Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[Edward]

...and another thing ... (or two)

Hello Again -

While we're at it, here are a couple of things that seem unusual. This newspaper report:

Morning Advertiser (London)
10 November 1888
Morris Lewis, a tailor, states he was playing pitch-and-toss in the court at nine o'clock yesterday morning, and an hour before that he saw the woman leave the house and return with some milk.

If this is an accurate statement (I'm NOT doubting Morris' veracity), what happened to the milk bottle? I do not recall a milk bottle being listed as one of the items found in Number 13. Additionally, there is no mention of milk in the contents of the victim's stomach.

Another thing that I find curious is this: If you had just discovered a butchered victim in your room (and you suspect that you were the intended target), why would you linger around the murder site? Wouldn't you get as far away as fast as you could? Perhaps Mary was throwing up in the street immediately after discovering the victim? In which case, where was she the rest of the night?

Random thoughts,
Edward

[Beowulf]

I would like to know how he managed to cut her throat with her laying in bed like that.

He didn't have the advantage of sneaking up behind her, no element of surprise ambush.

I would think just to be there and lean over her with a knife would arouse her to a movement to fight him off and leave a different blood pattern, or something.

Also, I have read she was moved in the bed so he could sit there and do his work. So, then, at first she was farther away, meaning he'd have to get into the bed a bit and lean way over, very difficult to slash a throat like that I would think.

[Edward]

Oh Murder!

Hello All -

Medical evidence demonstrates that the woman murdered in Number 13 that night was lying on the side of the bed nearest the wall (or partition) when she was killed. (blood was pooled beneath that side of the bed). If the victim cried, "Oh Murder!" from that position, is it likely that the utterance would it be heard by two people in Miller's Court as if "at the door", -or- "as if from the court"?

It appears to me that someone other than the victim cried "Oh Murder!". The victim's cry would undoubtedly be muffled if uttered from that side of the bed with the door closed. (even with broken window panes)

Best Regards,
Edward

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael.

Hi Wickerman,

I didnt mean to casually dismiss your concerns with my post, just intended to point out some things that often are passed over. To respond to your post Ive put my response immediately after it...

I know you were not being dismissive, and to be clear, I don't wholly support Maxwell &Co. either. What I am pointing out is that the possibility exists that "we" put too much faith in Cox, not that she lied about coming and going, but that the times she gave may not be wholly trustworthy. And, if she was mistaken about the 1:00 am & 3:00 am it may put a whole different light on events that night.

True, but we know that she lived in that court and had to pass by Marys room to get to hers whenever she went in or out. She knew Mary. None of the witnesses that say they saw Mary after 11:45pm did.

Cox knew Mary Jane for 8 months, Maxwell had known Mary Jane for 4 months. It appears they both knew Mary.

The term "blotchy" was Mary-Ann's, others may have used different adjectives.

Correct, but the image is the same plus, the police had a description to go on, and a red "carroty" moustache is a noticeable feature.

Interesting then that Mrs Maxwell was warned her testimony contradicted almost everyone elses before she spoke, and Mary Ann Cox was presented to the jury without a codicil.

Maxwell's testimony ran contra to the medical opinion that MJK had been dead several hours before Dr. Phillips arrived.
At this point in the Inquiry no-one had suggested that Blotchy was the killer. So Maxwell's testimony did not contradict Cox. Blotchy was possibly just one of several? visitors that night.

Frankly I believe the cry of "murder" at that time, which was heard very often throughout the East End for reasons such as discovering soiled shoes, or burning dinner, most having nothing to do with murder or even assault. I believe it was uttered as about shock or surprise, not about any attack commencement. Who cried murder is far more important than the wording. Mary was initially attacked while on the bed in her chemise and when at the right hand side of the bed....if Mary cried murder to be heard as if "at the door", and "as if from the court", she wasnt in the bed being attacked, she was at her open door, or in bed as someone opened it.

Well that's an interesting interpretation.

Well one thing is for sure, Mary was alive at 1am because she was heard singing in her room past that hour, ...

Not by Prater she wasn't.
Prater stood at the street-end of the passage from about 1:00-1:20 am and swore she heard no singing, which would surely have echoed down the passage.

and Im sure you could imagine a female accomplice couldnt you? This murder caused a Pardon for Accomplices to be issued, when the same request was denied in the case of Liz Stride, despite Israels story involving 2 men.

