Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[Krinoid]

I posted this elsewhere but it is relevant here, need some answers :

http://fjlathome2.blogspot.com/2011/07/lets-see-how-it-goes.html

about 1/2 way down he mentions the secret file of Chief John Littlechild!!
Is there any truth to this?
Special Branch police, survived in the Special Branch police files???

[Graham]

Take a look here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

(Don't think I've put the link in correctly, but you get the idea. It's a long thread).

Maybe there was more discussion on the subject on the pre-crash boards.

Good luck!

G

[Simon Wood]

Hi Krinoid,

Don't believe all you read.

FJL caused a lot of trouble, made things impossible for genuine researchers and generally spouted a load of bollocks.

Regards,

Simon

[Krinoid]

Hi Krinoid,

Don't believe all you read.

FJL caused a lot of trouble, made things impossible for genuine researchers and generally spouted a load of bollocks.

Regards,

Simon

The file he mentions is a lie then?

[RivkahChaya]

I'm open to the possibility that the woman was misidentified, but that still leaves open the question of what happened to MJK. If she discovered the body herself, and then decided to disappear (and if I were writing a novel, did the facial mutilations herself on the corpse, so it was unrecognizable), it was really careless of her to speak to anyone who knew her once she'd made that decision, so I think the witness who claimed to have seen her was just mistaken either way.

Apparently it wasn't the first time that she left wherever she was, leaving no forwarding address, and she lied about her past, whether because the truth didn't live up to her fantasies, or just to make herself untraceable, I don't know, though.

However, the easiest explanation is still that the victim was her, and I don't really see any evidence that it wasn't. The only argument, really, is that the body would have been difficult to identify. However, Barnett knew her pretty well, and unless he had some motivation to lie, I think making an identification based on "her hair," which is really to say, the whole crown and back of her head, and shape of it, since I don't think her skull was fractured, is more reliable than we might think at first blush. Usually, we can identify people we know very well from the back.

Also, unless she did come home and find the body herself, I can't think of any other way for her to know what had happened, without other people knowing she was still alive, and then gotten the heck out of Dodge. Unlikely, but not impossible, I guess.

Is there any reason to believe that Mary Kelly was looking for a way to disappear? Aside from the rent being in arrears, was she in any special trouble?

I'd guess that, although Whitechapel was crowded with 'unfortunates', lives generally must have been quite lonely and joyless which could lead someone to crave attention to the point of making false statements.

Which makes me wonder something else; since the little we know about MJK seems to suggest she was a bit histrionic, I wonder if she wouldn't have gotten more mileage out of discovering the body, and telling the tale, not to mention being the star witness at the inquest, and if she would have passed that up for the opportunity to disappear. If she chose to disappear, she must have had a specific and pressing reason, I think.

One thing which I do think is strange is the the fact that the body found at Millers court was hurriedly buried and the inquest seems rushed compared to the others, when you'd think that this would not be case given that this crime involved the highest level of violence.

The body had a lot more blood and "meat," if you will, exposed, and had been in a warm room, instead of a chilly night, plus, it had been around for hours before it was discovered, not to mention being in pieces. It was probably decomposing much more swiftly than the others.

I don't know whether there was a rule about not burying the body before the inquest, but they didn't have the means to refrigerate it, and preserving the entire thing some other way would have been a hefty task. Also, there was a bit of a jurisdictional war going on; didn't the Spitalfields coroner rush the inquest in order to hold on to jurisdiction? Whitechapel was trying to get it, on the grounds that it was clearly part of their larger JTR case. I'm not sure where I read that-- I can't find a reference right now, but I'm pretty certain it was in a respectable book.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Krinoid,

That he is a she.

Given all that dedicated researchers have learned since this rag-bag of theories and spurious evidence first saw the light of day, I would say that that the answer to your question appears to be distinctly in the affirmative.

