Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It all boils down to the T.O.D, if medical reports were wrong, then a daylight murder looks likely, especially if we accept Maxwell's sighting.
Common sense should tell us, that there is no way she could have been mistaken ''if'' she was telling the truth.
She clearly did go on a milk trip that morning, [ which she had not done for some time] but did she do that to convince the police that she had the right day.
I would like to know how the police traced her that day , unless she put herself out to volunteer her information .
For those of us that are convinced the police doctors were right, and Kelly was killed during the early hours, then we have to dismiss Maxwell's account, and ask the question Why did she attempt to forge the T.O.D?
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally,
It was rumoured that Kelly let the room, that night, to another young woman for immoral purpose , that being the case, Mary had to have a place to stay until daylight.
It was also rumoured that some residents of the court were concerned that MJK was not up and about that morning, [ which depicts a early riser] and reported that to McCarthy.
Which makes Maxwell's account''what brings you up so early'' as not the norm.
as she goes on to state that she[Kelly]was not a early riser.
This case is full of red herrings.
Regards Richard.

[RivkahChaya]

To me the sightings are evidence/suggestion that the murder occurred later than the supposed TOD.

That makes much more sense. Also, if the body was in the bed all night, she had no sleep, one presumes (although, she could have slept elsewhere, I suppose, especially if she had a partner in absconding). Having the murder later lets her sleep in the room, then have someone come in in the morning-- someone she met when she was out, the same time she spoke to Caroline Maxwell.

And what is the explanation for the clothes?

Do you mean, why were the burned ones burned, or why were the folded ones folded?

If she'd had a fight with the person who was staying in the room with her, she might have burned her clothes after throwing her out.

If I were writing a novel, and my JTR were a slaughterer, he'd be aware that heat speeds up rigor (making a tougher cut of meat), and overheated the room to fool the coroner. I'm just kidding.

Clothes makes lousy fuel for fire, don't they, especially dirty clothes, so even the idea that he burned them for fuel isn't great, although I suppose leaving the room, and going back, covered with blood, for firewood, wouldn't have worked out so well. But, if she were killed later, he might have had some light coming over the top of the widow-- he couldn't have opened it wide, of course, but it wouldn't be the same as working in the middle of the night, so he may just have wanted a little warmth. What he was doing was work, so burning the clothes may have given him enough heat, and it wasn't exactly freezing outside.

It's also, of course, possible he burned his own, bloody clothes, and burned some of the clothes from the room on top, to make his burn faster, and possibly, if he left before they were completely burned, he hoped the police wouldn't look under, and find still-bloody man's clothes.

FWIW, in an exceptionally warm room, rigor could have set in in just an hour.

If Caroline Maxwell spoke to MJK between 8 & 8:30, then saw her talking to a man an hour later; unnamed witnesses put her outside as late as 10am, but we don't know their source of the correct time. Bowyer discovered the body at 10:45, at which point he sent for the police, but the police and coroner don't enter the room until 1:30.

I can't find Bowyer's source for the time, so I don't know that his first thought was to check his watch as soon as he found the body. 10:45 might have been the time he left the office. Of course, it could also be the time he summoned the police, but that leaves the creepy possibility that the killer was in the room when Bowyer went by, and Bowyer just didn't see him.

So, the timeline could look like this:

8am: Caroline Maxwell talks to MJK
9am: MJK is solicited by man, observed by CM
9am-some time before 10: MJK haggles with client, observed by anon. witnesses
~10am: MJK killed by cut to throat
~10:01: the chemical process of rigor starts
~10:01-10:45: mutilations; at some point, killer starts fire for light or warmth, and gets idea, or already has it, to burn topmost clothes, or possibly even puts on woman's apron. If he is, or has been, a slaughterer, that won't seem too strange.
10:45: Bowyer leaves office
Before 11am: Bowyer knocks on door, looks through window at 13 Miller's Ct., then runs for police
~11am: killer leaves room
11am-1:30: clothes smolder in fire, and fire dies out
1:30: police enter room. Body of MJK has been dead in a warm room for 3 & 1/2 hours. That is plenty of time for partial rigor in a warm room. In fact, if she had really been dead since 2 or 3am, one would expect full rigor.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rivkahchaya,
I like your timeline, although I would suggest that Kelly may have been killed about 915am, and the killer long gone by 1045am.
I still cannot understand, why the police believed Kelly's velvet jacket, and Mrs Harvey's bonnet, were burnt because they were bloodstained.
This implies that the killer was either wearing them , or they were positioned close to the bed, however why would it concern the killer?
Was she a woman? was she indeed Kelly herself? did a female burn the clothing in an attempt to conceal this.?
Regards Richard.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

A couple of observations.