A female accomplice?
I think it likely the pardon for an accomplice would stem from the existence of the "loiterer" in Dorset St. The police would need to know who he was.
"We" (some) assume this was Hutch, but it may not have been. Abberline, sat talking with Hutchinson and would have immediately seen that his description either fit or did not fit that given of the loiterer by Sarah Lewis.

When all is taken into account Cox's story is accepted yet can be shot full of holes, and Maxwell's story is preferably sidelined, but is corroborated by several others.
Its a uncanny situation.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

The police did attempt to corroborate Cox's story, but, no beer mug was found in Kelly's room. No evidence that a man had been a guest that night.

Aside from trying to hide evidence, it's always possible that any mug, or other container that had been in the room got used for, umm, organ transport.

Is there a record of asking Joe Barnett if anything was missing, aside from the burned clothes? Anything personal, like jewelry, or anything like utensils, cups, plates, pots and pans? Killers take souvenirs, too.

Kill over back rent? In that time and place very likely. Your scenario of him "pimping" women is logical, and either way, the killing and mutilation as a warning to pay up or keep working would fit.

I think if there's going to be any killing over back rent, it's going to be the tenant killing the landlord. I've read an seen lots of fiction where landlords in New York kill tenants paying $450 a month for a 3-bedroom in Midtown, because of rent control, but I have yet to hear of such a case in real life. I think the landlord is more likely to change the lock while Kelly is out.

At any rate, even if something happened, like an argument that got out of control, and turned into an episode of Law & Order, where he struck her, and she fell and hit her head, dying instantly, is he really going to carry her to the bed and butcher her, just to deflect suspicion from himself, and onto the unknown "ripper"? Maybe he could bring himself to cut her throat, if he really is thinking about staying out of prison, or off the gallows, but to butcher her to a far greater degree than any previous victim, that loses me.

Unless you just think McCarthy is the Ripper, in which case, the rent issue is irrelevant.

I fully recognize that something is odd about MJK as a ripper victim, mainly because of her age, partly because she seems less desperate, and more streetwise, and as an experienced (if we believe her stories, trained) sex worker, may have had a clientele, rather than just streetwalking when she needed money.

But victims of serial killers, while generally "types," are not clones. If MJK had been a child, or a (literal) nun, or a housemaid who never went out after dark, then she would be so different, I think we'd have to say she had a different killer, but right now, she has enough points in common for a "possible," in my mind.

So does Stride, while we're at it-- I just don't buy the "double event" scenario.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Wickerman,

I didnt mean to casually dismiss your concerns with my post, just intended to point out some things that often are passed over. To respond to your post Ive put my response immediately after it...

No-one saw Cox come and go either.

True, but we know that she lived in that court and had to pass by Marys room to get to hers whenever she went in or out. She knew Mary. None of the witnesses that say they saw Mary after 11:45pm did.

In fact it is worse than that. The police did attempt to corroborate Cox's story, but, no beer mug was found in Kelly's room.

Im fairly certain the man who entered the room with Mary took the traces of his visit with him when he left, killer or not.

No evidence that a man had been a guest that night.

There would be no need for evidence of anyone visiting with Mary, the man didnt spend the night, he attended her while she was awake and singing.

No-one in the local pubs or beer-houses could say they saw or served a "Blotchy" character that night, with or without a "poorly dressed woman with no head-gear".

The term "blotchy" was Mary-Ann's, others may have used different adjectives.

Compare that with Maxwell, who's story was corroborated by the store who sold her the milk, and, by M. Lewis and an unknown number of people in the Horn of Plenty.

None of whom lived in the court, knew Mary well, or were identified as friends of hers.

Both women testified at the Inquest, Maxwell could be easily corroborated, Cox could not.

Interesting then that Mrs Maxwell was warned her testimony contradicted almost everyone elses before she spoke, and Mary Ann Cox was presented to the jury without a codicil.

The medical evidence as to time of death was not given at the Inquest, so if you believe the cry of "murder" given alternately as at "a little before 4:00 am" (S.Lewis), or "a little after 4:00 am", (Prater), neither of which help support Cox's story.

