Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[Wickerman]

Hi Tecs.

So here was have another possibility, except, to my mind, the bit about Kelly needing to find someone to identify the body, I don't think so.

If the body in room 13 had different colour hair Barnett will notice this. So we must accept the coincidence that the body & Kelly both had the same length & colour of hair.
And also quite possibly the clothes which were found in the room, including the chemise that was on the body all looked like clothes which Kelly did own.
The coincidences do start to stack up.

There seems to be some confusion whether Barnett recognised the body by the 'hair' or 'ear' (assuming confusion over pronunciation), but one report tells us the ears were cut off, so that, if true, should rule out this argument.

Your scenario, even if we revise it by dropping Kelly looking for Barnett Saturday morning, is just plausible.
The path of least resistance for me is to accept the Saturday morning sightings were a case of mistaken identity.

You see, we do not know what questions were asked at the Horn of Plenty. Were they asked if they had seen Mary Kelly, or were they just shown a rough sketch and asked if they had seen a woman dressed like this Saturday morning?
If the former then a positive reply has implications, if the latter then a positive reply only means someone who looked similar but may not have been MJK at all.

Regards, Jon S.

[andy1867]

If it wasn't Mary Jane Kelly...any ideas of who it might have been...

[Tecs]

Basics

Dear all,

This whole thing can get so convoluted, but then again that's the interest of the whole mystery I suppose.

But let's, for a moment, go right back to basics and consider what we do know.

A body is found at Miller's Court. The doctors say it has been dead for several hours. Two witnessess say that they saw the main occupant of the room at times which rule out the body being her and finally, we know that the room was often occupied by other women, (Barnett said that there was another woman in the room on the night in question albeit one whose identity is probably known.) If we add that the body was only identified by her ex and by her eyes and hair then let's have a think.

I know that it is easy to say that the witnessess were just wrong or had confused the person they saw or the date but don't forget, British justice has hanged people on the evidence of one person in the past. Of course witnessess can be wrong but just ruling them out by saying they just must be wrong is attempting to squeeze the facts into a nice comfortable box. Maxwell was adament that she saw Kelly and spoke to her. How can we dare at this distance to dismiss her so simply? She was a brave woman who voluntarily gave her evidence and in an extremely intimidating, perhaps hostile environment, stuck to her story. She was warned by the coroner about her evidence and had to stand up surrounded by men who probably doubted her story and could have backed down at any time. But no, she stuck to her story solidly. On its own, that is actually quite impressive. As I said, people have been sent to prison and even executed on the basis of one persons testimony so it's not as easy to just dismiss her as we might think. If we then add that a completely independant witness also says that he saw her around the same time then surely we have to take what they say seriously, however uncomfortable it might be.

So if we accept their testimonies then what could have happened? Mary has been soliciting and has been in and out of the room all night. She returns in the early hours and finds a dead body on her bed! What would she do? Scream? What would she scream? Maybe "murder!"? She then composes herself and gathers herself together. She waits for a few minutes. Nobody comes in response to her cry. She realises that she has had a very lucky escape, the Ripper has been to her room and she survived. Then she realises that this could be the chance she needs to get away. (She appears to have been depressed with her life and circumstances and of course was way behind with her rent. Also, there may possibly be a deeper worry, Fenian connections maybe? She was apparently very worried in the previous few weeks about someone or something.) So if everybody could be made to believe that the body was her..... Perhaps the body was already disfigured as we see in the photographs, perhaps she had to spend some time destroying the facial features etc, who knows? She emerges from the room eventually and bumps into Maxwell. Obviously she has to stop and chat. But it appears that she told Maxwell untruths. In explanation of why she was up early she said that she was suffering from drink and had already had a "hair of the dog" from the Britannia, but brought it up. I think I'm right in saying that nobody was found in the area who had served her any beer that morning? So what explanation could there be for the pile of sick? Well, most people are a bit squeamish about blood. I would imagine an eviscerated corpse on your bed could make anyone rush outside to vomit. With Maxwell out of the way there is one more important thing that she needs to do, one final obstacle. To complete the deception, Mary would need somebody to identify the body as her. She would quickly need to get in contact with someone and ask their assistance. Barnett would probably be the one who, as common law husband, would be asked to identify the body. So, Mary would have to seek out Barnett, or at least somebody who could get the message to him. Interesting then that she was seen by Maurice Lewis in The Horn of Plenty later on that morning in the company of several people, one of whom was known to him as Dan. Barnett's brother was called Dan. On this point, why was she in the Horn of Plenty? of course she can go to any pub she wants but it appears that the Brittania was the pub of choice, the one Maxwell suggested she go to and the one she, Kelly, said that she had gone to. Was she in the Horn of Plently because the Brittania was too public, too popular and was somewhere where she was more well known? Was she lying low as much as she could?

Anyway, the body is identified by Barnett in far from ideal circumstances and the rest is history.

I know each bit is open to debate. For example it has been suggested that nobody serving her beer could have applied to the night before not the morning. I remember a debate about the photographic equipment at the time not producing the colour hair that we see in the photograph if she had the hair colour that we think she did have etc etc etc.

