MKJ murder, NOT mjk?

[Rubyretro]

[

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”.

Call this an 'insight' if you want..

I have always been very touched by Mary looking forward to singing ballads to Blotchy whilst enjoying a few beers ; Lots of people enjoy a singalong in a group with musicians in a pub environment, but singing alone in front of an audience (even one man), implies that she particularly enjoyed singing - and people that enjoy singing alone are usually good at it..

Being good at singing that type of ballad means being an actress and getting into 'character' and 'living' those stories -so many of which involve
dead husbands, disasters, rural Ireland and exotic luxurious 'french' details..
all with a florid melancholic romanticism.

I think that she was inspired by the ballads that she sung to weave fantasies
that would give her 'performances' even more power and pathos..

[Bob Hinton]

[



Call this an 'insight' if you want..

I have always been very touched by Mary looking forward to singing ballads to Blotchy whilst enjoying a few beers ; Lots of people enjoy a singalong in a group with musicians in a pub environment, but singing alone in front of an audience (even one man), implies that she particularly enjoyed singing - and people that enjoy singing alone are usually good at it..

Being good at singing that type of ballad means being an actress and getting into 'character' and 'living' those stories -so many of which involve
dead husbands, disasters, rural Ireland and exotic luxurious 'french' details..
all with a florid melancholic romanticism.

I think that she was inspired by the ballads that she sung to weave fantasies
that would give her 'performances' even more power and pathos..

Or it was just another drunk singing a maudlin song. How many times has
Danny Boy ( The Londonderry Air) been sung by drunks in pubs? I would suggest more times than sung on a stage.

The fact is that there were an awful lot of children in those days who literally slipped through the cracks, you can compare them with children in places like Somalia today.

One day they wake up with no parents, no relatives nothing. Now given a choice in years to come don't you think that they would fabricate for themselves a life of tragedy and pathos to explain their present situation. Much better than simply admitting that sometimes horrible things happen to nice people.

Who has not constructed for themselves a more glamorous past when dissalusioned with reality? Look at Charles Hawtrey!

[Rubyretro]

[

QUOTE=Bob Hinton;140191]Or it was just another drunk singing a maudlin song

.

AAww..poor Mary ! It can be sincere and romantic and maudlin drunk at the same time : We can be generous.

The main thing is -yes, I agree that she probably wove fantasies, which make it nigh on impossible to trace her from the MJK end (but traces might exist somewhere , if ever we could guess where to begin looking, and then could link the ends).

[claire]

The other possibility is that she told, mainly, the truth--but that these things are just extraordinarily hard to trace. There are things that she said that seem to play out (2nd Btn Scots' Gds in Ireland, for eg.), and others that we can't definitively link her to. Personally, I don't think her account of herself was that glamorous; whereas it's possible she invented or embellished some elements of it, I don't think we should take it for granted with this attitude of, oh come on, a poor Irish/Welsh whore, how would she go to France? The fact is, much of what she described is perfectly plausible, just as it is plausible that an attractive woman in her mid-twenties could fall for the drink and not be fit for work anywhere other than the East End.

No, we haven't found the definitive answer on who Mary Kelly absolutely is, as far as we know. But there are candidates aplenty, and we shouldn't excuse our failings, or the paucity of records, by suggesting that MJK's account of herself was all BS.

[Robert]

There is yet another possibility, and that is that it wasn't the real Miller's Court - just a cardboard replica.

[Abby Normal]

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.

I thought I read somewhere that the 2 witnesses in the morning may have been talking about a different mary kelly?

[Chava]

The other possibility is that she told, mainly, the truth--but that these things are just extraordinarily hard to trace. There are things that she said that seem to play out (2nd Btn Scots' Gds in Ireland, for eg.), and others that we can't definitively link her to. Personally, I don't think her account of herself was that glamorous; whereas it's possible she invented or embellished some elements of it, I don't think we should take it for granted with this attitude of, oh come on, a poor Irish/Welsh whore, how would she go to France? The fact is, much of what she described is perfectly plausible, just as it is plausible that an attractive woman in her mid-twenties could fall for the drink and not be fit for work anywhere other than the East End.

No, we haven't found the definitive answer on who Mary Kelly absolutely is, as far as we know. But there are candidates aplenty, and we shouldn't excuse our failings, or the paucity of records, by suggesting that MJK's account of herself was all BS.

MJK is someone who may or may not have invented herself when she left Cardiff. (That's if she ever lived in Cardiff!) Absent the ability to cross-examine her in person, we will never know if the name she lived under was the name she was born with or married into. I've been over and over that Welsh minding disaster and can't find any candidates, but that's not to say her young love didn't fall down a shaft or got banged on the head or caught an infection in a wound acquired in an explosion. Or maybe he did indeed die in one of the terrible mining accidents that killed so many men, and we've missed him. Or Barnett got the name wrong. Or whatever.

I'll live with never knowing more about MJK than I do now. But I don't like the tendency to the romantic that I see here and in other places. No one seems to shed tears over the blighted lives of the other, older, less attractive victims. They are accepted as the low-level prostitutes and drunks that they appear to be. Yet MJK is perhaps someone who loves to sing! Who gets into character in order to belt out her ditty to poor and perhaps murderous Blotchy Face. I can't remember anyone writing about how good poor Catherine Eddowes was at imitations. But I imagine her turn as a fire-engine was at least as accomplished as MJK's rendition of Victorian parlour songs.

[claire]

I agree with you, Chava...and have trawled the same darned lists and followed all sorts of wild hunches. I suppose, though, that some of the need, such as it is (at least in my case), to put some ticks next to some basic information about Mary comes simply from a desire to give her something of a life, rather than just a barbaric death. At the very least, we know some basic facts about the others of the C5, and most of the other possible victims--I don't like the romanticisation of Mary any more than you, but I do wish we could offer her something definite to remember her for than her murder alone.

[Chava]

I agree with you, Chava...and have trawled the same darned lists and followed all sorts of wild hunches. I suppose, though, that some of the need, such as it is (at least in my case), to put some ticks next to some basic information about Mary comes simply from a desire to give her something of a life, rather than just a barbaric death. At the very least, we know some basic facts about the others of the C5, and most of the other possible victims--I don't like the romanticisation of Mary any more than you, but I do wish we could offer her something definite to remember her for than her murder alone.

That's an excellent post and a very good point. We do know more about the others and we know nothing about her. I believe it's because she was living under an alias and had done so for a while. I don't know her reasons for this, but it means that her family probably had no idea that she was dead. The letters she appears to have received from a soldier may have been from a former lover rather than a brother, so that may go nowhere either.

Sadly, she is remembered for who she said she was. I suspect that some family somewhere has a tradition of a cousin or an aunt who ran off and was never heard of again and who was thought to have gone to America or whatever. And that will be MJK.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.