Frankly I believe the cry of "murder" at that time, which was heard very often throughout the East End for reasons such as discovering soiled shoes, or burning dinner, most having nothing to do with murder or even assault. I believe it was uttered as about shock or surprise, not about any attack commencement. Who cried murder is far more important than the wording. Mary was initially attacked while on the bed in her chemise and when at the right hand side of the bed....if Mary cried murder to be heard as if "at the door", and "as if from the court", she wasnt in the bed being attacked, she was at her open door, or in bed as someone opened it.

To help substantiate Cox you are almost compelled to believe Dr. Bond's estimate as to the time of death being between 1:00-2:00 am. Which then means the cry of "murder" is either unrelated to the murder, or, it suggests another witness is out there who stumbled on the murder so early in the morning. A witness who never surfaced.


Well one thing is for sure, Mary was alive at 1am because she was heard singing in her room past that hour, and Im sure you could imagine a female accomplice couldnt you? This murder caused a Pardon for Accomplices to be issued, when the same request was denied in the case of Liz Stride, despite Israels story involving 2 men.

Regards, Jon S.

Cheers Jon

[RavenDarkendale]

@ RivkahChaya

Unfortunately, I have failed to publish anything due to losing interest or being unable to fully research. All I have ever published is poetry and short stories, the stories for a web site that no longer exists. It would make a cool story, but as Dave says trying to find hard evidence to back it up is probably an insurmountable barrier.

Kill over back rent? In that time and place very likely. Your scenario of him "pimping" women is logical, and either way, the killing and mutilation as a warning to pay up or keep working would fit.

@ Wickerman. No beer pail, jug, etc, was found in the house, true. No sign of a man staying over, do you mean like forgotten clothing, footprints, etc. SOMEBODY killed the woman in that room, she didn't do all that to herself!

@Everybody

I started this thread to discuss what I found to be a possible theory. You have more than met my wildest dreams. If I seem to be suggesting thing you never heard of, I am only looking at reported facts and seeing possibilities. I make no claim of having found evidence of who JtR was, or that my suppositions about MJK are the gospel truth. But I have managed to get you thinking and discussing. And that is why I joined this forum, to discuss and find different theories than my own.

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

[Abby Normal]

Hi Hunter,

Simple. Cox said herself that she went out several times. Mary was seen coming home and she was not seen leaving the room again. That constitutes evidence to suggest Cox was out earning that night, and there is no evidence to suggest Mary ever left her room again. Unless you believe a virtual stranger who says she talked with Mary in the morning. Or a man whose story is discarded days after giving it.

To assume Mary would is your business, but it its hard to understand that a drunk and fed woman at midnight, who had no need for any money that night, would go out in the rain to earn some anyway.

The woman was in arrears, like she had been with other landlords...OBVIOUSLY..she did not take her rent responsibilities seriously.

Cheers

Yup.
And lets not forget that Mary already had a found a man and Cox had not.

[curious]

Thanks, Richard.

Will mull over. My mind went some of the places, but a full explanation was what I wanted.

Appreciate it.

Have to get ready for work.

curious

[richardnunweek]

