Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[Fisherman]

Phil:

"A very interesting explanation - but slightly too glib for my taste. Do we have sufficient evidence to warrant the certainty you suggest?"

Not in the case of Evans/Fleming, no.

"It does raise the question of course - with implications for the Lechmere/Cross issue - did many men (and women - MJK, for instance) go under more than one name in the East End of 1888? We know Kate Eddowes did."

Mmm. And have a look at Rose Mylett - more names than a standard size hockey team, all on her own.

We KNOW people used aliases. But we DONīT KNOW, why somebody who always used the same name in contacts with the authorities would suddenly change that habit, when being caught up in a murder case.

But this, Phil, is not a thread for discussing Lechmere.

Sally:

"As for name changes - I think it was very common.

Yes - but the reasons for them will have varied. A lot. And the phenomenon as such will - then as now - have been more common in criminal surroundings than amongst honest people. And for obvious reasons.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Yes - but the reasons for them will have varied. A lot. And the phenomenon as such will - then as now - have been more common in criminal surroundings than amongst honest people. And for obvious reasons.

I agree with the first part Fisherman - indeed, the reasons for name changes will have varied a lot - generally speaking, those reasons remain unknown. Name changes can apply to first and surnames, either is common enough.

I don't agree however that it would have been more common in 'criminal surroundings'. If that were so, then a huge proportion of the population in the 19th century was criminal! Of course criminals may have used an alias - but it doesn't follow that the use of an alias makes a perosn a criminal.

That's what is known as false logic.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

Have a look at where you begin your reasoning:

"I don't agree however that it would have been more common in 'criminal surroundings'."

...and where you end it:

"it doesn't follow that the use of an alias makes a perosn a criminal."

Now, Sally, I fail to see that anybody has suggested that an alias makes you a criminal. In MY case, I wrote that it would have been "more common in criminal surroundings than amongst honest people" to use aliases. This wording very clearly implicates that criminals AS WELL AS honest people COULD use aliases - but my contention is that a larger percentage of the criminals would be ready to use aliases than the percentage amongst honest people.

Your reasoning is thus what is known as false reasoning - you imply on my behalf that I have said or led on something I have not said or led on. Please donīt do that.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

Hi Curious,
Indeed Maxwell did remark, that she had not seen Kelly wearing that clothing for some time.
But as the garment described were in Mary's room, it would point to the fact that Mrs M saw the woman she knew as Mary Jane , and was not mistaken on identification..
.
Regards Richard.

Hi, Richard,
Like you, I believe the clothing being found in MJK's room points to Maxwell's sighting being legit.

And has contributed to me having flights of fancy about why she was suddenly wearing these particular garments and how it might point to her planning a runner and leaving her old clothes behind along with the woman in the bed. The incredible cruelty involved with the scenario frankly made me sick and I have mostly abandoned the thoughts.

Learning that a Ripper letter had a return address of Maxwell's home has almost kicked my imagination into high gear and caused me to wonder at her testimony -- which makes the wearing of those particular items a bigger puzzle.

curious

[richardnunweek]

Hi Curious,
The recent discovery of the 14, Dorset street Letter is a revelation.
To me it is a extreme coincidence, that a letter sent to the Norfolk police, had a address that was completely opposite Millers court, and not only that, the residence of the most talked about witness in Ripper folk-law.
Lets be realistic what are the odds that such a letter should be sent from that address , one week before the Kelly murder, and a resident of that house should claim to have seen , and talked to a person ,at a time that medical opinion stated impossible.
We know from Catherine Picket, that it was raining around the time of Maxwell's sighting, as she was hoping to borrow the same protection, [ Kelly's wraparound ] when she knocked on the door of room13.
This was the same item of clothing seen by Maxwell, and it would verify the weather conditions.
I do not take the view that MJK was intending to ''Make away with herself'', and as the clothing Maxwell allegedly saw was found in the room , what clothes would she vanish in?
I am leaning to the possibility, that Mrs Maxwell was attempting to avert the course of justice , by claiming such a sighting, in order to protect someone either from choice, or fear.
Did someone have a cast iron alibi after daylight, but not for the darkness hours?
Pure speculation, but that letter is ''One step beyond''
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Now, Sally, I fail to see that anybody has suggested that an alias makes you a criminal. In MY case, I wrote that it would have been "more common in criminal surroundings than amongst honest people" to use aliases. This wording very clearly implicates that criminals AS WELL AS honest people COULD use aliases - but my contention is that a larger percentage of the criminals would be ready to use aliases than the percentage amongst honest people.

Ok then, let's see the statistics to prove your contention. Proof please.

You don't know what you're talking about I'm afraid Fisherman. I know you'd like it to be the way you want it, so that you could yet again claim that your suspect was obviously a baddie - sadly, though, reality doesn't bend to your wish.

