Spare a thought- The Double Event

[Michael W Richards]

I think David that its important that we state Mary was fond of another Joe, and she was seeing him at the time she was seeing Barnett according to a friend, but we do not know that person was Fleming. We know Fleming did become institutionalized, but we dont know if that was a result of anything resembling violent tendencies.

I personally believe that Mary was murdered by someone who knew her and vice versa, but I am uncertain that the "Joe" in this case was Fleming. If it was another Joe, one caught up in a more dangerous world than the plasterer was, that might explain more than just the grievous injuries.

Cheers

And as Hunter reminded us all.....Liz and Kate were killed Sept 30th, 124 years ago. No matter who killed either of them, or what they did in their brief lives, neither deserved what they got.

I hope one day they might be spared the microscope we put them under.

[Phil H]

I'd welcome any find about that obscure character, but if Mary had been "very fond" of him, if he used to visit her in 1888, etc, we would know already.

Seems very complacent to me. But then you appear to give away your bias and the reason in the next sentence.

Sobeit.

Phil H

[DVV]

Well, as you like, Phil. I'd welcome any find about that obscure character, but if Mary had been "very fond" of him, if he used to visit her in 1888, etc, we would know already.
Fact is that all this applies to one guy named Joseph Fleming (Que Dieu ne lui fasse pas miséricorde !).

[Phil H]

But we hadn't heard anything AT ALL about Tumblety, until the Littlechild letter emerged, and that has opened many doors, even if it doesn't seem that the "Doctor" is "Jack".

Morganstone WAS mentioned by Barnett and appears to have known her/been involved with her. I think modern police would not rule him out. Mary thought enough of him to mention him to Joe (or was it one of the girls?), after all.

The trouble is that so many of the names associated with MJK (even if one can believe her tale) seem garbled - hence Mrs Buki. But maybe, one day, a researcher will stumble on an interesting lead.

I don't think Morganstone IS "Jack" for a moment, but he is of a "type" (one of her ex-lovers) who might be Mary's killer for me.

Phil H

[DVV]

Hi Phil

Why forget him because he is somewhat shadowy?

He's actually a shadow - at best.

He might hold the key

Well, everything is possible, but if so, that key is lost til the end of times. As far as I'm concerned, I've never heard that he was once about to marry MJK, nor that he used to visit and ill-use her in 1888, nor that he spent 28 years in the loony bin.

[Phil H]

We can forget Morganstone, who is nothing but a name (perhaps misspelt) from Mary's past, but talking of MJK's past, I would add Hutch.

Why forget him because he is somewhat shadowy? He might hold the key - we have little enough to go on. But i think I understand your reasoning.

Hunter - apologies. It is indeed right to remember these women and I do I assure you, every time I consider the case.

But as a result of their sad fate they, as against their compatriots of the day, have gained a sort of immortality. For myself, I think our continuing concern about what happened to them and - yes - a desire to name a culprit(s) does honour them above anything else.

Phil H

[Addy]

Only just saw this thread. Rest in Peace, Liz and Kate.

[Hunter]

Here's a novel idea.

How about in this instance and on this thread, just sparing a thought for these victims... and leave the theorizing for some other place and time.

[DVV]

[B]
What about Fleming - who still saw her (and was abusive?) - or "Morganstone"? Either HAD BEEN intimate with her.

Phil H

Yes Phil, but only Fleming was still around and his moving to Whitechapel in August or September 1888 may have something to do with Mary Kelly.

We can forget Morganstone, who is nothing but a name (perhaps misspelt) from Mary's past, but talking of MJK's past, I would add Hutch.

Or have I already mentioned him under another name ?

[Phil H]

The suggestion has been raised that Eddowes and Kelly may have a connection regarding the killer himself. In Kelly's case, Barnett is the obvious "close" intimacy... but in Eddowes case, Barnett doesnt come into the equation. Can a connection be found between Eddowes' "husband" and Barnett?

But there are more men in Mary's past that just Joe Barnett.

What about Fleming - who still saw her (and was abusive?) - or "Morganstone"? Either HAD BEEN intimate with her.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

I wonder if the double event murders would be connected at all by investigators armed with the forensics of today?

I can see it being logical that if JtR was disturbed before mutilating Stride that the mutilation of Eddows would be an acceleration of violence. Equally however, the fury of the attack could indicate it was personal.

Interlude: Recall Eddows stated she would get "A damn fine hiding" when she reached home. Did John Kelly in his anger track her down to Mitre Square and losing it completely viciously murder her using JtR techniques to confuse the police? just a thought.

[Michael W Richards]

Certainly not, Mike. And clearly a lot of casebookers, who have read more about JtR than Mary's killer, don't know that he gained access to the internal organs by detaching flaps of skin, or have forgotten this detail.
Note, by the way, that in Hanbury St it was getting light, while a fire was burning in Kelly's room.


Sorry Mike, I'm not really a Dr Phillips' fan.

To address your response David....

1. More caseboookers should be cognizant that the killer used the stomach flap method to mutilate Mary. The size of that fire is alleged, it may not have been any help to the killer since it illuminated his left side or his back...if he was between her legs at any point. The candle is more probably the light source available.

2. Too bad...he saw more Canonicals dead than any other physician, (4 of 5), and his opinion on the first 2 murders was corroborated.

Cheers David.

[Phil Carter]

It might suggest that Eddowes and Kelly did - the only two with facial mutilation.

If Eddowes was killed by someone seeking revenge (Fenian?) then Kelly might have been facially mutilated to make it APPEAR she was a victim of the same killer.

On the other hand, the two women might have been disfigured for different reasons. To me, the remark by Steve S conforms to my prevalent view these days that MJK was killed by an intimate friend.

Phil H

Hello Phil,

Please allow me to enlarge around this thought of yours?

Facial disfiguration is perhaps a key, and somewhat overlooked point here. I am of the pretty firm belief that facial obliteration and disfigurement has a second purpose..to obliterate a person's identity..either by personal knowledge and known contact of or with them, or for "professional" reasons..i.e. to "show" what "can happen to...if...."

The first point has been talked of as you quite rightly touch upon, and the 2nd, under the wording "contract killing" becomes plausible only if we can connect Kelly and Eddowes in some way. Apart from the obvious name usage by Eddowes of Kelly, and apart from the even flimsier connection of Eddowes'man being of Irish decent and Kelly may have been likewise, what have we that can tie these two women together in some way?

Both ideas are interesting. Having looked through the Eddowes background there isn't an awful lot to compare her to Kelly. And of course, the Kelly background itself is fraught with problems, even if it is true and she was Irish.

The suggestion has been raised that Eddowes and Kelly may have a connection regarding the killer himself. In Kelly's case, Barnett is the obvious "close" intimacy... but in Eddowes case, Barnett doesnt come into the equation. Can a connection be found between Eddowes' "husband" and Barnett?

All intruiguing and speculatory. However, worthy of consideration should such a connection, or any other between the two ladies, be found, I believe.

Good post Phil. Excellent points.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

If someone KNEW Kelly, I don't quite see how they would have mistaken Eddowes for her!! Even in the dark with the light behind her (to quote WS Gilbert who has been mentioned lately).

A contract killer might have made a mistake i guess, but then the personal angle disappears, doesn't it?

Phil H

[Steve S]

I draw no conclusions,(As I don't hold a particular view).....But it wouldn't fit in with those who hold Eddowes was mistaken for Kelly.....As always,too many "ifs".....It is quite conceivable that a local killer would be familiar with SOME of the victims............