MKJ murder, NOT mjk?

[spyglass]

Hi Dixon9 !
The first time I came across the imformer possibility was in the book " Mammoth Book Of JTR " it contains lots of different theories by different authors. The chapter I refere to was written by Ripperoligist Mike Warren titled the Great Conspiracy.
It goes along the lines of fenien activity, which has gained quite a bit of intrest on these boards over the last few months.
But always keep an open mind.

[SaraCarter33]

This is a very interesting debate, however the injuries Mary Jane Kelly sustained is to strong for me to believe MJK was'nt a canonical victim, I do believe she was a canonical victim.

Just putting my two cents in.

[Bob Hinton]

Very interesting but,

The title of this thread is 'MKJ murder not MJK'. OK I'll buy it who is MKJ?

It is quite a common comment that MJK's life is a complete mystery, but so would most of the inhabitants of the East End at that time. I would lay odds that at least 85% of people would have an impenetrable past in those days.

[claire]

I think you're right, Bob...we've fallen into this trap of believing that she was oh-so-mysterious because it has proved easier to trace information regarding the other victims (presuming the C5). None of that is any surprise: the others were older women with more history to find; they'd been around the area for longer than Mary.
Nowadays, if you hit a blank in someone's background, it looks suspicious. Not so 120 years ago when NI numbers and phone books and bank a/cs weren't the norm. Plus, the fact that Mary's 'confessors' were few and that there may well have been some circumstance(s) she wished to remain secret from JB et al, mean it's not surprising we know little.
As for 'was it her?' Course it was. Until we have documentary evidence to suggest that it may not have been, we have more reason to assume that it was...Funny that we know nothing about her, and yet we are so keen to rescue her from a vile fate that we simultaneously convey upon another unknown woman.

[richardnunweek]

Hello,
I am known for being slightly speculative, so heres my angle.
Mary Kelly was involved in Fenian activities, and she believed the net was closing in by the authorities.
It was decided to kill her off, but there was a twist, a person of the same age , height, and hair length had to be found, and Mary kelly, and two men set the operation for the early hours of the 9th november, kelly making sure that she had no sleepovers that night.
Scenerio.
Mjk, along with a young man of respectable appearance ,enticed the chosen victim along to Dorset street, and the suggestion was made by the young man that the young female[ not mjk] went with him to kellys room.
However it took some effort verbally to entice her there,
Meanwhile.
Mary walks off to meet the second man, at a prearranged location Thrawl street, when she meets George Hutchinson, which was perfect, because she and her associate waiting on the corner could playact prostitute , and client .
Hutch was curious and followed the couple to Dorset street where they play acted some more, before entering the court and into room 13.
The deed was done, the victim was disfigured, the young womans clothes were worn out of that room by Kelly, leaving all her belongings in the room.
Maxwell was mistaken, or was paid to lie, to confuse the police on the TOD.
Do I believe all of the above, it would make a good B movie plot, but.... No I dont
Regards Richard.

[SaraCarter33]

The title of this thread is 'MKJ murder not MJK'. OK I'll buy it who is MKJ?

It is quite a common comment that MJK's life is a complete mystery, but so would most of the inhabitants of the East End at that time. I would lay odds that at least 85% of people would have an impenetrable past in those days.

I am well aware of the damn title bob, i was just stating my opinion sheesh, there was no need to come down on me like that. forgive me for stating my opinion yeesh.

[Phil H]

It is quite a common comment that MJK's life is a complete mystery, but so would most of the inhabitants of the East End at that time. I would lay odds that at least 85% of people would have an impenetrable past in those days.

Is that so?

It seems to me - and I am no genealogical researcher - that a great deal HAS been found out about a HUGE range of Eastenders of the 1888 period. OK, there may be confusion between a couple of contenders for a named individual - such as Barnett; or we may be surprised by what we find (Joe Fleming) but we find something.

With MJK almost everything seems to run up against a blank whether one researches the Welsh or Irish sources. Should we not, by now, have found something out about the disaster that killed her husband to give just one example.

Further, not one member of her family is recorded as attending her funeral or commenting on her death. That was not so with other victims.

Even with Liz Stride, who may have been a serial liar (the Princess Alice disaster, fate of her husband, children etc) and may also have assumed various alternative identies to make money, this has been uncovered.

On which basis, I believe it is reasonable to assume that there is something "odd" about MJK's story, even her identity. Until we know more, it is safe to assume that others will use the vacuum as a place to weave yet more conspiracy theories - making her a nurse to this person, or a friend of that, a model for Sickert or a Fenian agent (my "tipple" where MJK is concerned).

So while there may be mysteries in the East End, I think that there is something exceptional about MJK in the context of the investigations and researches in which we are interested - and that's all that matters, isn't it?