Hi Curious,
I am sorry I came across confusing.
What I am suggesting, and its only speculation ,that takes into account, many aspects of the eve/morning of the 8TH-9TH .
Lizzie A, lived in Millers court , aged 20 years , and worked in a lodging house in Dorset street.Mary Kelly was 24-25 lived in Millers court, and did not work in a lodging house.
Attempting to make sense of Maxwell's alleged sighting, I was suggesting that, it may have been Lizzie she saw, she was wearing a crossover, she had not seen her wearing for some time..which may indicate that she had not ''Borrowed it'' from Kelly for a long time.
We know that Neighbour Mrs Pickett, was after the same shawl, to protect her from the drizzle on the morning of the 9TH, which would lend credence to my suggestion that Mary Kelly was not worried about lending out her garments if needed.
I suggested that she did not inform anyone about the shawl, not only because of shock, but it would no longer be needed by the dead woman.
And it was only a press statement , not police.
To continue.
The scenario I am suggesting is purely along the lines of a Mary Kelly involvement, and is a B'' picture show.
We know from two independent witnesses , that Kelly was wearing two outfits that night.
A dress , velvet jacket , and bonnet[ seen by Mrs Prater] at 9pm
A dress , crossover , no jacket , no bonnet[ seen by Mrs Cox]1145pm.
I was suggesting that whilst out initially, she met the woman that was to be murdered, swapped her jacket for the woman's shawl, and gave her the bonnet, suggesting that she would look nice for the evening.
Note ..I am suggesting that this was premeditated act, and soon after she met a man , that Kelly introduced to the woman, and then left, meeting Blotchy on the way back , who she knew, and they shared a drink together.
Around 2AM, after Blotchy had long gone. and after the pubs had emptied , she ventured out, at a prearranged time, meeting the man, and then rather drunk woman, at the corner of Dorset street, it was then arranged that they could use Kelly's room for business, but initially the drunken woman declined, but was talked into it, and they proceeded back to Millers court , leaving Mary Kelly to wander up Commercial street, meeting Hutchinson on the way, then on to a prearranged meeting with Mr A, .
This objective was to be seen by someone with a strange man, [ Hutchinson fitted nicely] and after some play-acting strolled back to Millers court, and entered it being watched by Hutchinson.
On entering the room, the woman had been killed already,they undressed her, which included the jacket , and bonnet, and realising that she [Kelly] had not been seen by Hutchinson wearing them, burnt them as the bloodstains might be incriminating.
The body was then mutilated, and disfigured, Kelly then changed into new clothing, and around 4AM , gave out a cry of ''Oh Murder'', which was not risky , because if someone had knocked the door, she could say 'Its alright I was dreaming'.
The three then left the room , and the rest is our mystery.
A lot of events that night have been explained, in this very speculative description.
Note.. the shawl that was found in the room was not Kelly's, but similar in description..after all Mary would not have expected Mrs Maxwell to have made that mistake in identification at 8AM. giving us all a headache over the last 124 years.
If all of this happened then it has to have been pre-planned, and it was for the sole purpose of having the woman known as Kelly,dead in room 13, and no longer active.
I hope that gives you more understanding, but its purely imaginative speculation, based on what we know , and can't understand.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Hi Hunter,

Simple. Cox said herself that she went out several times.

Indeed she did, but who corroborated this?
Cox coming and going is not my concern, it is the times she claimed, when as demonstrated elsewhere, people only guessed the time.

Mary was seen coming home and she was not seen leaving the room again.

No-one saw Cox come and go either.

In fact it is worse than that. The police did attempt to corroborate Cox's story, but, no beer mug was found in Kelly's room. No evidence that a man had been a guest that night.
No-one in the local pubs or beer-houses could say they saw or served a "Blotchy" character that night, with or without a "poorly dressed woman with no head-gear".

Compare that with Maxwell, who's story was corroborated by the store who sold her the milk, and, by M. Lewis and an unknown number of people in the Horn of Plenty.

Both women testified at the Inquest, Maxwell could be easily corroborated, Cox could not.

The medical evidence as to time of death was not given at the Inquest, so if you believe the cry of "murder" given alternately as at "a little before 4:00 am" (S.Lewis), or "a little after 4:00 am", (Prater), neither of which help support Cox's story.

To help substantiate Cox you are almost compelled to believe Dr. Bond's estimate as to the time of death being between 1:00-2:00 am. Which then means the cry of "murder" is either unrelated to the murder, or, it suggests another witness is out there who stumbled on the murder so early in the morning. A witness who never surfaced.

On the contrary Michael, I don't think this is anything like "simple" at all.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

With no direct indications to the contrary we must accept witness statements as given in good faith, as the police did at the time. Only when we have direct contrary evidence, or conflicting statements should we question the source.

Thank you. Just because another story also fits the facts (a witness was lying for the attention, for example) equally well, does not make it equally likely.

I did not wake up to the alarm this morning (my husband and son were out, and I had set a late alarm-- it's a long story). The probable reason is that I had a migraine late last night, and took migraine medicine, along with some nausea medicine and an antihistamine (allergies often trigger migraines for me), and was just to "out" to hear it; explaining the facts just as well, and almost as plausible is that I woke up, turned the alarm off, fell back asleep, and don't remember it. Explaining the fact just as well, but much less plausible, is that the clock failed. I checked the clock after I woke up, and it was working fine, and it is unlikely to have fixed itself after failing once.

