Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[RavenDarkendale]

Why did Mary want herself to be seen?

A good question. One thing it would ensure is that it would throw doubt upon the identity of the body. Perhaps she planned to disappear, but hoped they would discover who was really murdered in her room. Or maybe she knew only too well who had been after her and was letting him know that she was still alive, and she now was certain that he had tried to kill her. The supposition can lead many directions.

My theory is that the dead woman was a friend of MJK who resembled her superficially. The murderer made a mistake, being in an extreme emotional storm. The wounds spell out aggression and personal animosity. If he ever figured out his mistake, it was too late for the poor unfortunate. Mary let him know she was very much alive, and then simply disappeared.

[Phil H]

Is not another possibility that the sightings were made (if true, which i am not altogether convinced about) BEFORE the murder.

To me the way MJK is said to have spoken does not suggest a woman who has just found a horrific murder has taken place in her room. While being sick might be a response to shock.

Maybe she died AFTER having seen Mrs Maxwell.

Phil H

[moonbegger]

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

Cheers.
LC

Ok , thanks Lynn .. But either way , putting together the pieces of the puzzle ie [ The name she gave at Bishopsgate , the ID of that same person in mitre sq , and the pawn ticket ] the police had a link , and did a check of Dorset street for a Mary Kelly .. and no one knew of such a individual ? yet 39 days later everyone knew of her and could clearly identify her .. is this not in the slightest bit strange ?

moonbegger

[RivkahChaya]

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?

It certainly is an odd thing for the victim to say, just before, or immediately after, being attacked. "Stop!" "No!" or just a scream are all much more likely. I wonder how likely "Oh, murder!" is for someone discovering a body, though. People do reshape memories based on subsequent events. I wonder if they heard something they really couldn't identify, that became "Oh, murder!" when they heard about the murder the next day. I doubt very much that the police questioned them cold-- that is, without them knowing why the police were questioning them, or that anything unusual had happened downstairs. They may even have spoken together before they spoke to the police, which would make the fact that both reported this meaningless.

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

My JTR A-Z says 10:45. Since I doubt he looked at his watch right after he saw the body, I think we have a window here. How far away was the office, and how far away was the police station, or the patrolman, or whoever he found when he reported the body? 10:45 could be anywhere from the time he left the office to collect the rent, to the first time someone noted the time after checking on the body. He probably could have found the body anywhere between 10:15 and 11.

Interlude: It has already been noted that six weeks is a long time to wait on rent in Whitechapel,

How often did he collect? If he collected every week, six weeks is a long time, but if he collected every month, then she was only one pay period in arrears. Also, is there any possibility he was lying? Do we have anyone but McCarthy's word on the amount? Did he have any reason to claim a certain amount of money because she owned the things in the room, and he wanted to keep them, so he invented an amount in arrears more or less equal to what was in the room, for example?

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

If you've been following, TOD estimate was based on rigor, and even now, knowing what causes rigor, MEs can't get it wrong if they are mistaken about the temperature where the body was found. Having a fire going could have advanced rigor, and I'm still trying to find an answer to the effect having her legs and chest stripped of muscle tissue might have had. The hips and torso may have been floppy due to the missing muscle, and they probably checked for rigor by trying to flex joints. They probably did not examine the excised muscle tissue for hardness.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The majority of Casebook believe, that Mrs Maxwell either was Mistaken, or not telling the truth, the wrong day seems highly unlikely, for obvious reasons.
Not telling the truth is a possibility ..especially now we know that a letter was allegedly sent from the address she was living..suggesting it was from the killer.
But a more logical explanation would be mistaken identity.
As I remarked in a earlier post .Court resident Lizzie Albrook, was aged 20 years, was friendly with Kelly , and worked in a Dorset street , lodging house.
We know that Maxwell quoted , that she knew the dead woman , by her being in the lodging house.
Is it not then possible that as Kelly, and Albrook, were friends, and both young, and lived in the court , then Maxwell simply mistook her as Kelly.
I have explained that it is not unusual, to not correct someone, who mistakenly calls you by the wrong name, so if Lizzie was called Mary, that could explain that.
So what about the red Cross-over found in Kelly's room, that Maxwell saw Kelly?, wearing.
We have reports that Kelly at 9pm [ 8th] was wearing her jacket and Harvey's bonnet, we know that at 1145 she was not.
Is it not possible that whilst out, she changed clothing,and gave her jacket and bonnet to another woman, and she used that woman's wrap-around to return home in [ seen by Cox] and it was this item found in her room.
And therefore is it not possible that Lizzie A borrowed Kelly's shawl that evening to go out in?
We could assume that as Catherine picket? wished to borrow Kelly's shawl in the morning , that it may have been lent out quite regularly.
So why not Lizzie, if it was her that Maxwell saw , and mistook for Kelly, then its possible that she had been out the previous evening and had too much to drink so that is how she still had the shawl, and possibly sick.
All very mysterious, but it may explain how the jacket and bonnet were bloodied, if the person was still wearing them when attacked, and if that person was not MJK, then leaving them in the room intact, might pose questions..
All very speculative , but I am trying to make sense of many mysteries.
Regards Richard.