The Millers Court victim may well have died at around 3.00 am by dint of "severance of the right carotid artery", but it does not necessarily follow that the mutilations were concomitant.

As to the body not being that of MJK, Curious asked, "What are the odds the inadvertent body would be the right height and hair color to be mistaken for her?"

For identification purposes, there was no definitive description of MJK before her death. These came afterwards.

So, was MJK "tall and pretty and fair as a lily" [Elizabeth Prater] or alternatively "a woman about 5ft 7in in height, and of a rather stout build, with blue eyes and a very fine head of hair, which reached nearly to her waist . . . and with two false teeth which projected very much from the lips" [Elizabeth Phoenix]?

Regards,

Simon

[miss marple]

If one believes Maxwell, one must also believe Maurice Lewis, who claimed he saw Mary K going into the Brittania at 10 am drinking with others. Lewis's testimony on timing, follows that of Maxwell.
People who believe in the Maxwell sighting believe Mary was killed in the morning, which makes no sense, as the combined statements of Maxwell and Lewis make it appear she was alive till after 10 am. So she would have to get away from the pub after 10 with her killer, drunk, be seen with him going to her room in full view, get murdered and cut up, before 10.45, when her body was discovered and her killer leaving her room in daylight on noticed by anybody.
So although their statements sound good in isolation from other statements, they don't fit in with anything else'
Inquiries were made at the Brittania, NO ONE else saw Mary there drinking at 10 in the morning. So did Lewis make a mistake about the day or get the wrong woman?
Maxwell had only seen Mary for a few months and was not a friend. She also described her as a 'pleasant stout,little woman, who kept to herself. Not the description of Mary who was about 5.7 with hair to her waist[ Mrs Pheonix]Tall and pretty,stout fair as a lily[ Mrs Prater] STOUT is a compliment, when the poor were half starved to be well covered with good breasts was admired. It does not mean fat. The victorians would have regarded our skinny stars as starved.Why would you described someone tall as little?
Durig the time Maxwell knew her she was living with Barnett, they had had rows, Maria Harvey had stayed with her. and she was a regular in the pubs, not keeping herself to herself.
The medical evidence does not fit with their statements. There is no way she could have died after 10 am. The Doctors Bond and Phillips have a ball park estimate of death between 2 and 8. They examined the body.
Maxwell saw her Mary vomiting about 8 am, she claimed she had been drinking for days.
Dr Bond found the remains of fish and chips in the stomach, half digested, a meal takes two to four hours to pass from the stomach to intestines,and the process had started, halted by death. So he concluded she had eaten between 10 and 11 the previous night.
She could not have eaten after 8 in the morning particularly if she was vomiting as Maxwell claimed.
The last sighting of her appears to that of Mrs Cox with Blotchy, unless you believe Hutch. She was last heard singing about 1 am.
There was the scream of murder just before 4 am
Mrs Cox thought she heard a man's footsteps leave the court a 5.45

If one believes Mary was murdered at night either by Blotchy or someone else, then the burning of clothes in the fire makes sense. to create enough light to do his butchery.Then quietly leaving at quarter to 6 in the morning

If one believes some else was murdered instead of Mary, then Maxwell's sighting is still problematic as it does not appear to be Mary, and the person she and Lewis saw was seen by no one else !! If Mary had been alive and into pubs after 10, well we would not be looking at the murder of Kelly.
Ironically if you believe Mary was murdered in daylight she could not have been seen by Maxwell and Lewis as she would have been in being murdered.

Maxwell and Lewis are not the first witnesses to be convinced they saw someone after they were dead, but like others I am beginning to question Maxwell's motives since the discovery of the letter or perhaps she got the name wrong as well as the description.
I don't think Barnett made a mistake, Mary's height, hair and general body shape would be recognisable, her arm and hand is distinctive and her jaw shape in spite of the mutilation.
There is a tendency to over complicate things with conspiracy theories. If Mary is never identified it is because we do not know her real name, it could be as simple as that, not that she had anything to hide. She was swimming in the lower depths of the food chain, a woman of no importance to the world.
Miss Marple


















They are not the first witnesses to be convinced

[Phil H]

I ive in a cul de sac with 14 houses and 6 maisonettes. I know most of my neighbours by sight, and some by name.

BUT if I was to discuss something that had happened involving a neighbour I did not know by name, I and the other person could quite possibly be talking of two separate individuals and not realise it.

