mjks real name

[DirectorDave]

Can someone pleae tell me what "Fiona Kendall" said about MJK? or could you tell me where the posts are?

Thanks,
Dave

[richardnunweek]

Phil,
Yes mine to... my Mrs has become well versed on the subject in the last forty years, she has had the pleasure of being at all the murder spots, complete with my hold nothing back commentaries.
What a nice guy I am....
Regards Richard.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Richard,

We owe it to everyone that lived during that period, not withstanding those poor women

Yes, close members of my own family included.

best wishes

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi Phil,
I agree Fiona may hold some vital information, I for one simply fail to understand why she should join Casebook and post some wonderful dangling carrots, and withdraw.
She is apparently a extremely decent person, and genuine, but surely if she has any intrest in Ripperology, and holds any knowledge, even hearsay, in the intrest of Casebook I for one would appeal to her to reveal.
We owe it to everyone that lived during that period, not withstanding those poor women , to solve this case, and Fiona may hold the key.
But I have a strong suspicion her lips are sealed.
Regards Richard.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Suzi,

It is almost impossible to completely dissappear without help of some sort.. even those horrible doctors and asassins from the 2nd World War needed help.
Joseph Mengele more or less did it, as he wasn't discovered to be who he was until after his death.
But here we are talking about protection, and if the MJK figure was who we are led to believe she was, she would never have had that sort of back up.
Therefore there is only two answers in my book... either she was a person under another name, or she didn't exist.
However, if she WASN'T the person we think she was, and did have the possibility of protection afterwards... then we are talking a totally different ball game.
I would like to hear more from Fiona Kendall. At least we would know one way or another if she really was trying to tell us the truth.

However, the JTR case is riddled with people who wish to decieve, some do it to take the p***, others for financial gain. And sadly, anything "outside the accepted norm" is viewed with suspicion immediately.

Part of me wishes we could find the "real" MJK... but I fear it will only ever be an elaborate plot to roll us along and keep the pot boiling...unless someone with genuine credentials discovers the answer to the mystery of MJK.

As you know, I believe MJK3 to be a fake photo. I am nowhere near the only one. That, in itself, tells us where we stand as regard anything new that surfaces.

No doubt someone somewhere is already putting together the next elaborate hoax. That is a shame, and a waste of time for us all.

best wishes

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If Fiona Kendall was relating the truth as she heard it, then it is obvious that at the very least the victims brother was traced , otherwise how come he was despatched kellys personal belongings?
If I recall correctly, Barnett was aware that her brothers regiment was stationed then in Cardiff, so his name must have been traceable via the name Kelly, which would suggest that at the very least that would have been her maiden name, if ficticious, then how would they trace her brother.?
I believe that Mary proberly related the truth to Joe, but for some reason that has become elusive to us.
Trace the brother, and we will proberly find her.
Regards Richard.

[Suzi]

Exactly Phil-
Trouble is- everyone and his dog/ CAT with any credence( and without!) has dug and dug re MJK- turned the soil over- and over again- nuttin'.. a sort of echoing void.... that's the best you get- dead ends are easy I know and that's what we keep banging our heads against!!!

Blimey if I wanted to 'disappear' I'd have a word with the Kelly/McCarthy clan!!

Talking of which.......- we have a family of Mc Carthys up the road from us who've run a 'roadside shop'- highly successfully for the last 20 odd years!!! There's at least 11 of them in that family!!! .....The answer is out there somewhere- up the road I doubt it- but you never know.........

[Phil Carter]

Suzi,

Agreed!...And rightly so imho

best wishes

Phil

[Suzi]

Good Luck Chris! When we don't know Who- Where From- Why etc etc we can dig for ever- mind you it's fun doing it 'eh!!!!

Mind you- you're running in First Place at the mo!!!!

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris, Suzi, all,

But who knows what lies around the corner??? Perhaps very soon...