Phil

[claire]

Actually, it's odd that the two individuals you mention, Phil--Barnett and Fleming--are two more that we battle over a positive identification for...and strange that both are connected to the person we know least about.

I'm not a committed tippler when it comes to the Fenian theories, although I don't mind giving it a try once in a while. But I do think Ms Kelly/Davies had a few secrets behind her; whether I believe these led to her death depends on the amount I've had to drink on any one day (metaphorically and literally). But I do really have to squint hard to pin her as C. #5.

[Limehouse]

hi,
given that at least two witnesses claimed to have conversed with MJK from 8am onwards and that there were reports of people hearing someone scream 'murder' how likely is it that MJK let another prostitute use her room? MJK could of been the one to scream 'murder' upon finding the scene, she also may of recognised an oportunity to vanish? While i doubt that the identity of the victim has much bearing on the case I do wonder if it was indeed MJK at all. I'd be very surprised if anyone could seriously identify the body after such extreme mutilations.

Hi Versa,

It's an interesting theory but if MJK saw it as an opportunity to disappear, why did she allow herelf to be seen by two witesses the following morning? Why not hop it as soon as the body is discovered?

[Limehouse]

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.

Stride I have come to see as a domestic - the murder much more readily explained if Kidney killed her because she had left him for another man - probably Jewish. Her murder scene was too public, she was not drunk (for once in her life) and she was assaulted and thrown to the ground in the presence of witnesses. Dutfield's Yard was too open, potentially too busy. Also the murder was the wrong side of Whitechapel Road.

Finally, I had never been happy with the idea of a frantic Ripper seeking another victim and finding Eddowes.

So the idea that not all the "canonical" killings were the work of JtR was familiar to me when I came to look at MJK afresh.

I find a different sort of victim (age, type, looks), a different scene (a room) different mutilations, and a long gap from Eddowes. I think MJK's killer could have been "inspired" by Jack, and perhaps tried to emulate him without knowing what Jack had done.

To my mind, the killer of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes would never have allowed himself to be "trapped" in a room - there was no other way out except the door. I have always thought that Hanbury St was risky for him - potentially hemmed in, but just possibly he might have been there before, and cased the joint, as it were. I don't think that was true of Miller's Court.

Also, if Barnett is to be believed, MJK was frightened of something or someone. (I don't think, on the evidence I have seen so far, that Barnett killed her, by the way - it just does not convince me.)

My mind is open to the idea that MJK might have been caught up in something "political" (Fenian probably) and even that she might have lived and another been killed in her place - accidentally or purposefully.

So - while my current state of mind might not persuade others - I am open to the possibility that more than one killer was at work (indeed, if you reckon the parallel torso murders and the stabber of Tabram etc, there were probably multiple killers at work in late 1888) and indeed to other possibilities in regard to MJK.

I rest my case,

Phil

Food for thought indeed Phil, but it's worth considering that Peter Sutcliffe, to my mind a similar type of attacker, attacked women from the age of 16 to 47. He attacked most women outdoors but one of his vicitms was killed in her own flat. Most of his victims were killed by hammer blows to the head but one was strangled. In some cases he mutilated victims but not in all cases and the mutilations seemed quite randome (possibly because he did not always have the same tools with him and he may have sometimes had opportunities to attacke presented to him that were unexpected.

Killer cannot always follow a pattern because vicitms do not always present themselves at the time and place suited to the attacker.

JtR was, I believe, working with the opportunities as they presented themselves. It is generally right to conclude that the severity of the attacks increased from Nicholls to Chapman to Eddowes. This could be because the attacker's confidence and 'skill' were increasing (it is difficult to drag a knife through skin, muscle etc) but also because the murder locations of Chapman and Eddowes were 'somewhat' isolated compared with Bucks Row (although still enormopusly risky for what he achieved).

However, I agree to some extent that Kelly's room was risky in that if cought, he was trapped. However, compared with other the other locations, Kelly's room presented considerable opportunity to perform the extreme level of mutilation that the attacker aspired to.

Stride? I have mixed feelings but I am more inclined these days to conclude that it was a domestic-type attack, probably not ripper related.

[Limehouse]

I am well aware of the damn title bob, i was just stating my opinion sheesh, there was no need to come down on me like that. forgive me for stating my opinion yeesh.

Take no notice Sara. We all make typing errors and in most cases we can read around them and understand what was intended. You must keep on posting as your ideas and views are valuable and interesting.

