Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[Wickerman]

Where does the "six weeks arrears" come from anyway? Does it come from McCarthy? or was it the sob story she was telling friends, when she tried to borrow money?

I'd need to check of course but I seem to recall both Barnett & McCarthy mentioned Kelly being in arrears for about 29/-.
That the rent was 4/6 p/w simply equates to roughly 6 weeks (27 shillings actually being 6 weeks). This has been a modern calculation not offered by anyone at the time as far as I can recall.
Her debt (29/-) may have been more than just rent.

Regards, Jon S.

[Stephen Lee]

I'm not too sure about 1888. However the geat depression of 1930's I know about. If you multiply by 12 that gives you a figure that wiould equate with modern money.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'd need to check of course but I seem to recall both Barnett & McCarthy mentioned Kelly being in arrears for about 29/-.
That the rent was 4/6 p/w simply equates to roughly 6 weeks (27 shillings actually being 6 weeks). This has been a modern calculation not offered by anyone at the time as far as I can recall.
Her debt (29/-) may have been more than just rent.

Regards, Jon S.

interesting you should I agree with you but what what exactly do you mean by " more than just rent"

Regards
Mr Holmes

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The impression that Kelly was anxious that she owed her landlord such a lot , suggests a young woman desperate for money, that would work the streets for a few coppers.
This might have been the case for the other women , who had all seen better days, even in their forties, My grandmother used to say that women of forty were considered elderly when she was young.
But not Mary Kelly, she was mid twenties, attractive, quite striking, buxom, with very distinctive hair.
According to McCarthy's son[ Fiona's grandfather] she was pretty, and that was through the eyes of a 14 year old..
If she took to the street , it would be to attempt not only to get plied with drink but to attract some new man into her life, to help her out of the plight she found herself in, rather like when she met Joseph Barnett..
Mr A[ If he existed [ would have been a dream come true.
But not Blotchy..he just does not fit, quart of ale or not.?
Back to the apparent desperation to pay her landlord,
She apparently showed no qualms in having a conversation with his wife on the 8TH, neither obtaining goods from his shop, she does not come over as a person keeping out of the way.
As I have mentioned before,it would be unlikely that Kelly would have been evicted by the McCarthy's, whilst the killer was at large, call it a charity act, but I will admit she was on shaky ground.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

interesting you should I agree with you but what what exactly do you mean by " more than just rent"

Regards
Mr Holmes

Holmes - perhaps she had things on account from McCarthy's shop? Just a thought.

For some perspective, a young professional or journeyman could expect to earn about 30 shillings a week - and that was a decent wage. Kelly's arrears, if 29/ was equivalent to a week's wages.

[Cogidubnus]

Per Connell and Evans "The man who hunted Jack the Ripper" McCarthy said "She was charged 4s per week but was 30s in arrears. It is a rule to collect the rent from the Court daily, but, as Kelly had been having a hard time of late, I had heard, I didn't press her"

I don't know the source for this, and the sums (4s and 30s) differ from those generally quoted (4s 6d and 29s)...but the daily collection of rents is interesting.

I can't speak for anybody else, but the really curious fact to me, is that whilst other tenants seemed openly anxious about having their rent money, Kelly didn't. It could, of course, merely be that she hid her feelings better...on the other hand it could indicate that she had some form of understanding with her landlord.

Just one more puzzle in the whole Kelly mystery...

All the best

Dave

[RavenDarkendale]

The rent money is important if you feel MJK survived or even if you think she didn't.

If she was actually murdered, it means she may have braved taking a customer home. As has been stated, Whitechapel "ladies of the evening" usually led clients to dark corners to ply their trade.

Note here: Interesting that one of Sickert's paintings shows a nude woman lying on the bed with a (clothed) man sitting beside her and is entitled What Shall We Do For the Rent?

If she did survive, the question becomes why if she was seen by people, that McCarthy didn't tack her down for the rent as he had sent Bowyer to collect it that day?

[Wickerman]

Holmes - perhaps she had things on account from McCarthy's shop? Just a thought.

Thankyou Sally, thats exactly what I meant, like the candle for starters.

