Marking November 8th, 1888

[Divakind]

I've been thinking about Mary all day and this song came to mind:

Fallen
Heaven bend to take my hand
And lead me through the fire
Be the long awaited answer
To a long and painful fight

Truth be told I've tried my best
But somewhere along the way
I got caught up in all there was to offer
And the cost was so much more than I could bear

Though I've tried, I've fallen...
I have sunk so low
I messed up
Better I should know
So don't come round here
And tell me I told you so...

We all begin with good intent
Love was raw and young
We believed that we could change ourselves
The past could be undone
But we carry on our backs the burden
Time always reveals
In the lonely light of morning
In the wound that would not heal
It's the bitter taste of losing everything
That I've held so dear.

I've fallen...
I have sunk so low
I messed up
Better I should know
So don't come round here
And tell me I told you so...

Heaven bend to take my hand
Nowhere left to turn
I'm lost to those I thought were friends
To everyone I know
Oh they turn their heads embarassed
Pretend that they don't see
But it's one missed step
One slip before you know it
And there doesn't seem a way to be redeemed

Though I've tried, I've fallen...
I have sunk so low
I messed up
Better I should know
So don't come round here
And tell me I told you so...

R.I.P. Mary Jane Kelly.
Diva

[paul emmett]

What the use of smashing a face beyond recognition if you do it to the victim in her own room in her own garments ?
No use of course, victim will be recognized anyway.
But what if the victim is not the victim ?
What if the body on the bed has the same hair, the same physical features, the same kind of skin as the pretended victim thatr you want people to believe has been murdered ?
Well, the face would be the problem of course.
With a different face nobody could believe what you want them to believe.
Solution: eliminate the only possible source of problem.

Oh, but how stupid.
I forgot the most obvious: if 'Mary Jane Kelly' was murdered is because 'Jack the Ripper' killed her. And he being what he was the slashing of the face was logically his demonstration that he took the victim under his power and vindicated himself of his mother (or was it his aunt ?).
And that no doubt this caused him a sexual satisfaction of some sort (what sort ? some. Oh! I see.)

Canucco dei Mergi,
"eliminate the source of the problem"--Yes. But actions as extreme as obliteration just have to be overdetermined. Hence, your next paragraph.

Divakind, thanks for the song.

[KatBradshaw]

I was thinking about Mary today. She was only 3 years younger than me. I want so much to know more about her but I guess we never will.

[claire]

Bienvenue, Mathilde...sorry for the snippy reply Canucco dei Mergi felt the need to give, for reasons best known to them...we're not all so rude or dismissive of wild and inspired theories

As Suzi, Limehouse and Divakind have so eloquently put it, this is Mary's day, whoever she was. Let's, for this one day of the year, give it over to her and not the person who ended her life. May peace be upon her.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Canucco dei Mergi,

Regarding the identity of the Millers Court victim, you say—

"With a different face nobody could believe what you want them to believe.

"Solution: eliminate the only possible source of problem."

I agree.

But let's take things a stage further.

What else could the mutilations have eliminated?

Regards,

Simon

[The Grave Maurice]

My world weather thingy says it was raining in London today (what else is new?) just like it was 120 years ago, but that it was about 10 degrees Celsius warmer. BTW, anybody go to the Lord Mayor's Procession yesterday?

[anna]

Hi The Grave Maurice,

Yes,you are right...it was a dismal day in London yesterday....rained for the Lord Mayor's Show...pretty windy too...it did ease off during the day,but returned for the evening and lasted into the early hours of today....
Even though it is not unusual for this time of the year....it has added a bit of a spooky touch to the 120th!!!
I watched live coverage on the BBC yesterday morning..which was great.I have always loved the procession..have been to see it a number of times,and was thrilled to see the coach very close up at one time,sitting below a container or special liquid which it is,throughout the year...to keep it in tip top,preserved condition.The guy who looks after it opened the door for us.....but we weren't allowed to get in!! The paintings on it,are still the originals.
Best Regards,
ANNA.

[perrymason]

Hello again all,

Some nice and not unexpected tributes for Mary, thanks all for posting some thoughts.

