Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If only it was as easy as Miss Marple suggests, and I agree it was a good post.
The fact still remains that at least until the eve of the 11TH Nov, the police held the impression, that this murder happened in daylight, as it states that in The Times Nov 12TH.
That being the case they would not have concluded that the killer needed light to carry out his work, and appeared to have believed the fire was meant to burn unwanted clothing, which included Kelly's velvet jacket, and bonnet belonging to Mrs Harvey, which was clothing seen by Mrs Prater at 9pm the 8TH.worn by Kelly.
Because they were bloodstained...?
We surely should discuss what the police felt ,not what we feel happened , and attempt to make sense.
Regards Richard.

[RivkahChaya]

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.

I suggested it as a remote possibility. If I understand the actual chain of events, Bowyer arrived, knocked on the door, got no response, peeked in the window, saw the body, and ran for the police. The police arrived, looked in the window, but did not go into the apartment until 1:30, because they were waiting for scent hounds, which as it turned out, never arrived.

I'm not sure how much Bowyer could see, just looking through the bit of broken glass, but since he knocked, it gave someone time to duck behind the bed, or hide against the wall. The killer was armed. He may have hoped that by not getting an answer, Bowyer would just go away, but he may have been prepared to kill him if he entered.

At any rate, experience had probably taught him that people saw the body, and ran for the police.

I'm not introducing it as very likely; however, there could still have been something smoldering in the fireplace, and the killer may not have left as early as people thought.

Remember, from the time Bowyer found the body (actually, some unknown time before that), until 1:30pm, no one entered the room.

We don't know the solder melted then; it could have happened on a different occasion. Which, by the way, isn't the same thing as actually melting the spout itself.

Anyone know what the solder was made from? Was it lead? Eek. Lead in the cookware.

[RivkahChaya]

In London, on Nov. 9, 1888, sunrise was at 7:09am. So, I'd assume that means full light by 8am.

More surprising, sundown the day before was at 4:20.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The suggestion that the killer was still in the room when Bowyer knocked is unlikely.
In the court when Bowyer was attempting to arouse Kelly, there was Mrs McCarthy and son collecting rents, not to mention probable activity from the residents,
It would be extreme, to believe that the murderer could exit the room, after Bowyers discovery.
As for the damaged kettle, it would appear that this actually occurred on the eve/morning of the 8TH-9TH, as witnesses such as Mrs Harvey would have confirmed the kettle was OK prior,
I believe that Mrs Harvey shared breakfast with Mary the previous day, also albeit we doubt Maurice Lewis, he did say that he saw Mary leave the room at 8am , and return with milk.
If that was to be used for tea, then a ruined kettle would be little use for boiling water, which could suggest that the fire was not lit until morning , and Kelly was killed before she could remove that item from damage.
Regards Richard.

[Cogidubnus]

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

Precisely Lynn, I agree...and moreover, I thought it was more or less certain that the identification by Barnett was based on eye and ear...was it not?

All the best

Baffled of Bognor

[RivkahChaya]

If Mrs. Harvey said the kettle was OK, I can accept that, but I also think you could still boil water in it, even if the spout had come off.

Supposedly, the spout was soldered on, with a solder made with something that had a relatively low melting point, like lead, and the kettle made of something like iron, with a higher melting point. A kettle recently bought might have been studier, with aluminum solder, or even cast iron, for example, but if it were dropped, and the spout broke off, Kelly could have had it repaired, and the repairman used cheap solder, with a lower melting point. She probably would have been cautioned to keep it out of direct flame. It really doesn't take that much heat to melt lead solder.

I'm not disputing the timing of the spout coming off, just pointing out that there's nothing terribly mysterious about the spout of a cheap kettle, or a cheaply repaired one, coming off. It really doesn't require that the fire be hot, which is to say, that some special hot-burning fuel was used, only that the fire be high, so the flames came above the grill, or that the kettle was on its side.

I did point out that it could have come off earlier, only because I think one of the detectives at the time said that.

[RivkahChaya]

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

No, that's not what I said at all. I said there's nothing contradictory in the descriptions, even if they don't line up. You and I might be asked to describe someone, and I might mention the outstanding features, to me, which might be "tall, blue eyes," and you might mention the outstanding features to you, which might be "fat, dark-haired." Absent a mention of build or hair color, people tend to fill in "tall" with "thin," and "blue-eyed" with "blonde," or at least, "light-haired," but that doesn't have to be the case. Also, I'm 5'5; I don't know how tall you are, but if you are over 6', then we will have different ideas of "tall." If the person is 5'8, I might say "tall," but you might say "average," for a woman, or "short" for a man.

