MKJ murder, NOT mjk?

[curious4]

Hello CD,
If she honestly stated what she believed she had seen, then surely taking everything into account, the description of the woman seen, the clothing seen, the returning of the plates[ verified]..question? Why do we still say, right person /wrong day.
Answer.
Doctors opinion.
The fact remains Maxwell was interviewed the same day as the murder, her account was checked, she knew of Barnett, she knew the woman kelly dispite admitting she had only spoken to her a couple of times, we should also remember, although mayby not a raving beauty , she was rather distinctive looking, and very unlikely to have been mistaken for anyone else in the court.
I believe the medical opinion was wrong, and the educated quess work Bond , and co arrived at,was way off the mark.
I do believe Astracan existed, Blotchy also, but I do not accept one of them was the killer, neither do I accept a night break in.
Although Maurice Lewis account has flaws, I tend to believe there is some truth in his account, as he freely admits to the press that he was playing an illegal game of pitch in millers court when he saw the deseased leave her room , and return shortly after.
Although I cannot accept the 10pm sighting, unless he lost track of time.
The elusive Mrs Goode? that alleged to have seen her in Dorset street, apparently vanished before she could be futher interviewed, but we should remember, that initially this crime was believed to have been a crime of jealously, and was believed amongst locals to have been carried out in daylight hours, mayby because of Lewis/Maxwells accounts.
I tend to believe that the 'Certain circumstances, that were lacking in the other murders... that made it more likely that the killer was assisted' was simply the T.O.D.
Regards Richard.

Donīt remember anything about this being a crime of jealousy. The first reaction from everyone, including the police, seemed to be "Thereīs been another one!" The landlord and rent-collector certainly seemed convinced.

Personally I think we can disregard Mrs Maxwell as mistaken or wanting to boost her own importance. Mary was very well known and if she had been around in the morning more people ought to have seen her. The conversation also sounds a little stilted - "I have the horrors of drink on me"??

It would be interesting to know how many people knew about getting into the room by putting their hand through the window and opening it from the inside. The landlord didnīt seem to know about it and neither did anyone else, it seems, as they resorted to knocking the door down.

[claire]

Hi, Richard,

I find it all rather baffling, too...I also fail to see how time of death could have been adequately established given the state of the body, or lack thereof (although I admit that this suspicion is only due to a bit of armchair pathology!).

You say:

we should remember, that initially this crime was believed to have been a crime of jealously, and was believed amongst locals to have been carried out in daylight hours, mayby because of Lewis/Maxwells accounts.

Could you possibly refer me to contemporary sources for that, please? I'd be much obliged

[richardnunweek]

Hello CD,
If she honestly stated what she believed she had seen, then surely taking everything into account, the description of the woman seen, the clothing seen, the returning of the plates[ verified]..question? Why do we still say, right person /wrong day.
Answer.
Doctors opinion.
The fact remains Maxwell was interviewed the same day as the murder, her account was checked, she knew of Barnett, she knew the woman kelly dispite admitting she had only spoken to her a couple of times, we should also remember, although mayby not a raving beauty , she was rather distinctive looking, and very unlikely to have been mistaken for anyone else in the court.
I believe the medical opinion was wrong, and the educated quess work Bond , and co arrived at,was way off the mark.
I do believe Astracan existed, Blotchy also, but I do not accept one of them was the killer, neither do I accept a night break in.
Although Maurice Lewis account has flaws, I tend to believe there is some truth in his account, as he freely admits to the press that he was playing an illegal game of pitch in millers court when he saw the deseased leave her room , and return shortly after.
Although I cannot accept the 10pm sighting, unless he lost track of time.
The elusive Mrs Goode? that alleged to have seen her in Dorset street, apparently vanished before she could be futher interviewed, but we should remember, that initially this crime was believed to have been a crime of jealously, and was believed amongst locals to have been carried out in daylight hours, mayby because of Lewis/Maxwells accounts.
I tend to believe that the 'Certain circumstances, that were lacking in the other murders... that made it more likely that the killer was assisted' was simply the T.O.D.
Regards Richard.

[c.d.]

I don't think that anyone has ever doubted Mrs. Maxwell's veracity nor is there any reason to do so that I am aware of. I think that she honestly stated what she believed she had seen. However, it is still possible to be mistaken even if you believe that you are telling the truth.

c.d.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Mike,
Mrs Maxwells statement to the police was give on the same day as the body was discovered , ie 1045am 9th, her account was checked, and verified, accordingly.
How is it, this apparent 'level headed woman' of good character, mistook the day , especially as she was carrying plates at the time she spoke to Mjk, and the returning of those items were verified as being on that very same day.?
It was the opinion of Abberline that she was being truthful, and clearly she believed her sanity, by giving her account under oath, dispite the coroners warning that she 'should be careful'.
Right day wrong person.
Granted an explanation, but apparently she knew the woman kelly, and knew of Joseph Barnett, and lets face it. her description of the deseased , must have been acceptable to the police, and verified. to have even reached the inquest...
Hutchinson was asked to view the body on the 13th, to be certain of identification, so I would be surprised if Mrs Maxwell did not visit the mortuary, especially if the police accepted their doctors findings, they would not have wished her to have given, an account which contridicted T.O.D, and would have given her every opportunety to realise a mistake was made.
I have never believed we should ignore Maxwells account , taking into account the whole picture.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Or [ as I believe] was she approached in daylight , outside Ringers around 830am [9th], by the man Mrs Maxwell described at the inquest?

Though this had to have been the 8th or earlier when this happened. There can really be no logical question about that.