I wanted briefly to address what Canucco and then Simon alluded to......the deliberate substitution of a body for that of Mary Kelly's.

I think Simon you might have been looking for an answer like, it could remove flesh that might reveal this corpse was not as "stout" as Mary was reported to be, or had tattoos Mary didnt have, or moles, freckles and scars....and by the exposed right gleaming white femur, I might conclude that it is not an overly sturdy frame myself. The face being eradicated almost completely is well beyond what Kate experienced, and is I think a sign there was a different motive for the facial slashes on Mary, and even one contemporary quote referred to the cuts on Kates face as "playful nicks".

And in fact, how are we to know the hair seen on Mary Kelly went down the back of her corpse, it was under her, and it could have been far less than waist length and dyed?

That being said, there are at least 3 main problems with the suggestion the dead woman wasnt Mary Jane Kelly...

1. The man who lived and slept with her until approx Oct 30th said he recognized 2 features of Mary Kelly above the neck.
2. The man who rented her the room to her, and the man who collected rent when it could be paid from her, said it was her.
3. The body was in a room locked from the inside, in Marys nightclothes, in Marys bed, and only partially undressed.

In order for that body to not have been Mary Jane, Barnett would have to have lied or erred, as would McCarthy and Bowyer, and the substituters would need to find a suitable corpse, "customize" it themselves in that room to account for the blood, after dressing it in Marys chemise and stocking (singular "g"), then sneak out undetected and accomplish that without making any appreciable noise or leaving any trace of their activity, like muddy bootprints, in the room.

Oh yeah.....and they would have had to have had Mary Jane in on it. To prevent her from being in her own room at that time, and to not see any acquaintences or come forward when it has been announced it was her in the bed.

For me, there is no reason on the books to suspect that anyone "substituted" a body, a very involved conspiracy involving the transport of bodies at night, mutilations caused by the frauds themselves, many people in on it and the notion that it all could have come crashing in on them had Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, or Sarah Lewis heard or seen anything, but I believe there may well have been conspiracies to conceal information about that room, when and how it was actually entered, what efforts were made to revise the contents... off the record, the investigation of that murder and possibly any other crime connected with the deceased or her recently ex live-in, for example.

If anyone had the means, the undisturbed access to the court and the room and the physical evidence within it, to alter the story that will be told by that corpse, it is the police, when they seal off the courtyard before noon.

Did they? Frankly Im not sure, there is much about that afternoon that is unknown but for police reminicences or notes.

But the notion of a substitution of a body for Marys has all the romantic quality of The Royal Conspiracy, and as much suggestive evidence.

Best regards

[KatBradshaw]

My world weather thingy says it was raining in London today (what else is new?) just like it was 120 years ago, but that it was about 10 degrees Celsius warmer. BTW, anybody go to the Lord Mayor's Procession yesterday?

I used to go regularly when I was a kid. I remember thinking about the morning when Mary's poor body lay just metres away.

The weather in the UK is shocking at the mo!!!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

Barnett and Bowyer [and McCarthy, I believe] identified MJK through the broken window. Good going, says I, as the assorted detritus on the bedside table—including Crocky the bolster [if you believe the provenance of photo MJK3]—would have been in the way.

To my mind it was identification by association.

By the way, the answer I was looking for is more fundamental than moles, freckles and tattoos.

I don't like this strain of 8th November [why a day early?] sentimentality. I prefer to think of the woman known as MJK dying at a ripe old age. I see her now with a large celestial gin in her hand, laughing herself silly at our antics. And I'll bet there's a few cops having a chuckle as well.

Hope all is well with you.