For some perspective, a young professional or journeyman could expect to earn about 30 shillings a week - and that was a decent wage. Kelly's arrears, if 29/ was equivalent to a week's wages.

Fishman writes that a Tailoress could earn as much as 15/- a week.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

You know what they say Jon, great minds think alike

But yes, 15/ would be achievable, although I don't imagine every tailoress managed it on a regular basis. By comparison, a General Labourer could often expect to earn less I believe.

What would Barnett have earned? I do know this, but can't recall at the minute - about 20/?

Compare Kelly's 4s a week with the 4d a night charged by the CLHs. That's 2/ a week - half of what Kelly and Barnett paid (as CLHs couldn't charge for Sunday). With her own room, Kelly was a considerable step up from that way of life.

[Tecs]

Basics

Dear all,

This whole thing can get so convoluted, but then again that's the interest of the whole mystery I suppose.

But let's, for a moment, go right back to basics and consider what we do know.

A body is found at Miller's Court. The doctors say it has been dead for several hours. Two witnessess say that they saw the main occupant of the room at times which rule out the body being her and finally, we know that the room was often occupied by other women, (Barnett said that there was another woman in the room on the night in question albeit one whose identity is probably known.) If we add that the body was only identified by her ex and by her eyes and hair then let's have a think.

I know that it is easy to say that the witnessess were just wrong or had confused the person they saw or the date but don't forget, British justice has hanged people on the evidence of one person in the past. Of course witnessess can be wrong but just ruling them out by saying they just must be wrong is attempting to squeeze the facts into a nice comfortable box. Maxwell was adament that she saw Kelly and spoke to her. How can we dare at this distance to dismiss her so simply? She was a brave woman who voluntarily gave her evidence and in an extremely intimidating, perhaps hostile environment, stuck to her story. She was warned by the coroner about her evidence and had to stand up surrounded by men who probably doubted her story and could have backed down at any time. But no, she stuck to her story solidly. On its own, that is actually quite impressive. As I said, people have been sent to prison and even executed on the basis of one persons testimony so it's not as easy to just dismiss her as we might think. If we then add that a completely independant witness also says that he saw her around the same time then surely we have to take what they say seriously, however uncomfortable it might be.

So if we accept their testimonies then what could have happened? Mary has been soliciting and has been in and out of the room all night. She returns in the early hours and finds a dead body on her bed! What would she do? Scream? What would she scream? Maybe "murder!"? She then composes herself and gathers herself together. She waits for a few minutes. Nobody comes in response to her cry. She realises that she has had a very lucky escape, the Ripper has been to her room and she survived. Then she realises that this could be the chance she needs to get away. (She appears to have been depressed with her life and circumstances and of course was way behind with her rent. Also, there may possibly be a deeper worry, Fenian connections maybe? She was apparently very worried in the previous few weeks about someone or something.) So if everybody could be made to believe that the body was her..... Perhaps the body was already disfigured as we see in the photographs, perhaps she had to spend some time destroying the facial features etc, who knows? She emerges from the room eventually and bumps into Maxwell. Obviously she has to stop and chat. But it appears that she told Maxwell untruths. In explanation of why she was up early she said that she was suffering from drink and had already had a "hair of the dog" from the Britannia, but brought it up. I think I'm right in saying that nobody was found in the area who had served her any beer that morning? So what explanation could there be for the pile of sick? Well, most people are a bit squeamish about blood. I would imagine an eviscerated corpse on your bed could make anyone rush outside to vomit. With Maxwell out of the way there is one more important thing that she needs to do, one final obstacle. To complete the deception, Mary would need somebody to identify the body as her. She would quickly need to get in contact with someone and ask their assistance. Barnett would probably be the one who, as common law husband, would be asked to identify the body. So, Mary would have to seek out Barnett, or at least somebody who could get the message to him. Interesting then that she was seen by Maurice Lewis in The Horn of Plenty later on that morning in the company of several people, one of whom was known to him as Dan. Barnett's brother was called Dan. On this point, why was she in the Horn of Plenty? of course she can go to any pub she wants but it appears that the Brittania was the pub of choice, the one Maxwell suggested she go to and the one she, Kelly, said that she had gone to. Was she in the Horn of Plently because the Brittania was too public, too popular and was somewhere where she was more well known? Was she lying low as much as she could?

