Kelly seen alive AFTER murder during lord mayors show?

[I_AM_JACK]

I know this has probably been talked about a million times but I have searched and am still looking for a proper explanation so forgive me if im going over something your all tired of.
Mary Kelly WAS seen alive after she was supposed to be the fifth victim of the ripper and the obvious explanation for this is that the witness obviously got the days wrong..but the witness said they saw Kelly on the morning of the lord mayors show so is it realistic that the witness would have made a mistake when it was on that day?

Also one more question if thats okay what happened to Joesph Barnett after the Kelly killing?

[BLUE WIZZARD]

I am in agreement with you.

The witness saw Mary that morning, if you add the Mayors show and the fact that she was returning plates to the owner and seeing Mary and talking to Mary explaining the vomit on the street, is a strong reinforcement for memory.

A conspiracy theory in the making as to wither Mary was killed or Mary disappeared needing to get away from her overbearing boyfriend Joe.

I believe that if Mary disappeared then Joe did not commit the crime, but if Mary was murdered then Joe did her in.

BW

It is reported that Joe lived an uneventful life.

[miss marple]

Wizard and I am Jack
Why dont you both spend some time reading other posts, including Maxwell's girl on victims, Kelly.The point of this site is to get information and there is plenty of that if you bother to read it. Miss Marple

[perrymason]

To support Miss Marples suggestion, stomachs that have been emptied of contents through the vomitting described dont still have the remnants of fish and potatoes in them at 1:30 that afternoon.

The truth is that Caroline Maxwell is introduced to the proceedings with an accuracy caveat from the coroner..I dont think youll find anything remotely like that in any of the other proceedings. She was not believed to be correct by them, on what basis do we disagree with them?

Cheers mates.

[Celesta]

Hello Jack,

Welcome to the site. You're right in your assumption that this has been argued over a lot. Some believe that it was just a case of mistaken identity. Others are not so sure. Mrs. M. was not the only one to report seeing Mary that next morning either. You'll find the discussions scattered about here. Enjoy your searches.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

I Am Jack, welcome aboard on my behalf too!

One explanation for mrs. Maxwell seemed to make sense to some extent; Mary had lent her overcoat to one of her friends and thus mrs. Maxwell - not knowing MJK very well - thought herself to have seen MJK after the murder!

However, once again; since MJK was as tall as an average man of the time, her overcoat could have been a bit longer than an average one as well!

All the best
Jukka

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

stomachs that have been emptied of contents through the vomitting described dont still have the remnants of fish and potatoes in them at 1:30 that afternoon.

Hmm...How do you know that her stomach was completely emptied of its contents?

Wolf.

[perrymason]

Hmm...How do you know that her stomach was completely emptied of its contents?

Wolf.

Hi Wolf,

I dont know....fair point. In fact I was thinking someone would suggest she ate after throwing up and before she is killed...but that isnt in sync with the medical determination on how long the meal was inside her and in her digestive tract.

Having some experiences as a young man that caused me to be in similar straits to the woman Carrie Maxwell speaks with.....I can say that not only does violent vomiting clear the stomach's food contents in my experience, it also seriously dehydrates.

What wouldnt change regardless is when the meal was approximately taken, because it had entered the digestive process. And more importantly, we know by the medical estimates roughly when that process ceased. And that was well before 8am by estimates.

I look at Carrie contributions like this Wolf....the body that is found on the bed has some very strong indicators that suggest the victim was murdered in the wee hours of the morning. Including Rigor onset. If she actually did see Mary Jane.....and Mary Jane only having spoken with her twice referred to her as "Carrie/Corrie",.....then it seems the logical answer is that the corpse on the bed is not Mary Jane Kelly.

I believe those are the choices she gives us......either she was wrong or lied for whatever reason, or she was right and the body in room 13 wasnt Mary. Because her version of events is directly refuted by the autopsy.

I hope that explains my thinking there, cheers Wolf.


edited to add........There has been a recent development on another thread that might have some direct impact on this question....its possible by the fact that The Star reported this on November 10th, that Barnett was shown Mary to identify by "peering through the window". If you review the MJK1 photo, it is clear that not only are her eyes not visible, but neither are her eye sockets ...due to what appears are fleshy skin flaps from her forehead covering her eye features. Simon Wood found the article and Sam Flynn suggested the flaps of skin to explain the fact her eyes are not visible at all in that photo.

One of 2 features he ID's Mary by is her eyes. It appears that as she lay in bed at the beginning of the investigation, there were none visible to someone looking in the window.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Miss Marple,

Thank you for the advise.

[kensei]

I see a parallel to this question in a case from 1999- the Yosemite Park murders, in which mother and daughter Carole & Juli Sund and Argentinian exchange student Silvina Pelosso disappeared while on vacation, were missing for some time and were then found murdered in that wilderness area. Serial killer Cary Anthony Stayner was eventually convicted and confessed to killing them the same night they disappeared. I remember reading that while the FBI was investigating and before the bodies had been found, a female shopkeeper in the area reported that the three women had come into her shop AFTER they'd been reported missing, that she even remembered the foreign girl saying she was from Argentina. She was positive, yet she was completely wrong. The women were definitely dead at the time the supposed witness said this happened. How is this possible? All you can do is throw up your hands and say that somehow it is. People can indeed be mistaken about things they would swear on their life to being right about. It's just something that is, with no more explanation than that.