A lot of people used an 'alias' in the 19th century. It was commonplace. I know this for a fact. As far as I am aware, nobody has compiled any statistics which demonstrate that those people were more likely to be criminals; or that criminals were more likely to use an alias.

And the only reason you care is so that you can continue to claim that Charles Crossmere was a baddie because he used an 'alias'.

This thread has nothing to do with Charlie, and nothing to do with 'nameswops' either.

So I'm off to talk about something else now - I grew bored of the whole Crossmere thing some time ago.

[lynn cates]

copycat?

Hello Richard.

"If he was on his way to insanity, then the gross mutilation may well have been part of his make-up, without even attempting to copycat."

Indeed, if it WERE a copycat, then he did a rum job of it.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Ok then"

No, itīs not Ok to imply that I have stated something I have not stated. Thatīs where you need to begin, by saying "Whooops, Iīm sorry that I turned your reasoning inside out, and I will try to refrain from doing so fortwith, since I realize that it disrupts any efforts to conduct a truthful and serious discussion."

Not Ok, thus - not at all.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Lynn,
The only reason for a copycat version, would be to conceal identity, so that being the case who would consider that vital.?
Obviously someone who had a cast alibi for the other murders, for instance, someone who was in an infirmary, or prison during the others, but not Kelly's.
Or somebody who would be looked upon as a suspect, once the body was discovered, which would include a boyfriend, or a ex boyfriend. that would not be suspected as the Ripper..which the murder of Kelly had the hallmarks of.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

thighs

Hello Richard. Thanks. I can agree--to a point. But I wonder whether a copycat could not be performed better WITHOUT denuding the thighs?

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi Lynn,
We can assume by the intense mutilation, that the killer was in a frenzy of ''overkill'' , and regardless of a Copycat, or Jack, was completely insane during this attack, more so then the others, so much so, that I am amazed that he could conduct himself in such a manner as to escape immediate detection upon leaving the scene.
No wonder why the police assumed he had someone who assisted him ''after '' this bloodbath.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

rigour

Hello Richard. Thanks. Frenzy I can accept. But that seems to be at variance with the notion of copycat which, to my mind, requires a bit of rigour and planning.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hi Curious,
The recent discovery of the 14, Dorset street Letter is a revelation.
To me it is a extreme coincidence, that a letter sent to the Norfolk police, had a address that was completely opposite Millers court, and not only that, the residence of the most talked about witness in Ripper folk-law.
Lets be realistic what are the odds that such a letter should be sent from that address , one week before the Kelly murder, and a resident of that house should claim to have seen , and talked to a person ,at a time that medical opinion stated impossible.



We know from Catherine Picket, that it was raining around the time of Maxwell's sighting, as she was hoping to borrow the same protection, [ Kelly's wraparound ] when she knocked on the door of room13.
This was the same item of clothing seen by Maxwell, and it would verify the weather conditions.
I do not take the view that MJK was intending to ''Make away with herself'', and as the clothing Maxwell allegedly saw was found in the room , what clothes would she vanish in?

Hi, Richard,
Let's start with medical opinion, which I find very curious and even unreasonable. On one hand, we have people who believe that Annie Chapman, who was going into rigor in her arms, was killed just an hour earlier, and on the other, people who buy that MJK, who was going into rigor during examination, hae been killed a full 12 hours earlier . . . .

boggles my little mind.

I'm with you -- that letter is somehow very important. We just haven't figured it out yet.

And to me, the letter lessens the probability that Maxwell's testimony is to be fully believed.

About the clothing, if Kelly had not been seen wearing those particular items for about a year, what had she been wearing? And what happened to her most recent clothing items? Were they all burned? Or were they just missing?

It would be my guess -- in the event she was running away -- that she would wear or pack and take with her the clothing she had been wearing for the past year, and leave the old things she no longer liked or wore with the body as proof it was indeed she. Especially since she had been seen by a witness wearing those very items on the night of her death.

The clothing does appear to present a problem. Another question -- Does the fact that Catherine Picket stopped by to borrow the wrap-around confirm that Mary rarely wore it? After all, if that was all that Mary had, would she be loaning it out instead of wearing it herself?

gotta run, but this whole situation is intriguing.

curious

[moonbegger]

Hello Curious ,

Let's start with medical opinion, which I find very curious and even unreasonable. On one hand, we have people who believe that Annie Chapman, who was going into rigor in her arms, was killed just an hour earlier, and on the other, people who buy that MJK, who was going into rigor during examination, hae been killed a full 12 hours earlier . . . .

Especially when you add to the equation, the fact that Cold slows down the onset of Rigor , where as heat hastens it .. very surprising , given the heat generated in that little room by the fire place !

moonbegger

[Sally]

I'm with you -- that letter is somehow very important. We just haven't figured it out yet.

Yes, I agree. With regard to Caroline Maxwell, has she been traced in the record? I have an idea that she hasn't, fully.

Hmmm....