I have known people in groups and societies I have belonged to, and thought I knew their names, only to find that the girl I thought was "Ruth" was actually "Rachel".

In the teeming milieu of Dorset St and Whitechapel, I can quite believe that someone THOUGHT they had seen MJK in a pub, when it was actually someone else they mistakenly believed to be her.

Height is of course subjective when mentioned by people about others. If Elizabeth Prater was five foot two, then a five six or seven MJK might have been called tall. To someone six foot in height, five six would be short.

Words like "buxom"; well-built" "sturdy" etc can mean different things to different people, whatever the dictionary definition or normal usage. We had an example on Casebook earlier, when the use of the phrase "beg the question" was perceived as incorrect by another poster.

So I think building houses of cards or complex theories on such foundations is pretty much a waste of time.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

The Millers Court victim may well have died at around 3.00 am by dint of "severance of the right carotid artery", but it does not necessarily follow that the mutilations were concomitant.

Well, it sort of does, if the room was warm. In addition to making joints inflexible, rigor mortis makes tissue very tough to cut-- which, by the way, is something a slaughterer would know. I learned this just recently, reading up on it, and confirmed it with my husband, who has a degree in biology, and works as a lab tech. In modern slaughterhouses, just-killed animals are shocked, to prevent rigor mortis, and produce more tender cuts of meat. If MJK was killed, and then several hours passed, with the body in a warm room, the killer's job would have been much more difficult.

Incidentally, rigor begins in the muscles of the face, so that's good reason to think that the facial mutilations occurred first.

So, was MJK "tall and pretty and fair as a lily" [Elizabeth Prater] or alternatively "a woman about 5ft 7in in height, and of a rather stout build, with blue eyes and a very fine head of hair, which reached nearly to her waist . . . and with two false teeth which projected very much from the lips" [Elizabeth Phoenix]?

"Tall" is a relative characteristic. I am 5'5, which is the mode for women in the US, and an inch over the mean, so women who are 5'7 are tall to me, but they are still shorter than most men, so I don't think any man would ever describe a 5'7 woman as "tall." Even I wouldn't necessarily say "tall," but I might say "taller than average."

In the East End, in 1888, where nutrition can't have been great, 5'7 might have been pretty tall for a woman. I remember once reading that the mean height for school boys in the East End around 1900 was two inches shorter than the mean height in the wealthier areas of London. Now, maybe the boys would eventually catch up, and just grew more slowly, but I don't think it tends to work that way. You stop growing at a certain point, whether you have reached your genetic potential or not.

If the mean height for women in the US right now is 5'4, and the mode is 5'5, then the mean for women in the East End in 1888 could have been 5'2, quite easily. I mean, Elizabeth Stride was just 5'2, and was still sometimes referred to as "Long Liz."

I can't find data on that. The best I can find is US data, that suggests that men averaged about 5'8 in 1880, up to 5'11.25 in 1930, and 1930 is the first year for data on women, who averaged 5'3.5, and that until the 1960s, Americans tended to be taller than Europeans. It just says "Europeans," which seems silly, because you know some countries had to average much taller people than others, but that's what I'm finding.

So, 5'7 could have been notably tall for a woman in the East End in 1888. In fact, if she was taller than many of the men she met, that might explain why she tended not to wear a hat, even though it was the convention to do so.

"Stout" is relative too, although from what we can see in the picture, she seems to have fairly slender calves and arms. She lived in the East End long enough to have been somewhat stout when she arrived, and to have lost weight as she lived there, in poverty.

Having long hair doesn't mean much, since women didn't tend to cut their hair. It grew as long as it grew. My hair is curly, and right now it's long. If I stretch it out, it reaches past my waist. I'm not sure that's really a sign of beauty, although it may have been a sign of health.

When Elizabeth Prater says that Kelly was "fair" as a lily, did she really mean "pretty," or did she just mean that she had very fair skin? Inasmuch as she was Irish, it makes sense. Then again, beauty is in the eye, and all that.

False buck teeth is another transient characteristic. Maybe she didn't wear them all the time, or maybe she got them replaced with better, or maybe to some people, any false teeth were better than toothless, and toothless was pretty common, it seems.

[Phil H]

Rivkak

I believe that "Long" Liz is thought now to be a pun on her surname "Stride" rather than her height.

The rest of your post is a more detailed confirmation of what i was saying in my previous post in this thread.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

Rivkak

I believe that "Long" Liz is thought now to be a pun on her surname "Stride" rather than her height.