But, at the end of the day, there is nothing whatsoever that rules out the alternative scenario above. I promise you I am no conspiracy theorist! I don't revel in finding alternative explanations for anything and everything, but I do think that the two possibilities:-1. It was Mary. 2. It was someone else both have positive and negative points to consider. To just say that number 2 is impossible because it just is, isn't good enough.

There is no fact that rules it out.

I think!

Regards,

tecs

[Sally]

You know what they say Jon, great minds think alike

But yes, 15/ would be achievable, although I don't imagine every tailoress managed it on a regular basis. By comparison, a General Labourer could often expect to earn less I believe.

What would Barnett have earned? I do know this, but can't recall at the minute - about 20/?

Compare Kelly's 4s a week with the 4d a night charged by the CLHs. That's 2/ a week - half of what Kelly and Barnett paid (as CLHs couldn't charge for Sunday). With her own room, Kelly was a considerable step up from that way of life.

[Wickerman]

Holmes - perhaps she had things on account from McCarthy's shop? Just a thought.

Thankyou Sally, thats exactly what I meant, like the candle for starters.

For some perspective, a young professional or journeyman could expect to earn about 30 shillings a week - and that was a decent wage. Kelly's arrears, if 29/ was equivalent to a week's wages.

Fishman writes that a Tailoress could earn as much as 15/- a week.

Regards, Jon S.

[RavenDarkendale]

The rent money is important if you feel MJK survived or even if you think she didn't.

If she was actually murdered, it means she may have braved taking a customer home. As has been stated, Whitechapel "ladies of the evening" usually led clients to dark corners to ply their trade.

Note here: Interesting that one of Sickert's paintings shows a nude woman lying on the bed with a (clothed) man sitting beside her and is entitled What Shall We Do For the Rent?

If she did survive, the question becomes why if she was seen by people, that McCarthy didn't tack her down for the rent as he had sent Bowyer to collect it that day?

[Cogidubnus]

Per Connell and Evans "The man who hunted Jack the Ripper" McCarthy said "She was charged 4s per week but was 30s in arrears. It is a rule to collect the rent from the Court daily, but, as Kelly had been having a hard time of late, I had heard, I didn't press her"

I don't know the source for this, and the sums (4s and 30s) differ from those generally quoted (4s 6d and 29s)...but the daily collection of rents is interesting.

I can't speak for anybody else, but the really curious fact to me, is that whilst other tenants seemed openly anxious about having their rent money, Kelly didn't. It could, of course, merely be that she hid her feelings better...on the other hand it could indicate that she had some form of understanding with her landlord.

Just one more puzzle in the whole Kelly mystery...

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

interesting you should I agree with you but what what exactly do you mean by " more than just rent"

Regards
Mr Holmes

Holmes - perhaps she had things on account from McCarthy's shop? Just a thought.

For some perspective, a young professional or journeyman could expect to earn about 30 shillings a week - and that was a decent wage. Kelly's arrears, if 29/ was equivalent to a week's wages.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The impression that Kelly was anxious that she owed her landlord such a lot , suggests a young woman desperate for money, that would work the streets for a few coppers.
This might have been the case for the other women , who had all seen better days, even in their forties, My grandmother used to say that women of forty were considered elderly when she was young.
But not Mary Kelly, she was mid twenties, attractive, quite striking, buxom, with very distinctive hair.
According to McCarthy's son[ Fiona's grandfather] she was pretty, and that was through the eyes of a 14 year old..
If she took to the street , it would be to attempt not only to get plied with drink but to attract some new man into her life, to help her out of the plight she found herself in, rather like when she met Joseph Barnett..
Mr A[ If he existed [ would have been a dream come true.
But not Blotchy..he just does not fit, quart of ale or not.?
Back to the apparent desperation to pay her landlord,
She apparently showed no qualms in having a conversation with his wife on the 8TH, neither obtaining goods from his shop, she does not come over as a person keeping out of the way.
As I have mentioned before,it would be unlikely that Kelly would have been evicted by the McCarthy's, whilst the killer was at large, call it a charity act, but I will admit she was on shaky ground.
Regards Richard.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'd need to check of course but I seem to recall both Barnett & McCarthy mentioned Kelly being in arrears for about 29/-.
That the rent was 4/6 p/w simply equates to roughly 6 weeks (27 shillings actually being 6 weeks). This has been a modern calculation not offered by anyone at the time as far as I can recall.
Her debt (29/-) may have been more than just rent.

Regards, Jon S.

interesting you should I agree with you but what what exactly do you mean by " more than just rent"

Regards
Mr Holmes

[Stephen Lee]

I'm not too sure about 1888. However the geat depression of 1930's I know about. If you multiply by 12 that gives you a figure that wiould equate with modern money.

[Wickerman]

Where does the "six weeks arrears" come from anyway? Does it come from McCarthy? or was it the sob story she was telling friends, when she tried to borrow money?