Regards,

Simon

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Lets look at a list of possible suspicious circumstances ..
Mary Kelly was so badly disfigured that in her face injuries , one could not tell where the cuts began and ended .
She had done her best [ and succeeded ]in getting Barnett to leave her, and the eve of the 8TH was the second night that week she did not have Harvey as a sleepover, indeed she had informed Mrs H, that she had other plans that night, which resulted in a bonnet being purposely left.
She had informed a young resident that she intended to make ''away with herself'' if she could not obtain money on the very eve of her death.
She had made it known that, she had a bad dream recently that she was ''being murdered''.
She had on the very night of her death, acted strangely, not only changing clothes between 9am-1145, but also returning home without visiting ''The Blue boy'' as was normal.
The coincidences.
The two women and one man, the latter trying to entice the better dressed one to go with him in Dorset street.
The couple seen to enter the court by a group of men opposite, laughing at the reward poster.
The rumour that Kelly had leased her room for immoral means that evening .
The whole Hutchinson saga, involving her meeting the ''bogey man'', the play acting ,the kiss,the final act of entering the passage to her room.
The sightings by Maxwell, Maurice Lewis, and a woman called Goode during daylight.
The phrase 'The horrors of drink''.
And to boot..the mysterious opinion, held by the police, that the murder was in daylight , and the velvet jacket , and remains of a bonnet, were burnt because they were bloodstained...why?
Indeed the whole scenario of the actual murder scene, the entry and exit mystery, the fire , the positioning of the bedclothes, her clothing have to be looked at without just acceptance...
Regards Richard.

[RivkahChaya]

FJL caused a lot of trouble, made things impossible for genuine researchers and generally spouted a load of bollocks.

OK, I give, who is FJL?

Lets look at a list of possible suspicious circumstances ..

At this point, if someone told me that the whole thing was a hoax, and 1888 is having a good laugh at our expense, I might believe it.

[Robert]

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1456078.cyberstalker_caught/

[Hunter]

I don't know whether there was a rule about not burying the body before the inquest, but they didn't have the means to refrigerate it, and preserving the entire thing some other way would have been a hefty task. Also, there was a bit of a jurisdictional war going on; didn't the Spitalfields coroner rush the inquest in order to hold on to jurisdiction? Whitechapel was trying to get it, on the grounds that it was clearly part of their larger JTR case. I'm not sure where I read that-- I can't find a reference right now, but I'm pretty certain it was in a respectable book.

I think Macdonald was trying to show himself as more efficient in conducting inquests than Baxter had exhibited, and more cooperative with the police (he had been a police surgeon). While some in the press did try to make an issue over jurisdiction, Spitafields was part of Macdonald's district. He had no need to rush the inquest in order to hold onto jurisdiction.

It was somewhat confusing because the Eastern District of Middlesex (which had been Baxter's) had just recently been divided by Order of Council in May, followed by the election of Macdonald to the northern district in June. Baxter retained the Southern district (now with half pay, but that's another story). All of this was compounded by the fact that Spitafields had no mortuary.

[kensei]

However, the easiest explanation is still that the victim was her, and I don't really see any evidence that it wasn't. The only argument, really, is that the body would have been difficult to identify. However, Barnett knew her pretty well, and unless he had some motivation to lie, I think making an identification based on "her hair," which is really to say, the whole crown and back of her head, and shape of it, since I don't think her skull was fractured, is more reliable than we might think at first blush. Usually, we can identify people we know very well from the back.

Agreed- a woman's hair is one of her most distinctive features. Barnett had been living with Kelly, sleeping with her, making love to her, running his fingers through that hair, for a very long time. Though bloodstained, her hair was still done up for her night on the town and he would have known how she liked to wear it. Plus there was her general height and build which would have also contributed to his identification of her. Perhaps she even had moles or other marks on parts of her body that were still intact that he recognized but didn't feel comfortable mentioning. She was ginger haired- perhaps she had a few freckles too.

Question- did Barnett view the body at the crime scene or was he allowed to view it after it had been pieced back together as best the coroners could? I'm sure I've read the answer somewhere but it escapes me at the moment. That would have been significant as well.