Anyway, the body is identified by Barnett in far from ideal circumstances and the rest is history.

I know each bit is open to debate. For example it has been suggested that nobody serving her beer could have applied to the night before not the morning. I remember a debate about the photographic equipment at the time not producing the colour hair that we see in the photograph if she had the hair colour that we think she did have etc etc etc.

But, at the end of the day, there is nothing whatsoever that rules out the alternative scenario above. I promise you I am no conspiracy theorist! I don't revel in finding alternative explanations for anything and everything, but I do think that the two possibilities:-1. It was Mary. 2. It was someone else both have positive and negative points to consider. To just say that number 2 is impossible because it just is, isn't good enough.

There is no fact that rules it out.

I think!

Regards,

tecs

[andy1867]

If it wasn't Mary Jane Kelly...any ideas of who it might have been...

[Wickerman]

Hi Tecs.

So here was have another possibility, except, to my mind, the bit about Kelly needing to find someone to identify the body, I don't think so.

If the body in room 13 had different colour hair Barnett will notice this. So we must accept the coincidence that the body & Kelly both had the same length & colour of hair.
And also quite possibly the clothes which were found in the room, including the chemise that was on the body all looked like clothes which Kelly did own.
The coincidences do start to stack up.

There seems to be some confusion whether Barnett recognised the body by the 'hair' or 'ear' (assuming confusion over pronunciation), but one report tells us the ears were cut off, so that, if true, should rule out this argument.

Your scenario, even if we revise it by dropping Kelly looking for Barnett Saturday morning, is just plausible.
The path of least resistance for me is to accept the Saturday morning sightings were a case of mistaken identity.

You see, we do not know what questions were asked at the Horn of Plenty. Were they asked if they had seen Mary Kelly, or were they just shown a rough sketch and asked if they had seen a woman dressed like this Saturday morning?
If the former then a positive reply has implications, if the latter then a positive reply only means someone who looked similar but may not have been MJK at all.

Regards, Jon S.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
I could go along with the victim not being Mary Kelly, but only if she was actively involved in the murder.
If she was, then it would have involved a deal of planning, and the events leading up to the eve of the murder would have all played a part.
But what was the motive?
That would be the jackpot question.
If she was involved, I would suggest she was long gone, by the time Maxwell claimed to have seen her, and as for Maurice Lewis, well he was not even called to the inquest.[ so make what you will there]
So the question is Who did Mrs Maxwell see?
I have no doubt she saw someone, that she believed to have been the victim, that person was young, and she saw her often in ''the lodging house''
Court resident Lizzie Albrook was young and worked in a lodging house in Dorset street, so we should not discount, she simply had the wrong person, believing she was the person that had lived with a man named Barnett.
Her wearing Kelly's shawl is easy explained, which I have in a earlier post..
None of this is more then speculation, a much more logical explanation, is she
was killed at a later time then medical opinion.
Regards Richard..

[andy1867]

Who did Hutchinson see then?...MJK is plotting to "disappear"...so to aid that she goes out on the tiles...asks a bloke she has known for long enough, to lend her sixpence? I presume this must be all to lend credence to her subsequent "murder"?...and Maxwell who sees her "after her murder"...all these folk are complicit with the plan to disappear?...why not simply do a runner...?
regards
andy

[Sally]

aka Kelly...

I don't think there need be a plot or conspiracy if Kelly was not the woman killed in her room.

If she had been absent during the night - for whatever reason, and discovered the mutilated corpse in her room on return then Caroline Maxwell and Morris Lewis could have seen her. As for Hutchinson - well, there are lots of issues surrounding his alleged sighting - we could reasonably entertain the idea that he was wrong, whatever the cause.

So, if Kelly discovered a body in her room, why not just scream 'Murder'? Why not alert somebody, call the police?

Well, perhaps she didn't trust the police, perhaps she feared that the killer had meant to kill her (whether or not she was truly a Fenian spy...) - after all, the murder had taken place in her room. Perhaps she wanted to get as far away from Millers Court as she could and simply did a runner?

It was a lot easier then to disappear.

I'm not convinced that this is what happened, just speculating.