Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[lynn cates]

Brymbo eliminated

Hello (again) Jon. Try here--posts #78 & 79.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=240063&highlight=brymbo#post240063

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Brymbo

Hello Jon. You forced me to trot out Chris's book and I found the person to whom you were alluding.

There are indeed some fits, but the father seems to be dead and misnamed. And there is no marriage to Davies. Are you comfortable overlooking those items?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

why?

Hello Mike.

"Could the extreme nature of the wounds inflicted on the woman found in room 13 be a result of a desire to make an accurate identification almost impossible? Or a substitution possible?"

The former seems more promising than the latter.

"If Mary was hiding from someone, and she or her assailants knew someone who worked in a morgue or at a University Hospital in the area she/they might have been able to obtain a body that would look much like the one in room 13. Randomly sliced up...parts extracted and just set aside, partial denuding of bone in some places, ....the only wounds that wouldnt fit with those kinds of environments are the ones to her face."

OK. But this would work better with some kind of over arching background story--with reasons why.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi all,

Wickerman, since the comments I made suggested we may be talking about someone who made up her name and past......(to address another point here, a name and past story that has defied validation, hence, not likely anyone real),...why would you imagine then that she would provide anyone with any accurate details about her real name and past.

Michael.
Whoever that woman was who was murdered in Millers Court, she picked an identity which did exist. A shot in the dark?, maybe.

- MJK claimed to have been born in Ireland, and moved to Wales before she was 16, forget the marriage, its not important.

Brymbo-mary was born in Ireland and moved to Wales between 1871-4, she was between 8-10 yrs old.


- MJK apparently claimed to be about 25 yrs old, according to friends.

Brymbo-mary was born in 1864, she was 24 yrs old in 1888.


- MJK claimed to have six brothers at home and one in the army, some reports say "six or seven" brothers.

Brymbo-mary had exactly seven brothers.


- MJK also claimed to have a sister.

Brymbo-mary had just one sister.


Astonishingly, Brymbo-mary's surname was "Kelly".

How many Mary Kelly's do we find who were "about 25" in 1888, born in Ireland, and moved to Wales before their 16th year, and with seven brothers and one sister?

Michael, what am I imagining here?


Researchers who have pursued Mary Kelly from Brymbo have been so close to settling who MJK really was.
The odd's are staggering that anyone could invent such a bio and even get her own age and the family name right.

Whoever the woman was who took up with Joe Barnett, she knew Mary Kelly from Brymbo, in Denbighshire county, north Wales, she used her identity.
The detailed bio leads us to that conclusion.

The question I have is, who was that cousin whom Brymbo-mary lived with in Cardiff, and what happened to her (I'm assuming the cousin is female)?
She had to be the daughter of a brother or sister of Hubert Kelly, or likewise, of Bridget Kelly.
I don't think this line of inquiry has been exhausted.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Could the extreme nature of the wounds inflicted on the woman found in room 13 be a result of a desire to make an accurate identification almost impossible? Or a substitution possible?

If Mary was hiding from someone, and she or her assailants knew someone who worked in a morgue or at a University Hospital in the area she/they might have been able to obtain a body that would look much like the one in room 13. Randomly sliced up...parts extracted and just set aside, partial denuding of bone in some places, ....the only wounds that wouldnt fit with those kinds of environments are the ones to her face. Anyone who doubts that should seek out medical student autopsy images of the period.

The woman known as Mary Jane Kelly came home at 11:45 with someone in tow....for that we have a court residents statement, someone who spoke with her. Was that the same woman found murdered at around 11:15-:30am?

Seems logical, but is it empirical data? Nope.

Cheers all.

[lynn cates]

dissemination

Hello Mike.

"Maybe Kate was using variations of Marys alias to imply she knew her"

Very well. But how would this become known to the concerned party/ies?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Dismissing Witnesses?

Hi Bridewell,

Just to clarify, lest it be thought I advocate any conspiracy theories, I can perfectly well accept that the body was MJK no problem at all. And in all likelihood it was.

We're in agreement here.

But there are those niggling issues that need to be addressed, namely the witnessess who say they saw her after the time the body was dead.

And here!

I've gone through this in much more detail previously and don't want to repeat myself, but basically Maxwell under enormous pressure stuck to her story completely and I don't buy the idea that she could have got the day wrong for reasons I've listed before.

And here!