Regards,

Simon

[perrymason]

Hi Simon,

I am well, as I hope you, Susan and the 4 legged wonder are. On the issue of the severity of the injuries to the corpse, and the venue....that has always indicated to me that we are likely looking at someone who knew her but was no "Ripper", and when confronted with his own act of violence that takes her life, perhaps due to his own future and family history of madness, tries to replicate almost all of the injuries that were reported in all 4 prior Ripper murders, adding a few new ones to show some "evolution", as a way to disguise his own murder....perhaps initially carried out by just cutting her throat and slicing her face. But the killer of Mary is lost and meaningless, whereas Annies killer for example was thought to have killed her for precisely what he took "skillfully". I think this is potentially evident by the acts that seem to just end incomplete....the stripping of both her thighs,... and/or calves for that matter, as an example,... the acts that have defied reasoning for 120 years, like placing a breast under her head, ...and add to that that this killer was likely left handed, based on the position of Mary Janes body when first attacked, on the right side of the bed, likely facing the wall, on her right side, possibly with her knees bent. Spoon.

Other than a brief visitation to a perspective that offered a left handed killer with Mary Ann, I believe most who studied the cases then and now would agree that there is sufficient evidence in the remaining victims, excluding Mary Jane Kelly, to ascribe a right handed label to him, and his MO would likely include a rear attack position.

I believe the comtemporary police officials, at times, out of neccessity for their secrecy to be preserved, had to control information and details. I believe some, perhaps a few, concerning Millers Court on the 9th were like that, and some others that were documented were destroyed or lost or pilfered. But I think its far more likely the ones that had the power to lock down a location and provide the details of all the events inside that court themselves would "conspire", and it doesnt require any further explanation beyond that to see why they might do that.

All the best Simon.

[Hellrider]

if the body had been substituted somehow, then certainly NOT without Mary's knowledge and agreement. The only solution that is at least possible is that MJK wanted to get away from problems or people in London and start somewhere else with a new identity. Why did she not just do it? She did not have money, one might suppose. But she did not have any more money after her presumed death, did she?

So, the reasons must be different, considering the fact what an effort it would have been....find a body, find the right people etc. She would have had to do it alone, if she wanted to disappear from London without witnesses

And something else...McCarthy and Barnett had to play along as well. McCarthy might have been bribed, but what to give to Barnett for a false testimony? Or wasn't his statement deliberately false and he just thought it was Mary? He had no actual reason to lie, as he obviously loved Mary and would thus not have accepted to let her go away

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Substitution.

Simon, what else could the smashing of the face have obliterated aside from the real identity of the victim ?

No idea, I might miss something.

I agree with you on the concept of 'identification by association'. I doubt many of them would have looked at the disgusting carnage with a lot more attention than some simple glance.

To the other posters here above who thinks the substitution could not have been possible without Barnett knowledge: I completely agree.

To the other posters who suggest that if substitution there was, the real 'Mary Jane' would have not known it: I dare say the opposite would be more likely.

I always wondered what could be the reaction of a girl (generally speaking, I mean, without any intention to say it is so and no other possibilities) entering her room and seeing on her bed what there was on the bed of 9 Miller's court that morning.

If the girl does not expect anything: surprise: shouting, escape: running out from the room and disgust: vomiting. Those three would be I think a good answer.

If the girl knows someone is dead (because she is someway accomplice without taking actual part in the murder) but doesn't know how the person has been killed, the surprise element disappear but not the disgust one. Thus in that case we would have a girl refraining from shouting but not being able to prevent rejecting what she has got in the stomach.

This second scenario would of course fit the testimony of Mrs Maxwell concerning 'Mary Jane' not been dead at all but vomiting on the street and not telling the truth about the why but asserting is sickness due to a drinking bout.

That's it: mere speculation.
But a speculation that could give an alternative explanation to a very mysterious event which led to an extraordinary police behaviour that day and the following ones.

Canucco dei Mergi.

[Mathilde]

Some thoughts...

Thank you for your answers, and thank you for welcome me into this forums!

I probably have no reason for beeing proud of my theories, I guess...!

By the way, I find this pages very interesting, and many of your discussions bring me to the PC, many times a week!

Have a nice evening, and keep up with your discussions...!

Mathilde

[Mathilde]

Happy Birthday!

On November 9th in 1841: Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, is born.

"...instead of eating my birthday dinner with a boring family, I want to do something else, this year...! What about entering London, and have some fun tonight...?! Guess there's some cute girls, too..!"