I'd need to check of course but I seem to recall both Barnett & McCarthy mentioned Kelly being in arrears for about 29/-.
That the rent was 4/6 p/w simply equates to roughly 6 weeks (27 shillings actually being 6 weeks). This has been a modern calculation not offered by anyone at the time as far as I can recall.
Her debt (29/-) may have been more than just rent.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

currency clarification

Hi Rivkah

A pound consisted 240 pennies...a shilling was twelve pennies, and therefore a twentieth of a pound...

Two shillings (a florin or two bob) was a tenth of a pound.

Two shillings and sixpence (a half crown, two and a kick or half a dollar) was an eighth of a pound

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

So we should not discount people like Maxwell, Maurice Lewis, Bowyer, as oblivious to time, and speculate vast differentials .
Regards Richard.

I didn't say "oblivious," I just said "not as precise as now."

Seriously, in my own lifetime, people have gotten more precise with time, as we've moved from analog to digital clocks, and from wind-up, to electric, to electronic, to satellite. My father was a very punctual person, and would call up time & temp on the phone every morning, and set his watch, then wind it. If it had gained or lost more than a minute or two overnight, he'd adjust the speed, and he'd check the big clock on campus, because that's what most of his students relied on. He'd get annoyed with my mother if he watch was running more than five minutes fast or slow, or she'd forgotten to wind it.

I'm not saying that people just reckoned morning, noon, afternoon, and evening, but when someone says that something happened at 9am, I think it's reasonable to assume there's some play in there-- not hours, but 20 minutes or so, and it's not quite the same as someone today saying their cell phone said 9:06 when something happened. In that case, you really can believe that it happened within about a minute of 9:06, particularly since you can check with the person's cell phone provider to find out whether the time was broadcasting correctly then.

I'm a little curious as to why the Landlord... McCarthy?...would let arrears reach the sum of the said 29 shillings..You read it was 4d for a doss for the night...was the rent of a property at the time a lot higher....has anybody any idea how much the 29 shillings would equate to as in terms of time?
regards
Andy

The figure I always see is that she was 6 weeks behind, which was almost 5 shillings a week.

A shilling was worth 1/12 of a pound then, and a pound in 1888 was worth ~5 US dollars. (I have to convert to dollars, or I can't do this.) So, she was paying 5(1/12x$5), or $2.08 every week. It depends on what you are buying, but a dollar then had anywhere from 4 to about 20 times the purchasing power it has now. Housing would be on the higher end, particularly housing in London, even crappy housing. That means she'd be paying a little over $40 a week. People who rent partitioned space in apartments with a separate entrance (which isn't legal) in New York usually charge between $50 and 100 a week, depending on a lot of things, like bathroom access, and whether there's a stove. People sometimes "sublet" their couches to people who are between leases for $10-25, depending on whether or not you're a good friend, and how long they expect you to be there. (No, no one charges a friend who is there for a few days, but you need to think about utilities, and sometimes it costs $10 just to get a spare key made.)

Working backwards, she was paying about 23 pounds a week in modern money.

For a crappy room, in a crappy neighborhood, where housing was very competitive, and she did have a fireplace, a window, and an outside entrance, it sounds about right to me.

My question is what evidence we have, other than McCarthy's statement, for the amount owed. Is there any reason he thought someone else might reimburse him, now that she was dead, and so he added on a few extra weeks, or he wanted to keep whatever she left behind, so he made sure she owed enough that he'd get to? Or did he think that by sounding like he'd already put up with a lot, the police would hurry up and release the crime scene, as opposed to preventing him from cleaning it up and renting it again, by continuing the investigation?

I'm just saying, it's another reason for the amount.

Or, there's this: maybe he just collected once a month, she hadn't yet paid for October, it was a week and a half into November, and he'd made just a couple of attempts to collect for November so far. Maybe she'd actually been good about paying, back when Barnett was there, and had been there a while, which is why he'd been collecting by the month, and really had just missed her when he'd tried for October. If he didn't know Barnett had moved out-- or even if he did, if she had a good track record, he didn't have any reason to believe that as soon as he caught her in, he'd get the money.

Saying she was "six weeks in arrears" makes it sound like she was giving him a new excuse once, twice or even three times a week for six weeks, but that might not be the case. She might have been nine days late with something she usually paid on time (and "on time" might mean the 2nd or 3rd of the month), and he'd just not seen her, rather than been turned away with an excuse.

Where does the "six weeks arrears" come from anyway? Does it come from McCarthy? or was it the sob story she was telling friends, when she tried to borrow money?

[Cogidubnus]

I'm a little curious as to why the Landlord... McCarthy?...would let arrears reach the sum of the said 29 shillings..You read it was 4d for a doss for the night...was the rent of a property at the time a lot higher....has anybody any idea how much the 29 shillings would equate to as in terms of time?

Hi Andy

You and me both mate...and it's been very widely speculated upon by a whole raft of people...I think the weekly rent on the room in Millers Court was 4s 6d, so the 29s represented over six weeks rent...however, it has to be borne in mind that McCarthy ran the chandlers at the entrance to the court, and might've allowed a "slate" to build up to a tenant...so the sum owed might include some necessities such as food, as well as rent.

McCarthy and his role have been debated fairly recently at:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6796

and:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6449

You should find much food for thought there!

All the best

Dave