I saw that little hint... I really hope you get this sorted out once and for all Chris, as you, before many, deserve to be the one who finally traces this elusive lady...IF she existed that is..

And I agree with you when you say..

...any putative identification of the woman who died in Millers Court is not only unproven but, in the light of presently available information, unprovable.

Sadly, that is exactly where we lie.

best wishes

Phil

[Suzi]

He he I know- Could have been 'Casebook' though 'eh!!!

Mind you- Hamlet-' Though this be madness,yet there be method in't'

Great 'eh! There again we have the good book (!) telling us ( She says with The 'Oxford book of Quotations' on her knees!) - 'Too much learning doth make thee mad'!!.. Never stops us though 'eh!!!

[Chris Scott]

Many thanks for the message Suzi and in response to the PM I had, the quote - "that way madness lies" comes from Shakespeare's "King Lear."

[Suzi]

Thanks for coming in here Chris!

Exactly- all we have is Barnett's comments- all of which allegedly came from Mary- again all we have is his word for this- I imagine this is what happened though- as you say he wouldn't have been in the frame of mind to be making stuff up at that point!
As to alleged marriage- IMHO it's going to be all but impossible to track 'Mary' through any sort of marriage/mining disaster or whatever-even if she ever originated from Limerick and followed the Carmarthen/Cardiff trail etc to London- she could have been anyone!!!.......Seriously infuriating I know- but reckon it's going to stay that way- unless they 'have up' those bones in Leytonstone- whoever they may belong to ! Can we even be sure that they belong to our 'Mary'- (Going to start them all off now I know! ).....and if they do 'get 'em up- will it prove anything??- who they going to match them against??.....ah! there's a point... The Mc Carthy grave close by....hmmmmm

Exactly- That way madness lies......

[Chris Scott]

My own opinion is that in outline the orthodox version as we have it from Barnett and, marginally, from others has come down to us as it was told to him by Kelly. My reason for thinking this is that the outline of the story is there in the police statement that Barnett made on the day of the murder. If Barnett made up the story (and what motive would he have for doing so? why not just say he did not know about her past and she would have remained as obscure as Mckenzie, for example?) then he did a remarkably detailed and inventive job at a very harrowing time. If, like me, you believe that not only did Barnett play no part in Kelly's murder, but he was genuinely fond of her, maybe even in love with her - then 9 November would certainly have been a day when his miond was not functioning normally to put it mildly.
So my opinion is that the story we have has come, certainly in its major part, from Kelly herself. That brings us no nearer to verifying or disproving any of it, of course.
My opinion, again for what it is worth, is that every detail of the story bar one may be true - and that "bar one" if, of course, her real name. Change that one feature and the whole story becomes - evidentially - not worth the paper it is written on as none of it can be checked.
The ONLY feature which, if true, would offer a very feeble gleam of hope would be her legal marriage. But that would entail following the marital history of every Davies who died in a mining explosion in (roughly) 1881 or 1882 and being able to trace the subsequent lives of their young widows.
I do not want to deter anyone from trying to trace some detail about Kelly and I am not saying that, to quote, "that way madness lies!" I am simply saying that any putative identification of the woman who died in Millers Court is not only unproven but, in the light of presently available information, unprovable. But who knows what lies around the corner??? Perhaps very soon...

[Maggyann]

How definite can we be on e.g. when MJK turned up in Whitechapel/London. I know there is the 'tale' of her being in a brothel - going to France - picking up dresses - etc but the people who came forward to agree this part of the story did they actually view the body? Do we have proof that they are talking about the same female?
Is it not possible that the furthest back we can look with any real certainty is to her meeting with Joseph Barnett and again do we only have his word for when they met? Is it possible that the story of the time prior to that was someone else's life that MJK adopted? Just like her name is an adopted one.

A female in a new area with an adopted name and a basically unverifiable history seems to point to a female with a lot to hide. This makes working out who she was a real conundrum she could have been anybody.