The rest of your post is a more detailed confirmation of what i was saying in my previous post in this thread.

Phil H

I didn't think about the pun. And, we cross-posted; I was writing while you were posting, so I hadn't seen your post on height when I posted, but yes, we agree; the descriptions are different, but not really contradictory.

Kind of reminds me of a language class I was in when we were talking about descriptors. It was funny, but you really had to be there, because it was in sign language. The professor pointed out that a certain facial expression used to indicate that something is HUGE (or an event is figuratively a big deal) could be used to describe something two inches long-- if it's a cockroach. And then he did it. And we all laughed.

So, saying something it two inches long, and saying it's HUGE isn't necessarily contradictory. If it's a cockroach. Or any kind of roach, really.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rivkah,

To sum up your post: MJK might have been tall, might have been short, might have been thin, might have been stout, might have been pretty, might not have been pretty, might have had long hair, might not have had long hair, might have had protruding false teeth, might not have had protruding false teeth, or else had another set.

Small wonder the identity of the Millers Court victim is a mystery.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

good sense

Hello Chris.

"If the body in 13 Miller's Court was not Mary Jane Kelly, it's unlikely that she would have been seen on the street while such a corpse was lying on her bed. In other words, if there is any truth to the idea that she had wanted to disappear, it's absurd to use such sightings as proof that she survived. More likely the sightings are either mistaken or else she was killed later than has been assumed."

Eminently sensible. Why engineer an escape, with a substitute victim, only to hang about and tip your hand?

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

If one believes Maxwell, one must also believe Maurice Lewis, who claimed he saw Mary K going into the Brittania at 10 am drinking with others. Lewis's testimony on timing, follows that of Maxwell.

Well, no, especially if Lewis and Maxwell talked, or Lewis overheard Maxwell. Lewis may have seen someone, and once he overheard Maxwell, or discussed it with her, he overwrite the memory in his mind from seeing a vaguely MJK-looking woman, to actually seeing Kelly.

Maxwell saw her Mary vomiting about 8 am, she claimed she had been drinking for days.
Dr Bond found the remains of fish and chips in the stomach, half digested, a meal takes two to four hours to pass from the stomach to intestines,and the process had started, halted by death. So he concluded she had eaten between 10 and 11 the previous night.
She could not have eaten after 8 in the morning particularly if she was vomiting as Maxwell claimed.

Actually, you can vomit up partial stomach contents, while keeping down some of it. If you have solid food in your stomach, then consume liquid, you can bring up a lot of liquid, without bringing up much solid.

If she had part of a fish and chips meal from the previous night sitting out unrefrigerated, and finished it when she got up, say, at seven am, that could be why she was vomiting later. Just saying.

There was the scream of murder just before 4 am

That's always puzzled me. Who screams "Murder!" upon being approached by an attacker? I suppose it could have been "Please don't murder me!" and "murder" was the only word that made it through the floor, but "Please don't kill me" makes more sense.

then the burning of clothes in the fire makes sense. to create enough light to do his butchery.

With all the "Jack the Ripper" TV specials, you'd think one of the would think to get some period clothes, have someone wear them for several days without washing them, so they have plenty of dust, dried sweat, and body oil, on them, then burn them in a dark room, and see how much light they give off.

I'm not saying they wouldn't burn brightly, I'm just saying it's an experiment I'd like to see.

I don't think Barnett made a mistake, Mary's height, hair and general body shape would be recognisable, her arm and hand is distinctive and her jaw shape in spite of the mutilation.

Totally agree. And like I mentioned before, even though he face was mutilated, her head wasn't crushed. From the back, her head would look more or less normal.

For the record, I am perfectly prepared to accept that the witnesses are wrong, but I'm also perfectly prepared to accept that MJK could have been killed later in the morning than was previously believed. One of the earlier victims, Chapman or Nichols, was killed at 6am, wasn't she? even if you don't think that one person killed all 4/5 victims, the point is that if someone could get away with killing on the street in the early dawn, someone could get away with killing in an apartment in the early dawn. Yes, I realize we are talking about a time difference, and a later sunrise. I just have a problem with rigor only beginning at 1:30pm, unless denuding the body of so much muscle tissue somehow fouls up the estimation of the degree of rigor.

When did the sun rise on the day MJK was killed?