And then, "pretty" is a very subjective term. And build, particularly on a woman, can be transient.

I'm more inclined to look at her behavior, or what we know of it, to shore up the descriptions. She didn't wear a hat. That makes me think she was probably taller than average, and stood taller than a lot of men, so she didn't wear a hat, since back then hats added several inches to a woman's perceived height. But, if she didn't wear a hat, she probably had pretty healthy looking hair. She didn't need a hat to cover up the fact that it was all puff in front, and nothing in back.

I've read several witnesses who said that she always wore clean, ironed aprons. No hat, and a clean apron suggests that she didn't mind people looking at her, so whatever anyone else thought, she probably thought she was pretty.

Judging from the one corpse photo, her calves and arms look slender, so I'm inclined to think that stout meant busty or full-figured, and not fat; either that, or she had lost a lot of weight recently, for some reason.

Or, it wasn't her, but I don't think that.

[curious]

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.

Or perhaps to have had a reason to be out in order to claim to have seen Kelly?

But then, how did she know what Kelly was wearing?

c

[Brenda]

.

This letter you guys are discussing, is there a link to a discussion of that? I'm searching the "Letters" section but so far fruitless. If someone has a link I would be grateful.

[Sally]

Here you are Brenda

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6812

[DVV]

Hi Phil
on the contrary, neither Venturney nor Barnett described Fleming as "very tall", although 6'7 would have been an extraordinary height at the time.

My apologies, I was unclear - I should have said subsequently identified. I was referring to the Casebook threads where a recent identification of Fleming was made which gave him esxceptional height from (was it) a day book/admission record? If I recall correctly, he also (like Lechmere /Cross) went by another name. The thread I had in mind is here for ease of reference:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2079&highlight=Fleming

Personally, I discount the exceptional height - I think it was a slip for 5'7" - but as it's part of the written record and we have no other evidence, we cannot dicount it.

You are absolutely correct that Barnett and Venturney made no mention of height.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

Phil H

Agreed Phil, but the same records have him weighting 70kg, which would make him both incredibly tall and thin. He would have been famous in the VH and quite easy to trace, if so. Fact is that neither Venturney nor Barnett nor Mrs McCarthy nor any medic did allude to this uncommon height.
Then, all in all, he was most probably 5'7, as suggested by Debra.

[DVV]

Hello Dave. Good to see you back. Will you hang about for a while?
Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn ! Hope so...

[Sally]

I doubt there were many men of 6'7" walking about London - I agree that the figure must be borne in mind, but it is probably an error. It would be absurd to insist that all records, now, or then, are entirely accurate and error-free.

There comes a point at which common sense must prevail.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
The most logical explanation, is that James Evans/Fleming was not the man that courted Mary Kelly, despite many points in favour.
We have no reason to doubt the height recorded, and we should remember that at one stage he was 11s-10lbs, which if 5'7'' was quite stocky.
If 6' 7'' he was most certainly not our Joe..and maybe we should pass him over.
The other 'Joe' in her life was said to have been a costermonger, and he could be anyone that took her fancy, and lets face it, most men who liked a woman would find it hard to accept her living, and sharing a room with someone else , especially with a man sharing the same name.
Talk about ''what's that Joe got that I haven't''
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Hi Richard

[HTML]The most logical explanation, is that James Evans/Fleming was not the man that courted Mary Kelly, despite many points in favour.
[/HTML]

Aha. Could you develop ?

We have no reason to doubt the height recorded, and we should remember that at one stage he was 11s-10lbs, which if 5'7'' was quite stocky.

170 cm for 70 kg... where is the problem, Richard ? ....and on the other hand 200 cm for 70 kg would be no problem ? Funny.

If 6' 7'' he was most certainly not our Joe..and maybe we should pass him over.

Agreed. But 6'7 is an obvious mistake.

The other 'Joe' in her life was said to have been a costermonger

You should quote Venturney's wording, Richard... anyway, Fleming wasn't anymore in the building trade in 1888. He could have done anything to survive.