[Shelley]

I think it's possible that the witnessing of Kelly on the Lord Mayor's day was just an exaggerated story, even today you find incorrect information in gossip and it's a form of entertainment amongst those who do it, just to liven things up a bit, it may be that some of the poorer classes at the time had gossip towards thinking that the killings were connected with Prince Eddie as he had rooms in Whitechapel. The body was identified as Mary Kelly by Joe, i doubt that there would have been a similar looking woman with the right height, build and age winding up dead in Mary Kelly's room. Kelly's death was very nasty and domestic killings have a very nasty ring to them, with emotions involved.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Michael.

Caroline Maxwell’s testimony is one of the most contentious subjects (usually hotly debated) in the entire study of the Whitechapel murders. However, the contention seems to be mostly based on such things as a selective use of the facts and/or a general fervent clinging to the accepted dogma of Ripperology.

I noticed that although you admit that you don’t know that Kelly’s stomach was completely emptied of its contents you do state “I can say that not only does violent vomiting clear the stomach's food contents in my experience…” (emphasis mine). I’m assuming here that you don’t actually know that she vomited violently either. I don’t see how you could. In fact all we can say is that according to Caroline Maxwell Kelly told her on the morning of the 9th of November that she had had a half pint of ale and then had vomited it up. This doesn’t appear to me to indicate any violence or complete emptying of the stomach.

One of your points is more interesting. You stated:

…I was thinking someone would suggest she ate after throwing up and before she is killed...but that isnt in sync with the medical determination on how long the meal was inside her and in her digestive tract.

And later:

And more importantly, we know by the medical estimates roughly when that process ceased. And that was well before 8am by estimates.

I am going to assume that you are relying on Dr. Bond’s report to Robert Anderson in which Bond states: “the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so 1 or 2 o’clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder.”
The problem with Dr. Bond’s opinion is that he is absolutely wrong with the length of time it would take for a meal of fish and potatoes to become “partly digested.”

Roughly ten years ago, in an attempt to find out who was a more trustworthy medical man, Bond or Phillips, I elicited the opinions, with the help of friends at U of T, of a dozen forensic pathologists from all over the world. These were men and women, some at the top of their field, with years of forensic experience (one was a Brazilian professor with over 50 years on the job) who generously took the time to look at the material I sent them and then answer a series of questions and offer their opinions regarding the deaths of Mary Kelly and Annie Chapman.

What I was told about digestion and the Kelly murder was that Bond’s estimate of 3 or 4 hours for a meal of fish and potatoes to become only “partly digested” is not credible. The modern scientific opinion is that the time would be somewhere between ˝ an hour and 1˝ hours (with the likely time being less than 1˝ hours).

What I was told about time of death for Kelly was that possibly, given what Bond says about the condition of the body, Kelly died somewhere between 6 and 10 am, which seems to support what Dr. Phillips had to say, (with the likely time being narrowed down to between 8 and 10 am).

Do we have any evidence, or testimony that could possibly support the modern medical opinion? Amazingly we do.

Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wolf,

A fascinating post.

The cops knew Maxwell's story on Friday 9th November, and the Coroner knew what she was going to say before she opened her mouth at the inquest on 12th November. If her story was so contradictory and flew in the face of "the facts" why on earth was she subpoenaed to appear at the inquest in the first place?

What seems strange to me is that her story could have so easily been blown out of the water by the Coroner asking Bagster Phillips' opinion on MJK's time of death.

But the question never came.

Regards,

Simon

[perrymason]

One of my favourite recent posts too Wolf....the key here is that you possessed top drawer professional opinion I wasnt aware of....thats my defense anyway.

But if Bonds estimates were off by that amount, surely his other conjectures must be somewhat suspect too....not that this is going to sink the good SS Canonical by itself.

Thats a very interesting thought though Wolf...have to consider that some more.

On the violence I associated with the vomiting, it was based on the story that she had thrown a beer right up as soon as she drank it. To me that sounds like the body rejecting food or drink, due to what biological process...Im no doctor. But it sounded like someone whose system was rejecting any more damage for the moment. Stomach maybe contracting, or stomach muscles...adding force to the action. Now....that does tie in with her being potted when arriving home....but she also sings off and on for over an hour....with what we may assume is the alcohol that was in her when she arrived. Functional. Maybe tired, maybe full, maybe just cheery...but somewhat functional. What.....I will still phrase it this way for the moment, no offense.....the woman who spoke to Caroline Maxwell said was the "horrors of drink upon me". I think that woman....for the moment...either drank cheaper more disgusting booze than Mary, or more of it....because Mary was having no "horrors" from around 11:45 until almost 1:30am.

Thanks for the food for thought Wolf....and nice to see you since I havent for a few months.

[Roy Corduroy]

Thank you, Wolf.

If Maxwell was right, the other witnesses don't have to be "wrong."

Roy