I'm not sure what you mean by nonsense, but a witness can always make a mistake, especially in cases of judgement.

I agree, but I still think that the times are not exact, and ten minutes here or there can add up. Aside from the fact that we know people did not have electronic timekeeping, and mechanical clockwork just wasn't all that exact, the fact that every recorded time is at a quarter of an hour. They are all :00, :15, :30, or :45. No witness in any report of any of the murders gives a time as 2:20, or 9:04.

Between the theory that people relied on a town clock that chimed every 15 minutes, and a bit of estimating, vs. the idea that everything in 1888 happened on a quarter of an hour, I'm going with the first one.

[Michael W Richards]

If we are prepared to accept that Cox returned to the streets through the night, and why, then equally why deny that Kelly would?

Hi Hunter,

Simple. Cox said herself that she went out several times. Mary was seen coming home and she was not seen leaving the room again. That constitutes evidence to suggest Cox was out earning that night, and there is no evidence to suggest Mary ever left her room again. Unless you believe a virtual stranger who says she talked with Mary in the morning. Or a man whose story is discarded days after giving it.

To assume Mary would is your business, but it its hard to understand that a drunk and fed woman at midnight, who had no need for any money that night, would go out in the rain to earn some anyway.

The woman was in arrears, like she had been with other landlords...OBVIOUSLY..she did not take her rent responsibilities seriously.

Cheers

[curious]

Hi curious.
Mrs Maxwell had only known Kelly for about 4 months,she had only being in Millers court 9 months.
Of course if she saw Lizzie, it might have been her, who she described as knowing for a short time, if she was referring to the wrong person.
Lizzie was speaking to the press, and was never a police witness, lets face it Kelly did not need a shawl any longer, and she would have,so why mention it.?
It may have even incriminated her , possibly stealing it from Mary's room.
Yes I am suggesting the possibility that the woman killed was indeed the woman wearing the velvet jacket and bonnet, and it was not Kelly.
If one adds up all the events that night, including the man and two women standing in Dorset street, one of them wearing a hat, and respectable,the other not, appearing to attempt, to entice the smarter woman to go somewhere, and takes into account the clothing change which appeared to have happened, and the Times Nov 12TH, which indicates that the jacket and bonnet were burnt because they were bloodstained, one could arrive at a similar scenario,
The crossover that was found in Kelly's room may simply have been a similar to what Maxwell saw.
Regards Richard.

Hi, Richard,
I'm confused by this post and don't understand where you are going with some of this.

Lizzie was speaking to the press, and was never a police witness, lets face it Kelly did not need a shawl any longer, and she would have,so why mention it.?

That's possible.

Let's say Mary was out and traded her black velvet coat and Maria Harvey's hat with someone and brought back a crossover similar to her own . . .


If one adds up all the events that night, including the man and two women standing in Dorset street, one of them wearing a hat, and respectable,the other not, appearing to attempt, to entice the smarter woman to go somewhere,

How does Mary fit into this? and how do you see this fitting into the murder?

How do you get both the black coat and the crossover back into the room?

I'm sorry if I'm being really dense here. I just can't follow all the steps that I think you are taking.

curious

[Wickerman]

That's why I've got no time for any nonsense in the MJK murder. But, two witnessess cannot be ignored. If they can, then forget everything Long, Lawende, Schwarz, Smith, Hutchinson etc etc said.

regards,

With no direct indications to the contrary we must accept witness statements as given in good faith, as the police did at the time. Only when we have direct contrary evidence, or conflicting statements should we question the source.
Resorting, as some do, to calling certain witnesses liars, or claiming the witness was invented by the press smacks of desperation.

I'm not sure what you mean by nonsense, but a witness can always make a mistake, especially in cases of judgement. Both Hutchinson and Mrs Kennedy are credited with seeing Mary Kelly out after 2:00 am, and both are dismissed by some who choose not to accept the possibility.

It is far more beneficial to try to rationalise a witnesses claim than to dismiss it because it does not fit with "our" preconceptions.

Regards, Jon S.