Mary Jane Kelly (Another) New Theory

[Roy Corduroy]

Graham, last night was the 4th of July, the celebration of Independence Day here in America. My wife and I travelled to a relative's home in a nearby county where fireworks are perfectly legal and sold in big tents. At the gathering we ate and drank much and shot off many fireworks. You might say We let the dogs out.

Here's another roman candle to shoot off:

So if this Fleming was named by Barnett, and Julia said Mary Jane told her he was misusing her, and if, according to the Sam-o-Meter, we calibrate his abode as being nearby, then where was he? Did he just melt into the woodwork?

Roy

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

The Yorkshire Ripper case was hardly starved of mass-media coverage either, Glenn. There was certainly a tangible fear abroad among the general populace, particularly in the North of England. The police had their fair share of hoax communications to deal with, too. All in all, it strikes me that the parallels between the Sutcliffe investigation and that of his earlier 19th Century confrere were quite remarkable.

You're missing the point, Sam.
The people in 1888 were not used to this in the same way we are today. because they didn't have alot of tv channels an certainly not the Internet. If the Ripper murders happened today they would hardly fill a column and would most likely not even reach the international papers.
There can be no doubt that people in those days didn't live in the same media climate as we do today and therefore also were affected more strongly by such news. The hysteria itself is a perfect indication of this.

All the best

[Graham]

I am sorry, Graham, but you are completely wrong about this. I think you need to read up a bit more about domestic murders. In your defense, I used to say the same thing you do, but several years ago I came across cases that made me totally rethink. All it takes is just a bit of research.

All the best

Glenn,

Can you give me a couple of authenticated instances in which the victim of a domestic murder was systematically taken apart in the way Kelly was?

Cheers,

Graham

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

From Evans & Skinner

Statement of Julia Venturney 9 Nov 1888

I occupy No 1 room Millers Court I am a widow, charwoman but now living with a man named Harry Owen. I was awake all night and could not sleep. I have know the person occupying No 13 room opposite mine for about 4 months. I knew the man who I saw down stairs (Joe Barnett) he is called Joe, he lived with her until quite recently. I have heard him say that he did not like her ["because" - deleted] going out on the streets, he frequently gave her money, he was very kind to her, he said he would not live with her while she led that course of life, she used to get tipsey occasionally. She broke the windows a few weeks ago whilst she was drunk, she told me she was very fond of another man named Joe, and he had often ill-used her because she cohabited with Joe (Barnett). I saw her last about ["1.40" - deleted] pm yesterday. Thursday about 10 A.M


The bold is mine. That Joe is obviously not Barnett, and it doesn't sound like Fleming. Is it Joe III?

Roy

Of course it's Joe Fleming!
Besides, Joseph Barnett confirmed at the inquest that she saw Fleming and that she was very fond of him, which of course fits what Venturney (Van Turney) stated.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

ITo put it more bluntly, had Barnett or Fleming had a bitter disagreement with Kelly that culminated in her death, they'd more like have beaten her to death and left it at that. To take her apart, to dis-assemble her in the manner that she was, is no more a 'domestic' killing than I am a native of Java.

I am sorry, Graham, but you are completely wrong about this. I think you need to read up a bit more about domestic murders. In your defense, I used to say the same thing you do, but several years ago I came across cases that made me totally rethink. All it takes is just a bit of research.

All the best

[Graham]

Hi Ben & Sam,

If it is almost certainly Fleming, then let it be so. Just probing a bit here and there based on various things I read.

Firing off an idea much like we fired off those rockets last night.

Thank you for your reply,
Roy

Why, what happened last night?

Graham

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Ben & Sam,

If it is almost certainly Fleming, then let it be so. Just probing a bit here and there based on various things I read.

Firing off an idea much like we fired off those rockets last night.

Thank you for your reply,
Roy

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Roy,

The bold is mine. That Joe is obviously not Barnett, and it doesn't sound like Fleming.

Why shouldn't it have been Fleming? If his identification with the alias "James Evans" is correct, then Fleming would have been living in the immediate area. If his last known address is anything to go by - viz., the Victoria Home on Wentworth Street - he'd have been living barely a minute's stroll away from Miller's Court.

The fact that Venturney says that Mary was "very fond" of this Joe seems to tie in pretty well with independent evidence that it was once thought that Kelly may have gone on to marry her "man in the building trade" (Fleming being a mason's plasterer).

[Graham]

Kelly a victim of a domestic murder? No way!

She might have had her own room (and was somewhat behind with the rent), which meant she had a roof over her head, but in my view there is no chance that she was killed because of some 'domestic' difference. Her 'domesticity' was merely that she managed to live in a degree of comfort, however small, compared with others of her class who survived in lodging-houses and/or on the streets. Whatever her differences were between herself and Joe Barnett, I simply cannot bring myself to accept that he would have killed her in the manner in which she was killed. Whoever did for her was an intruder into her (relatively) comfortable existence, not because of some imagined 'domestic' dispute. I'm no expert on the subject, but I would say that most domestic murders are not carried out to the accompaniment of the sheer mindless brutality with which Kelly was despatched and left to the view of the world at large. I agree with Observer, in as much that had she be found on the street, we would simply be discussing another run-of-the-mill murder of a prostitute on the streets of the East End in 1888.