Mike

[Chava]

The MJK murder has always been and I think will always be the biggest conundrum in the case. And I've been on the fence for years as to whether she was a Ripper victim or a domestic of some sort. On the whole, if I had to choose, I'd say probably Ripper Victim. Especially when I factor in Nice Mr Blotchy Face and his auburn hair and carroty moustache and blotchy face that do seem to come up over and over in the witness statements of various and sundry murders and almost-murders.

However nothing to say she didn't know him and may already have done business with him. Sutcliffe for sure was doing regular business with prostitutes while he was also killing prostitutes...

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi,
The question has just been asked by Curious in the last post.
Why did Mary Kelly invite someone into her room, with all the local fear in abundance?.
What gave her the confidence to feel safe?
Did she know her killer?
All the reports indicate that she did bring men back to her room on the 8th/9th, so was her judgement impaired, either via alcohol, or was her killer a regular punter, who had been with her during that autumn, and she was still alive, so a false sense of security prevailed.
Or [ as I believe] was she approached in daylight , outside Ringers around 830am [9th], by the man Mrs Maxwell described at the inquest?
Was it this, that gave her the confidence to invite him back to her room, after all the Ripper struck at night, so she would not have felt unsafe, in the safety of Millers court, in broad daylight.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard.....

That would be a hell of a risk knowing a neighbour could quite easily knock on the door at that time of the morning. I wouldn't discount it entirely but on balance I'd suggest unlikely....

According to Cox.....she was bladdered.....and it's well documented that she needed money. No more than that in my opinion.....necessity combined with relaxed inhibitions.

[c.d.]

Hi Curious,

If she wanted to earn money by soliciting, soliciting on the street was no guarantee of safety as evidenced by the previous murders. Maybe she felt safer indoors surrounded by her neighbors.

c.d.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The question has just been asked by Curious in the last post.
Why did Mary Kelly invite someone into her room, with all the local fear in abundance?.
What gave her the confidence to feel safe?
Did she know her killer?
All the reports indicate that she did bring men back to her room on the 8th/9th, so was her judgement impaired, either via alcohol, or was her killer a regular punter, who had been with her during that autumn, and she was still alive, so a false sense of security prevailed.
Or [ as I believe] was she approached in daylight , outside Ringers around 830am [9th], by the man Mrs Maxwell described at the inquest?
Was it this, that gave her the confidence to invite him back to her room, after all the Ripper struck at night, so she would not have felt unsafe, in the safety of Millers court, in broad daylight.
Regards Richard.

[curious4]

mjk

Sorry, Phil H, canīt agree with you this time. MJK was apparently known for her distinctive hair - colour and probably style as well - so that it would have been easy to identify her by that alone - hair being important at the time to a womanīs perceived beauty. To me, one of the saddest things about the MJK photo is the carefully arranged hair around the mutilated face.

Also, given the chance to "work" undisturbed indoors, the killer went much further with his mutilations but still in the same way. Just a thought though, doesnīt it make sense that she would not invite anyone she didnīt know into her room, considering the fear of JTR at the time.

"Follow your inclinations with due regard to the policeman around the corner"
- Somerset Maugham

[MrTwibbs]

There is no way on this earth that each killing would have been the same.....due to all of the factors that he couldn't control.

Very true and this is due to so many factors such as evolution of a killer, changes in circumstances, surroundings etc.

If a murder appears worse than the next this is usually due to experience and opportunity. Stride or MJK should not be discounted as a victim of JTR because again it could have been due to circumstances and opportunity. Sometimes killers do not carry out their usual acts because somethings don't feel right. Dahmer is an example as he went from murder to molestation (he had the chance to murder) then back to murder. The same applies to not just serial killers

[Fleetwood Mac]

Basically I have come to perceive a close similarity between the murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes - outdoors, almost identical mutilations - perhaps growing slightly worse - always against wooden fencing or gates where the victim appears to have led him. The type of woman too - faded, drunk, desperate is very much the same.

I would say that he would have been in a room with each one given the chance....also I would say that it's less risky to kill someone in their home than on the street.

If it's a choice between a) the likelihood of two killers disemboweling women in the same area at the same time or b) one killer who had to work with opportunity that to a certain extent was outside of his control.....then I'd go for choice b...comfortably.

I'm really struggling to see how MJK was not a JTR victim.

There is no way on this earth that each killing would have been the same.....due to all of the factors that he couldn't control.

I would say that Joe Barnett could have identified her by hair and ears....I know I could identify girlfriends from years back by hair and ears.....and if you believe he's lying then he has to be caught up in that....and to me this isn't a jealous lover on a murder spree.

[Zodiac]

Hi John,

So who's this Occam bloke? And what's he doing wandering around Whitechapel at night armed with a razor??? It all sounds very suspicious to me!!!

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

[CJ Thompson]

My response to this question (and the to follow-up posts) is to invoke the 'Occams Razor' principle... Why start postulating different identities to the supposed Mary Kelly corpse without compelling evidence for doing so?

Firstly, the room in which the alleged MJK body was found was actually rented to that same MJK. Secondly, several persons described a woman entering that room on the night in question, and, whether correctly or not, they named that person as actually being MJK.

Ultimately, and perhaps most importantly, there has never been any credible evidence of anyone coming forward to claim themselves to be a surviving MJK at all! To borrow Twain's wittiness, no credible claim has been made that MJK's death has been anything other than grossly exaggerated. Surely, if MJK *had*, in fact, survived her supposed death, wouldn't we expect her to come forward?

We can always *suppose* that the Millers Court body actually belonged to somebody other than MJK, but, wouldn't be a fundamental mistake to start postulating theories based on this presumption without some very, very specific and compelling evidence in support?

John Thompson