Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[curious]

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.

Regards,
Simon

Hi, Simon,
there may have been no definitive description, but she had friends who knew her, who would be asked to identify her. Unless she got to, say, Joe, and asked him to identify the body as her in order to save her life, could he not have been expected to say -- this woman is too short. Or Mary's hair was strawberry blonde, not this "dirty blonde"? Mary had tiny hands and these are like hams?

Of course, it is possible Barnett was too shaken to be able to really look at the body closely.

If you were planning such an elaborate scheme, would you not use a substitute that had certain basic characteristics in common with the supposed victim? Or arrange for the identifier to lie?

If unplanned, of course, and MJK walked in on the horror of that room and lit out in horror and fear, she may have heard later that everyone thought it was she and perhaps been relieved that she would be safe.


As I've said, too complicated, I think, to be believable.

curious

[curious]

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


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.

Hi, RivkahChaya,

I mean all the clothes involved, and what would a woman do if she were planning to run away.

Starting with the black coat and hat (on loan from Maria Harvey) -- which she was said to be wearing earlier in the final evening of her life.

Since Mary never wore a hat and that was the first day the hat had been left there, the witness must have had the correct day. Where was Mary going that she chose to wear the black velvet coat and hat? (Richard has asked this over and over. Don't know that we've ever reached an answer.)

Later, however, Mary was said to be wearing a different outfit, no coat, the wraparound -- which Mrs. Maxwell could describe and which she said she had not seen Mary wear for a year or more. (to me this sounds weird. If Maxwell barely knew MJK would she know her wardrobe that well? But if true, it leaves the question of what happened to the clothing Mary had been wearing more recently?)

Since the clothing Maxwell described was found folded on a chair, does this confirm the Maxwell sighting? If not, why?

IF Mary had not been wearing these items for a year, why suddenly pull them out to wear? Had she perhaps laundered or cleaned her better clothes to wear to the Lord Mayor's parade? Were they drying by the fire?

What happened to the more recent clothes? How many outfits were there? were they all burned or what happened to them? If I remember correctly most of the burned clothes were men's garments, weren't they?

Why did the police think the black velvet jacket and hat were burned because they were blood stained? How did they get blood stained? and why would the killer burn them because of that? Why would he care? Would not clothing wet with blood be less likely to burn?

What can make any sense here?

In some ways, wearing and being seen in old clothes, which are found folded beside the body, might indicate a plan being put into motion.

She was planning to run, and would be taking her good clothing. So, she was sacrificing old things she no longer wore to the plot.

On the other hand, she could have cleaned her best and was saving it for when she dressed to go to the Lord Mayor's parade.

Anyway, solving the clothing might lead us in the right direction for understanding what happened with Mary.


and RivkahChaya, your statement: In fact, if she had really been dead since 2 or 3am, one would expect full rigor.

is something I have thought for a long time.

To me, absolutely nothing about this particular murder really makes sense.

curious

[Phil H]

Of course, it is possible Barnett was too shaken to be able to really look at the body closely.

Especially if he had done it!!

[DVV]

Poor Barnett.
Cuckhold and suspect.
That's too much.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Curious.
Good post , and very similar to my way of thinking.
It is correct, that not many discuss what the police initially felt about T.O.D, and the reason behind the burnt clothing, which surely is significant.
A couple of speculative ideas.
We can assume that Prater was telling the truth, about Kelly wearing a bonnet on the eve of the 8TH, as that item was not left until a few hours before in Kelly's care, and as Harvey's words were ''I shall be leaving my bonnet then'' it would imply that something had been arranged that evening, especially as Harvey adds''Well I shall not be seeing you this evening then''.
We also have the witness Cox seeing Kelly in different clothing, less then three hours after Prater, and we therefore have to surmise why..
I see it two fold .
1] Kelly returned home in between to change clothes..
2] Kelly may have changed clothing with another female whilst out.
Both of these, have the question Why attached...
I have just discovered that according To Barnett, her favourite drinking place was a pub in Fish street hill, although on checking she had not been there for a month.
A man called George Compton was handed in for questioning at Bishopsgate police station on the Sunday by a man called Brown who lived in Dorset street number 9, apparently he was acting suspicious, and was bloodstained, and was followed upon leaving the pub in FISH STREET HILL.
all these coincidences, but who knows?
Regards Richard.

[RavenDarkendale]

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.