Julie

[harry]

I would agree with Bob Hinton that in those days,the majority would leave little in the way of who and what they had been.Take the Victoria Home.Hundreds might have passed time there,but except maybe for a few lists of names,there would be nothing.Thats just one example,and Whitechapel alone had many,if smaller establishments of that kind.Even today,a person may know little of his neighbours.Had Kelly been born and lived most of her life in the district,there would have been more who were familiar with her,but she wasn't.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]I think that (as someone already pointed out) there is something in the human psychology that likes a mystery, and wants historical characters( that they have put a face to) to have survived the worst..

Two examples would be Anastasia, daughter of the last Russian Tsar
(a great debate in my childhood, and now definitely proved to be false), and
the Princes in the Tower ('they were moved to Burgundy under an assumed name'). There are many more examples but, for me, they fall into 'Urban Myth' category.

If the body of MJK was identified by Joe, a man who knew her intimately, as well as other people -then I think that they were most PROBABLY right.

Imagine for a few horrible minutes that your beloved child or partner had been hacked about by JtR in the same way as MJK had been -wouldn't YOU be able to identify them by their eyes/ears/hair etc ?? I'm sure that I could.

The next question is -why were there no members of Mary's family at her funeral, nor relatives who came forward to claim her to the Press ? Well perhaps it would have been a monumental effort for them to have left animals or crops (if they were rural) and to have found the money and wherewithal to have got to London and back ,from Wales or Ireland ?

They might also have not wanted to 'besmirch the Family', if Mary had been described as indulging in alcohol and prostitution, by the papers.

Also, as to the traceability of 'ordinary East Enders' - I think that it all depends on wher e you begin. I know that my cousin, whose hobby is the genealogy of my Mother's family, has unearthed an awful lot of information (working from New Zealand) on the ordinary people in our family (including some East Enders). She had family information and the family information supplied by other members of our 'Tree' (that she met through her research)as clues. So it all depends on your point of departure.

I know that, concerning the Welsh family members, there was an awful lot of info written into Bible fly leaves.

So the biographical details of MJK may still be there, just waiting to be unearthed....

[Bob Hinton]

Wth

I am well aware of the damn title bob, i was just stating my opinion sheesh, there was no need to come down on me like that. forgive me for stating my opinion yeesh.

You need to lighten up a bit dear. My post, at least the first part was what they call 'tongue in cheek'.

[Bob Hinton]

Is that so?

It seems to me - and I am no genealogical researcher - that a great deal HAS been found out about a HUGE range of Eastenders of the 1888 period. OK, there may be confusion between a couple of contenders for a named individual - such as Barnett; or we may be surprised by what we find (Joe Fleming) but we find something.

With MJK almost everything seems to run up against a blank whether one researches the Welsh or Irish sources. Should we not, by now, have found something out about the disaster that killed her husband to give just one example.

Further, not one member of her family is recorded as attending her funeral or commenting on her death. That was not so with other victims.

Even with Liz Stride, who may have been a serial liar (the Princess Alice disaster, fate of her husband, children etc) and may also have assumed various alternative identies to make money, this has been uncovered.

On which basis, I believe it is reasonable to assume that there is something "odd" about MJK's story, even her identity. Until we know more, it is safe to assume that others will use the vacuum as a place to weave yet more conspiracy theories - making her a nurse to this person, or a friend of that, a model for Sickert or a Fenian agent (my "tipple" where MJK is concerned).

So while there may be mysteries in the East End, I think that there is something exceptional about MJK in the context of the investigations and researches in which we are interested - and that's all that matters, isn't it?

Phil

I quite accept the fact you are not a genealogical researcher. Your statement that “that a great deal HAS been found out about a HUGE range of Eastenders of the 1888 period.” is simply not so. A very few facts have been found out about a minute amount of people. These facts have been discovered in the main because they had family or close friends who could provide leads.

You are basing your statement on the lack of information about MJK by saying all leads seem to come to a dead end. What leads? We have absolutely nothing at all on MJK other than what came from her in the first place. So if she was a fantasist, which does seem very likely, then you have absolutely nothing to go on.

Let me give you an example. If you go on my Facebook page you have a load of information about me, my name, age, birth date, where I went to school etc. However if you tried to research me through that information you would get nowhere because it is all completely false. There’s nothing mysterious about me, I’m not the subject of some great conspiracy, it’s just that the information I have given the world is wrong.

How many John and Jane Does end up in morgues all over the world every day simply because we have no information to establish their identity – even with all the massive technology we have at our disposal. There’s nothing sinister in that it’s simply we don’t know where to start.

You say “. Should we not, by now, have found something out about the disaster that killed her husband to give just one example”. Yes possibly IF the story she told was true – which in all likelihood was not but simply a “sympathy getter”.

Just imagine MJK was an orphan, brought up in a workhouse and on the streets at 13. She may not even know her own real name or story so constructs one for herself. How much would you find out about her if she was alive? Now think how much more difficult it would be if she were dead.