To put it more bluntly, had Barnett or Fleming had a bitter disagreement with Kelly that culminated in her death, they'd more like have beaten her to death and left it at that. To take her apart, to dis-assemble her in the manner that she was, is no more a 'domestic' killing than I am a native of Java.

With reference to Richard Nunweek's mention of 'Lawrence', I have a vague memory of reading somewhere (probably on the old threads) that 'Lawrence' was one of the many names under which MJK formerly went. Who first came up with this, and upon what it was based, I just can't remember.

Cheers,

Graham

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

Vanturney was almost certainly talking about Fleming. What makes you think otherwise, out of interest?

Cheers,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

Joe III

From Evans & Skinner

Statement of Julia Venturney 9 Nov 1888

I occupy No 1 room Millers Court I am a widow, charwoman but now living with a man named Harry Owen. I was awake all night and could not sleep. I have know the person occupying No 13 room opposite mine for about 4 months. I knew the man who I saw down stairs (Joe Barnett) he is called Joe, he lived with her until quite recently. I have heard him say that he did not like her ["because" - deleted] going out on the streets, he frequently gave her money, he was very kind to her, he said he would not live with her while she led that course of life, she used to get tipsey occasionally. She broke the windows a few weeks ago whilst she was drunk, she told me she was very fond of another man named Joe, and he had often ill-used her because she cohabited with Joe (Barnett). I saw her last about ["1.40" - deleted] pm yesterday. Thursday about 10 A.M


The bold is mine. That Joe is obviously not Barnett, and it doesn't sound like Fleming. Is it Joe III?

Roy

[Observer]

Hi Glenn

I am fully aware of the depths of depravity the spurned lover, the jealous spouse can descend to, but Kelly's murderer went the whole nine yards and more.

And there are similarities between Kelly's and other murders commited at that time. The posing of the body is one, this (in my opinion) the result of a need to humiliate the victim. Eddowes eyes lids are nicked, Kelly's eyebrows removed, an attempt to remove both the heads of Chapman, and Kelly, both resulting in failiure. A preoccupation to remove the contents of the abdomen features in the Kelly murder as it does in the murders of Nichols Chapman and Eddowes. All the victims were prostitutes, all murdered in the early hours of the morning, and I do include Chapman's murder somewhere around the hour of 5:00 a.m.

Let me ask you a question, If Kelly had been found in a back street in that condition, would you conclude that she had been a victim of Jack the Ripper? Because in my mind if it wan't for the fact that she rented her own room, we wouldn't be having this conversation

all the best

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

No, but we're talking 1888 here, Sam, and people didn't live in the same media climate in those days as we do today. This is a point that is often missed. I think the 600 (!) Ripper letters from the general public and the scare in connection with the play Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde would give you a clue about what occurred in people's heads.

The Yorkshire Ripper case was hardly starved of mass-media coverage either, Glenn. There was certainly a tangible fear abroad among the general populace, particularly in the North of England. The police had their fair share of hoax communications to deal with, too. All in all, it strikes me that the parallels between the Sutcliffe investigation and that of his earlier 19th Century confrere were quite remarkable.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn,
You proberly will appreciate ,that yours truely is very much in tune with the Domestic type, in regard to the Millers court murder.
It has all the hallmarks of a domestic slaying, however we should not automatically point the finger at Barnet/Flemming/ but also take in account another possible in the unknown Lawrence, also any other unknown male that the deseased had encountered shortly before her demise.
Any of these , could have had reasons for taking her life, and any of these could have either have been the 'Ripper' or attempted the disquise of a copycat..
We should not forget that after the millers court bloodbath, we are clutching at straws to find a end to that series, and therefore have to take seriously that Mjk was the last, and either Tabram/ Nichols was the first.
When a historical event as the 'Whitechapel Murders' goes down in history as part of British heritage, then to attempt to solve anything, we have to one hundred per-cent name the actual victims, also eliminate all sources close to them, but alas we cannot agree on the first point , and therefore we are all sea in getting anywhere.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

For once we seem to be in total agreement.
Well, the focus on Barnett and Fleming is natural since they were the closest males involved in relationship with the victim, and both of them may have had personal motives. And then we have Hucthinson, who himself admitted that he was there the very same night. And then, we have to consider that the man she was last seen with was in fact the man with the beer can (whoever he was). So all in all we have four suspects.

Who is this Lawrence guy, by the way? That seems to be something that I've missed. Can you elaborate on this?

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No, but we're talking 1888 here, Sam, and people didn't live in the same media climate in those days as we do today. This is a point that is often missed. I think the 600 (!) Ripper letters from the general public and the scare in connection with the play Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde would give you a clue about what occurred in people's heads.
That said, I am perfectly willing to even consider it a domestic without any Ripper influence at all, but it might be an important circumstance to keep in mind. As a historian, it is my opinion that it may be dangerous to look at things from a purely modern perspective.

All the best