True, eye of the beholder and all that. My family can tell you that I have an eye for recognizing people despite cut and/or dyed hair, going bald, gain or loss of weight, etc. And yet when I state the color of a person's hair, everyone disagrees and says I must be mistaken the hair is another color. I'm not colorblind, but what is 'sandy" to me, or "auburn", or "dirty blonde" must be different than as what most view them.

[curious]

Of course, it is possible Barnett was too shaken to be able to really look at the body closely.

Especially if he had done it!!

Would a man that woosy have been able to stand up to hours of questioning by the police? I don't think so. He'd have babbled everything.

[RavenDarkendale]

Of course, it is possible Barnett was too shaken to be able to really look at the body closely.



If unplanned, of course, and MJK walked in on the horror of that room and lit out in horror and fear, she may have heard later that everyone thought it was she and perhaps been relieved that she would be safe.


As I've said, too complicated, I think, to be believable.

curious

@ curious

You make two good points here. Anyone being asked to identify a body as horrible as the one in number 13 probably didn't look too closely at it, especially if, as Phil remarks, he had done the murder.

Secondly, if Mary found the body, she would have fled the scene thinking, "My God! That could have been me!" Then as you say, word got to her that the body had been identified as her, so she felt safe. Someone spoke of why wasn't she a West End prostitute. She had been, and perhaps returned using a different name.

But it isn't complicated. Conjecture, certainly, but looking from the viewpoint that it wasn't MJK's body, the rest follows logically.

Regards

Raven

[curious]

But it isn't complicated. Conjecture, certainly, but looking from the viewpoint that it wasn't MJK's body, the rest follows logically.

Regards

Raven

Hi, Raven,
I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the details of how you see things happening.

curious

[miss marple]

just looking at the entry for Joseph Fleming being 6 7. It looks like 6.1 to me which is still quite tall but not excessive. The entry is made with a dip pen. a small serrif with a blot is at the top of the one. Doing a serrif on the would make it easier to get the flow of the downward stroke, the small blot under the serrif is typical of the loose ink that falls from a dip pen.
Just a suggestion.

Mary's stomach contents were still partially digested, which knocks out a morning death. Tjhat is fact not speculation.

Miss Marple

[moonbegger]

Hello all ,

What i find peculiar is that on the morning of the the 9th November , before the remains of this poor victim were discovered .. it seems that most people had a grasp of who Mary kelly was ! but just after Eddows murder in mitre square 39 days earlier , the police made inquiries into a Mary Kelly who according to a pawn ticket lived in Dorset street , and at that time no one had herd of her ? ( Eddows gave her name as Mary Kelly to Bishopsgate police , and they found a pawn ticket connecting a Mary Ann to Dorset street next to her body )

[QUOTE] if Mary found the body, she would have fled the scene thinking, "My God! That could have been me!"[/QUOTE

Especially if she had read the news paper reports just after the Eddows murder that proclaimed the victims name was a Mary Kelly ! she would have for sure had an uneasy feeling that someone was out to get her !

cheers

moonbegger

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi, Raven,
I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the details of how you see things happening.

curious

http://www.casebook.org/victims/mary_jane_kelly.html

It would go along with this time, until this point:

Between 3:00am and 4:00am, both MJK and her client leave her room. Another prostitute and client go in, as MJK often shared her room and bed with other unfortunates. MJK likely finds herself something to drink with the money she earned.

4:00am, the cry of "Oh! Murder!" is reported by Elizabeth Prater and Sarah Lewis. This is just a thought, but could MJK have discovered the body then?

6:30am Mrs. Cox thinks she hears someone leave. Thought, MJK or JtR?

8:30 Caroline Maxwell spots MJK and gets a good enough look to describe the clothing in detail. Italics mine.

10:00am Maurice Lewis spots MJK. No mention is made in this report that she was drinking, but that Lewis had seen her and Barnett drinking in the Horn of Plenty Public House the night before.

10:30 Body discovered by Thomas Bowyer, sent to collect six weeks back rent from MJK for John McCarthy.

Interlude: It has already been noted that six weeks is a long time to wait on rent in Whitechapel, and perhaps MJK had other ways of paying. Perhaps that is where MJK went after she discovered the body. Did McCarthy dispatch Bowyer to fetch rent or to make certain the body was discovered after Mary allowed herself to be seen alive?

1:30 police gain entrance to the room at no. 13 Examination places death around 4:00 - 6:00am since it is stated that both witnesses saw MJK alive several hours after TOD. Certainly the body in the bed was dead long before 8:30am

The inquest is rushed and MJK hastily buried.