Now, whenever the subject of MJK being seen alive in the late morning comes up, I always cite a modern case that I think is relevent, that being the murder of mother and daughter Carol and Juli Sund and their exchange student friend Silvina Pelosso by serial killer Cary Anthony Stayner in Yosemite National Park in 1999. The victims were missing for several days before their bodies were found. During the search, there was a woman who told investigators that the three had stopped into the store she operated in the area on a certain day after they'd been reported missing but before she had heard about it. She was adamant that she had the date right, and included such detail as speaking with Silvina Pelosso about how she was from Argentina. They're still alive, she insisted! I saw them and I know for certain that it was on this date!

Wrong. It was eventually established that the three had all died on the night they disappeared and the woman's story was impossible, having happened earlier than she said if it did indeed happen at all. This simply happens sometimes. People can be absolutely 100% certain that things happened on certain dates, even within very recent memory, and still be mistaken.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Just noticed I put change of clothes 9am[ should be 9pm].
But whilst I'm here..
It is clear by the initial police opinion, that the murder was committed in daylight, that the reason the fire was lit was not for light, but possibly to get rid of possible evidence of events.
They seemed to have held the view that the velvet jacket[ which belonged to Kelly] , along with the bonnet, was burnt solely because they were smeared with blood.
For that to have been the case , these items must either have been worn by the victim at the time of the attack, or on the bed when attacked..
If the former, it would place doubt on Mrs Cox's sighting at 1145pm, as the clothing then worn by Kelly was completely different.
However it would suggest that Mrs Praters version was likely, ie, Mary left at 9pm wearing the jacket and bonnet, thus returned home in the same items.
That being the case it would appear that she was attacked by either someone who accompanied her home, or someone waiting in her room., and these clothes were removed before mutilation took place.
If this was not the case, we have the situation where the clothes were on the bed when Kelly was attacked, and they were saturated with blood during the course of events.
Question.
Did MJK. leave the items slung on the bed whilst she slept, or were they placed on the bed as she was about to dress? which would indicate daylight.
But why would the killer cut up a jacket and toss a bonnet onto a purposely lit fire to destroy..?
Would these blood smeared items indicate that T.O.D was not during the night, or were they worn by the person actually involved in the murder, and burnt..?
The police believed something along these lines to have given the press on the 12TH this view.
I don't know what this all means folks, but needs to be said....
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Kensei,
Mrs Maxwell's statement is unique, as she gave it on the very same day as the body was discovered.
Her sighting and conversation happened, whilst she was carrying plates to return to their owner, she had the sighting on the very day that she visited a milk shop [ that was confirmed]that she had not been too for a long time.
The items of clothing Kelly was wearing, were found in room 13.
It seems impossible for her to have mistaken both the day , or the person, the only explanation would be a deliberate lie..
That would be suspicious especially as she lived at 14 Dorset street , the very address a Ripper correspondence was allegedly sent from, was she protecting someone, and if so why, and who??
These coincidences only complicate, which is already a vast puzzle.
Regards Richard.

[RavenDarkendale]

I'm not sure I believe anything that Mr H says - other than that he stood watching the archway for a long time.

Indeed. Can you say "STALKER", perhaps? Why else watch a room where a lady known to prostitute herself has just taken a client?

[RavenDarkendale]

Hello Richard

I think I've read about that case you mention. Sadly, people do get confused on identity. But the lady in the store was a stranger. The ones who mention seeing MJK knew her personally.

Why would she speak to anyone if she wanted to disappear? She may have felt it would arouse suspicion if she didn't speak. After all there was that dead body in her room...

MJK getting a drink is hardly an oddity as she drank a lot anyway, and had discovered that body, especially if, as RivkahChaya suggested, she ruined the face herself. Where did she go? People disappear every day without a trace. A new town where she isn't known, an alias, a new start.

I had no idea this thread would do this well when I started it! Much good discussion!