Maggyann!

Loads of questions there. Simon Wood did an excellent synopsis some time ago which is on Casebook that may be helpful. There were also a few threads not so long ago about the room itself, with masses of drawings and comments.
As far as I know, the first gravestone placed in 1986, was paid for privately, and when it was found that that site was wrong, the gravestone was removed and replaced by another, simple one. Thats on the Casebook boards I think as well.

best wishes

Phil

[Maggyann]

Thank you Phil for your response. I was wondering who actually chose the words on the stone I have seen in photographs on the site?

[Sam Flynn]

Simon Wood did an excellent synopsis some time ago which is on Casebook that may be helpful.

Be careful, though! Simon's views on the specific subject of the Kelly photographs aren't what one might call "mainstream" - and that's an understatement.

[Phil Carter]

Sam,

thats very true. Simon's dissertation is somewhat detailed and on the deep side, yes.

very best

Phil

[perrymason]

Be careful, though! Simon's views on the specific subject of the Kelly photographs aren't what one might call "mainstream" - and that's an understatement.

Hi there,

The issues that Simon has with the photographs arent his alone, and he has contributed directly to the knowledge base of Ripper studies....so lets not forget the more "mainstream" contributions as well.

You make some good observations Maggyann, heres a bit of input on some of what you posted....

"For some reason I have always had it in my head that her bedhead was at least that distance from the wall and there was some sort of old fashioned wash stand in the space between headboard and external wall. In the photo of the court (external) if you look past the door a bit (though it is dark) it does look like a 'corner'. Am I way off in this, was the room straight walls?"

The headboard was not flush to that outside wall, nor to the side wall that separated Marys room from the rest of the house...the "partition wall", said to be made in part of old doors. She did have a box essentially, 10 x 10 roughly, so straight pretty even length walls.

"I have always thought of this more as a sort of palliase (sp?) a kind of spare mattress/bed for anyone stopping over. She did at one point have Joe and another woman in that room with her."

The bolster was like a double pillow, or a body pillow, I believe when they has sleep overs like with Maria youre likely talking about someone sleeping in a chair or the 3 together in that small bed.

On the mutilations and the sightings of Mary after she supposedly was murdered......the mutilations are the ONLY evidence that can be used to ascribe this murder to the Ripper, as he had not killed any early 20's women in their own beds undressed before, nor do we have evidence that says he met Mary while she solicited outdoors...where he met 80% of the attributed victims.

Mutilations are made with knives....Jack was certainly not the only knife owner or wielder in that area....see the Torsos for one.....but murders are made by murderers, and how they kill is often as important as who they kill in terms of the investigations. Mary Jane was killed by a man that wielded a knife while she resisted. Liz was choked and cut by a man wielding a knife. Mary Ann, Annie and Kate were attacked by someone who didnt use a knife until he had fully subdued them.

Theres always more angles within the evidence than what youll be told by the mainstream Maggyann.

Best regards and welcome.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi there,

The issues that Simon has with the photographs arent his alone, and he has contributed directly to the knowledge base of Ripper studies....so lets not forget the more "mainstream" contributions as well.

I wouldn't forget them at all. I have a hell of a lot of respect for Simon's work, and I mean that sincerely. I'm also being sincere when I caution against recommending Simon's writings on the specific topic of the Miller's Court photograph to a newbie. That's not too far removed from putting Genesis on the "required reading" list for a class of evolutionary biology students.

[Maggyann]

Thanks for the response Perrymason. I dont believe the room can have been 10X10 square as there was a fireplace in it too and that would mean chimney wall with recesses surely?
Obviously the shape of the room has nothing whatsoever to do with the crimes nor the murderer so really it is unimportant but it is something that I have always wondered about. I have attached the picture showing, to my old eyes anyway that the room was definitely not square in the bedhead corner either. I hope it makes sense. Sorry to go on about this but it is one of those niggles. Just like the niggle that the mutilations did not take place on the bed because there would surely have been much more gore etc on the sheet under the body?

I have read through all the old posts (or practically all of them - ones lost from the main board or something? and the dissertations etc it is all absolutely fascinating - the work some of you, including Simon have done is amazing).

[perrymason]

Im just pointing out that the contributor being mentioned should be seen in a balanced light, as we should all be...not suggesting you were slagging anyone Gareth.

Simon and you have both done some great environmental studies with the contributions, you with the actual weather and moon phases on relevant days for one, Simon and his time of day analysis for the shadows in room 13 photos for another.

Maybe someday Ill add something lasting to the subject too ....I hope to, in some fashion. Maybe it will simply be as that pain in the neck who without hesitation never agreed to a Rippers victims list beyond 2 or 3.

Time will tell.

Best regards G

[Phil Carter]

Maybe it will simply be as that pain in the neck who without hesitation never agreed to a Rippers victims list beyond 2 or 3.

Time will tell.

Best regards G

Mike,

There seems to be a plethora of "pains in the neck" ..me, an old fart, included.



best wishes

Phil