[curious]

Hi,
The majority of Casebook believe, that Mrs Maxwell either was Mistaken, or not telling the truth, the wrong day seems highly unlikely, for obvious reasons.
Not telling the truth is a possibility ..especially now we know that a letter was allegedly sent from the address she was living..suggesting it was from the killer.
But a more logical explanation would be mistaken identity.
As I remarked in a earlier post .Court resident Lizzie Albrook, was aged 20 years, was friendly with Kelly , and worked in a Dorset street , lodging house.
We know that Maxwell quoted , that she knew the dead woman , by her being in the lodging house.
Is it not then possible that as Kelly, and Albrook, were friends, and both young, and lived in the court , then Maxwell simply mistook her as Kelly.
I have explained that it is not unusual, to not correct someone, who mistakenly calls you by the wrong name, so if Lizzie was called Mary, that could explain that.
So what about the red Cross-over found in Kelly's room, that Maxwell saw Kelly?, wearing.
We have reports that Kelly at 9pm [ 8th] was wearing her jacket and Harvey's bonnet, we know that at 1145 she was not.
Is it not possible that whilst out, she changed clothing,and gave her jacket and bonnet to another woman, and she used that woman's wrap-around to return home in [ seen by Cox] and it was this item found in her room.
And therefore is it not possible that Lizzie A borrowed Kelly's shawl that evening to go out in?
We could assume that as Catherine picket? wished to borrow Kelly's shawl in the morning , that it may have been lent out quite regularly.
So why not Lizzie, if it was her that Maxwell saw , and mistook for Kelly, then its possible that she had been out the previous evening and had too much to drink so that is how she still had the shawl, and possibly sick.
All very mysterious, but it may explain how the jacket and bonnet were bloodied, if the person was still wearing them when attacked, and if that person was not MJK, then leaving them in the room intact, might pose questions..
All very speculative , but I am trying to make sense of many mysteries.
Regards Richard.

Hi, Richard,
Very interesting.

The question I have to wonder about though is would not Lizzie have mentioned that in her talk with the police?

Your ideas would explain why Maxwell would have thought Mary was wearing something she did not normally wear.

However, it is the fact that Maxwell mentions from a year ago, doesn't she?

I'm relying on your information here. I don't have that.

Since I'm already wondering about Maxwell, I find it strange that she seems to know MJK's wardrobe that well. . . but I don't understand her being able to describe the clothing that showed up in the room.

YOU ASK: Is it not possible that whilst out, she changed clothing,and gave her jacket and bonnet to another woman, and she used that woman's wrap-around to return home in [ seen by Cox] and it was this item found in her room.

So, how is it you propose that the jacket and hat were found burned in the room. do you think the woman she changed clothes with was the woman killed?

Because we have the crossover and the jacket and hat both in the room. There's something here I'm not following.

curious

[richardnunweek]

Hi curious.
Mrs Maxwell had only known Kelly for about 4 months,she had only being in Millers court 9 months.
Of course if she saw Lizzie, it might have been her, who she described as knowing for a short time, if she was referring to the wrong person.
Lizzie was speaking to the press, and was never a police witness, lets face it Kelly did not need a shawl any longer, and she would have,so why mention it.?
It may have even incriminated her , possibly stealing it from Mary's room.
Yes I am suggesting the possibility that the woman killed was indeed the woman wearing the velvet jacket and bonnet, and it was not Kelly.
If one adds up all the events that night, including the man and two women standing in Dorset street, one of them wearing a hat, and respectable,the other not, appearing to attempt, to entice the smarter woman to go somewhere, and takes into account the clothing change which appeared to have happened, and the Times Nov 12TH, which indicates that the jacket and bonnet were burnt because they were bloodstained, one could arrive at a similar scenario,
The crossover that was found in Kelly's room may simply have been a similar to what Maxwell saw.
Regards Richard.