[RavenDarkendale]

8am: Caroline Maxwell talks to MJK
9am: MJK is solicited by man, observed by CM
9am-some time before 10: MJK haggles with client, observed by anon. witnesses
~10am: MJK killed by cut to throat
~10:01: the chemical process of rigor starts
~10:01-10:45: mutilations; at some point, killer starts fire for light or warmth, and gets idea, or already has it, to burn topmost clothes, or possibly even puts on woman's apron. If he is, or has been, a slaughterer, that won't seem too strange.
10:45: Bowyer leaves office
Before 11am: Bowyer knocks on door, looks through window at 13 Miller's Ct., then runs for police
~11am: killer leaves room
11am-1:30: clothes smolder in fire, and fire dies out
1:30: police enter room. Body of MJK has been dead in a warm room for 3 & 1/2 hours. That is plenty of time for partial rigor in a warm room. In fact, if she had really been dead since 2 or 3am, one would expect full rigor.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that the killer was still in no. 13 when the body was discovered? Where could he hide? And that the fire was still going when the body was discovered? Why wasn't that fact in the police reports? They report a fire HAD BEEN in the fireplace, hot enough to melt the spout of a tea kettle.

I do agree that burning clothes would not have produced much light. Much more likely to produce enough smoke to burn the eyes and blind you as well as making it difficult to breathe.

[Abby Normal]

If one believes Maxwell, one must also believe Maurice Lewis, who claimed he saw Mary K going into the Brittania at 10 am drinking with others. Lewis's testimony on timing, follows that of Maxwell.
People who believe in the Maxwell sighting believe Mary was killed in the morning, which makes no sense, as the combined statements of Maxwell and Lewis make it appear she was alive till after 10 am. So she would have to get away from the pub after 10 with her killer, drunk, be seen with him going to her room in full view, get murdered and cut up, before 10.45, when her body was discovered and her killer leaving her room in daylight on noticed by anybody.
So although their statements sound good in isolation from other statements, they don't fit in with anything else'
Inquiries were made at the Brittania, NO ONE else saw Mary there drinking at 10 in the morning. So did Lewis make a mistake about the day or get the wrong woman?
Maxwell had only seen Mary for a few months and was not a friend. She also described her as a 'pleasant stout,little woman, who kept to herself. Not the description of Mary who was about 5.7 with hair to her waist[ Mrs Pheonix]Tall and pretty,stout fair as a lily[ Mrs Prater] STOUT is a compliment, when the poor were half starved to be well covered with good breasts was admired. It does not mean fat. The victorians would have regarded our skinny stars as starved.Why would you described someone tall as little?
Durig the time Maxwell knew her she was living with Barnett, they had had rows, Maria Harvey had stayed with her. and she was a regular in the pubs, not keeping herself to herself.
The medical evidence does not fit with their statements. There is no way she could have died after 10 am. The Doctors Bond and Phillips have a ball park estimate of death between 2 and 8. They examined the body.
Maxwell saw her Mary vomiting about 8 am, she claimed she had been drinking for days.
Dr Bond found the remains of fish and chips in the stomach, half digested, a meal takes two to four hours to pass from the stomach to intestines,and the process had started, halted by death. So he concluded she had eaten between 10 and 11 the previous night.
She could not have eaten after 8 in the morning particularly if she was vomiting as Maxwell claimed.
The last sighting of her appears to that of Mrs Cox with Blotchy, unless you believe Hutch. She was last heard singing about 1 am.
There was the scream of murder just before 4 am
Mrs Cox thought she heard a man's footsteps leave the court a 5.45

If one believes Mary was murdered at night either by Blotchy or someone else, then the burning of clothes in the fire makes sense. to create enough light to do his butchery.Then quietly leaving at quarter to 6 in the morning

If one believes some else was murdered instead of Mary, then Maxwell's sighting is still problematic as it does not appear to be Mary, and the person she and Lewis saw was seen by no one else !! If Mary had been alive and into pubs after 10, well we would not be looking at the murder of Kelly.
Ironically if you believe Mary was murdered in daylight she could not have been seen by Maxwell and Lewis as she would have been in being murdered.

Maxwell and Lewis are not the first witnesses to be convinced they saw someone after they were dead, but like others I am beginning to question Maxwell's motives since the discovery of the letter or perhaps she got the name wrong as well as the description.
I don't think Barnett made a mistake, Mary's height, hair and general body shape would be recognisable, her arm and hand is distinctive and her jaw shape in spite of the mutilation.
There is a tendency to over complicate things with conspiracy theories. If Mary is never identified it is because we do not know her real name, it could be as simple as that, not that she had anything to hide. She was swimming in the lower depths of the food chain, a woman of no importance to the world.
Miss Marple
















They are not the first witnesses to be convinced

Thank you. most sensible post in this whole thread.