Mary vanishes either into the Abyss or perhaps manages to return to Ireland.

Everything hinges on whether Barnett actually was able to correctly ID the body. As some has said, the feet, the hands, and the hair were there, all bloodstained but possible to identify. Unless Barnett were, as some expect, JtR, in which case he knew exactly whether it was MJK or not. Having survived his own brush with the police as a suspect, he likely wasn't going to try to trace MJK.

Final point: People are already calling this a lot of conjecture (which it is) and a waste of time (which it is not). As my collection of Jack the Ripper solution books continues to grow, I find my conjecture no more fantastic than a lot of the published books!

God bless

Raven Darkendale

[lynn cates]

Anne

Hello MB. I think you'll find that the pawn ticket was made out to Anne Kelly.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

http://www.casebook.org/victims/mary_jane_kelly.html

It would go along with this time, until this point:

Between 3:00am and 4:00am, both MJK and her client leave her room. Another prostitute and client go in, as MJK often shared her room and bed with other unfortunates. MJK likely finds herself something to drink with the money she earned.

4:00am, the cry of "Oh! Murder!" is reported by Elizabeth Prater and Sarah Lewis. This is just a thought, but could MJK have discovered the body then?

6:30am Mrs. Cox thinks she hears someone leave. Thought, MJK or JtR?

8:30 Caroline Maxwell spots MJK and gets a good enough look to describe the clothing in detail. Italics mine.

10:00am Maurice Lewis spots MJK. No mention is made in this report that she was drinking, but that Lewis had seen her and Barnett drinking in the Horn of Plenty Public House the night before.

10:30 Body discovered by Thomas Bowyer, sent to collect six weeks back rent from MJK for John McCarthy.

Interlude: It has already been noted that six weeks is a long time to wait on rent in Whitechapel, and perhaps MJK had other ways of paying. Perhaps that is where MJK went after she discovered the body. Did McCarthy dispatch Bowyer to fetch rent or to make certain the body was discovered after Mary allowed herself to be seen alive?

1:30 police gain entrance to the room at no. 13 Examination places death around 4:00 - 6:00am since it is stated that both witnesses saw MJK alive several hours after TOD. Certainly the body in the bed was dead long before 8:30am

The inquest is rushed and MJK hastily buried.

Mary vanishes either into the Abyss or perhaps manages to return to Ireland.

Everything hinges on whether Barnett actually was able to correctly ID the body. As some has said, the feet, the hands, and the hair were there, all bloodstained but possible to identify. Unless Barnett were, as some expect, JtR, in which case he knew exactly whether it was MJK or not. Having survived his own brush with the police as a suspect, he likely wasn't going to try to trace MJK.

Final point: People are already calling this a lot of conjecture (which it is) and a waste of time (which it is not). As my collection of Jack the Ripper solution books continues to grow, I find my conjecture no more fantastic than a lot of the published books!

God bless

Raven Darkendale

Hi, Raven,
Thanks, interesting.

I will take some time to think on this.

One question -- why would Mary want people to see her alive?

Thanks,

curious

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
There is a lot of puzzling events, surrounding the death of Mary Kelly, and none more so then the witnesses claiming to see her, and where.
We know that on the Monday, and Tues nights Mrs Harvey slept over, but do many of you know that on the Wed, Elizabeth Foster stayed in her room.
So the only night that week, that she was planning to be without a sleepover was Thurs.
Apparently on Thursday evening until approx five past seven pm, she was in the Ten bells with Elizabeth Foster,she then apparently returned to Dorset street, dropping off at New court to have a quickie [ drink] with Mrs Harvey, before going back to her room ,when she invited her neighbour and friend 20 year old Lizzie Albrook in ,until Barnett arrived about 30 minutes later, she then apparently dressed, to venture out wearing her jacket and bonnet, which the latter Harvey left, when she was in Kelly's room earlier.
Whilst writing this , I have had a mad thought ,as Lizzie A, was young, and as she worked in a Dorset street , lodging house, could it be her that Maxwell saw, and mistook her for Kelly.
Did she not tell the inquest, that she knew the dead woman because of her being in the lodging house..?
Many a time someone has addressed me by the wrong name, and I don't correct it,maybe Lizzie A did? when Mrs M called her Mary.
Just a thought.... but I have a feeling that Mary Kelly had plans for the last night of her life , but what?
Regards Richard.