[RavenDarkendale]

@ RivkahChaya

I know there are questions of TOD, but if MJK was spotted at 10:00, and then found dead and completely destroyed at 10:45 (you were right there, I'm just a bit dyslectic, and when spell check doesn't catch me I goof alot), then a whole gang must have worked her over, IMHO.

When figuring in TOD, the Doctors would have to allow for the time between discovery of the body at 10:45 and their finally gaining entrance at 1:30. I think it very reasonable to assume that the body was dead long before two people saw MJK.

"Ah, but you never know!" to quote WC Fields

God Bless

Raven

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I can never quite understand why a lot of Casebook assumes that the killer spent a long time over Kelly.
If one takes the view that in Mitre square, the killer did a pretty good job on poor Kate, in a very short time, if one places a further 15 minutes on that, I would suggest that one ghastly mess would have found found.
I would suggest half an hour full whack, would have seen Kelly's mutilation fulfilled , but that obviously is conjecture .
Regards Richard.

[RavenDarkendale]

Hello Richard

Well, problem is she was allegedly seen at 10:00 but no one saw her go HOME. That could mean if this is MJK, which I am very much beginning to doubt, she could have gone home anytime AFTER 10:00. Your 30 minutes are of course covered by this timeline, and this does seem to be a straightforward butchery, ie, he was after no certain body part.

There does seem to be confusion over the heart of the victim. It had been cut out. (To be found in the coroner's report) There are reports that all of her was recovered at the scene. (Found this in either Shirley or Paul's book concerning James Maybrick's diary. There is conjecture that JtR shredded her heart all over the room.) No mention of where the heart was found in the official report.

Certain: A young woman died in that room, brutally cut to shreds.

Uncertain: That it was actually MJK and who was the killer.

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

[richardnunweek]

Hi Raven,
The whole Kelly murder is confusing , and not helped by the many statements made to the press ,and the police.
If we take Maurice Lewis, we have parts that sound authentic, but others that sound dubious.
I have always felt that his tale of Mary leaving her room at 8am and returning to it later, a possible , as it would coincide with Maxwell's sighting.
Also the observation which claimed, that he saw Mary return to her room, with milk, whilst playing Pitch and toss in the court.
To admit that he was playing a illegal game, hence someone shouting ''A coppers coming'' also has a ring of truth to it.
So it is entirely possible, that he indeed did see Kelly drinking around 10am, although if he did, I would suggest that the Killer would have been operating well out of his comfort zone.
But as it was daylight,it might well have giving Kelly a false sense of security taking a man back to her room, where night time would surely give her reservations.
If we take Maxwell at her word, and Maurice Lewis, and a woman who was described as name known, who informed the press she saw the victim in Dorset street that morning, then we have a simple solution..
Mary Kelly was killed at a much later time, then considered by the medical team.
Regards Richard.

[Michael W Richards]

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

Just how many outfits do you imagine any of these women had curious?

Cheers

[curious]

Just how many outfits do you imagine any of these women had curious?

Cheers

Hi, Michael
I would imagine that most women of that era had maybe a couple, a best and work outfits and perhaps even very ragged work-around-the-house, floor-scrubbing clothes.

However, there was some evidence that MJK had gone to pick up fancy dresses from someone, so I'm guessing we can't be sure about the extent of her wardrobe.

My remark, however, was referring to the fact that apparently Maxwell stated that MJK was wearing ?a dress? ?clothing? she had not seen her wear in a long time. I have not personally seen that quote, but Richard refers to it.

We do have reports of Kelly being seen in two different outfits that last night of her life, and Catherine Picket stopping by to borrow her crossover --

Clothes were burned in the fire.

So how many outfits did MJK seem to have?

That seems to be the question.

best,
curious

[Michael W Richards]

The only witness we know saw Mary Kelly near home is Mary Ann Cox curious, so.. we actually have one outfit described.

We do not know what if anything happened when Mary went for those dresses, and we do know that of the clothing found in the room, aside from what Mary had taken off to put on the chair, it was washed clothing that belonged to Maria's client.

Cheers

[curious]

The only witness we know saw Mary Kelly near home is Mary Ann Cox curious, so.. we actually have one outfit described.

We do not know what if anything happened when Mary went for those dresses, and we do know that of the clothing found in the room, aside from what Mary had taken off to put on the chair, it was washed clothing that belonged to Maria's client.

Cheers

And that doesn't strike you as odd?