If we are going to dismiss her as wrong/mistaken/lying etc just because her story doesn't fit our nice compact version of events, then we may as well dismiss every witness and abandon the whole thing.

Who said anything about dismissing witnesses? All I asked was:-
What reason is there to believe that the woman in Mary Kelly's bed was not Mary Kelly? Which woman went missing on the night that Kelly died and never re-appeared? Are you aware of one? If not, why not accept the likelihood that the occupant of the bed was Mary Kelly?

Of course, if a witness is clearly unreliable such as Packer et al, then we can have an opinion that takes that into account.

We're back to agreement.

But there's nothing in Maxwell's story that we can so easily dismiss, like it or not.

I don't dismiss Maxwell's story.

So, faced with this dilemma it's not unreasonable to consider an alternative version of events which satisfies everything that we know. The idea that the body was not Mary would satisfy everything that we know to be true and Maxwell's accountedly seen in the company of other people according to witnessess.

Isn't the more credible alternative version that Bond was wrong in his estimation of the time of death? It was, at best, an approximation. That seems (to me anyway) more likely than the substitute body scenario.

I do object to people casually dismissing witnesses on the basis that they just must be wrong.

So do I.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

thoughts

Hello Jon. Thanks.

“Wasn't there some suggestion that Barnett first posed as "Kelly" when they first rented the room?”

Sounds correct—if I recall properly.

“ Mary was known as "Kelly" right from the start, from Pennington St. onwards, if I read it right. Yet she claimed to have been a "Davies/Davis" at one time.”

Correct again.

“Couple that confused state with the story that she descended somewhat rapidly from Cardiff, to London, the West End, then to the East End, just might be consistent with her running from someone or something.”

Well, not inconsistent. I am inclined to think that some of these details, in essence, applies to someone.

“Descending into the darkest hive of human existence and changing her name, tends to suggest she was hiding.”

Completely agree. That would explain why her records were never found.

“But, what a strange turn of coincidence that the bio she chooses to share with her new found friends fits very closely with the one known "Kelly" girl who did have a sister and several brothers, one named John, was born in Ireland, and moved to Wales when a teenager.”

Perhaps the girl was used as a template. But I don’t recall any of Chris or Deb’s “Kellys” being that close a fit.

“The chances of anyone just inventing a complex bio like that, and actually get the exact family name (Kelly)!!!! - must figure among thee most stunningly unbelievable examples of a coincidence.”

True enough. Frequently, a bio is taken over and the name changed.

Something else to chew on—why the truncated inquest?

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Extremely unlikely she was divorced. Divorce was for the toffs.

[RivkahChaya]

Mary was known as "Kelly" right from the start, from Pennington St. onwards, if I read it right. Yet she claimed to have been a "Davies/Davis" at one time.

Couple that confused state with the story that she descended somewhat rapidly from Cardiff, to London, the West End, then to the East End, just might be consistent with her running from someone or something.

I'm going to repeat a question I've asked before, because I've never gotten an answer, and I don't know if it's gotten swallowed up with multiple posts, or it's just that no one knows the answer.

It it typical, or even customary among some circles, for a very young widow to go back to using her family name? If the marriage was very brief, and there were no children? If she moved back with her family?

It's seems really odd, to me, that someone Catholic would behave as though a marriage didn't happen, just because she was widowed, even if there were no children, and the marriage was brief. It doesn't sound as though the marriage was annulled. Did they still publish banns then, and if banns had been published, but there had been no ceremony, would Kelly refer to herself as "married"? Did people in lower social circles use the word "engaged" for that state of the espousal process?

Other than simply not wanting to be thought of as a widow, why would Kelly want to resume her maiden name? Since she didn't seem to mind telling the story of he husband, I don't think not wanting to be a widow was the reason. If "Kelly" were the name of a second husband she never divorced, you'd think she would have mentioned that, since she didn't seem much on secrets, or embarrassed of much.

Is it possible that Davis/Davies wasn't really dead? You'd think using her real name maiden name wouldn't be a good way to get away from him, except, she moved a lot, and it seems to have been a common enough name.

I'm not much on "she wasn't a ripper victim" theories, preferring the explanation with the fewest diversions, but if someone else did kill her, how about her not-so-dead husband?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

Wickerman, since the comments I made suggested we may be talking about someone who made up her name and past......(to address another point here, a name and past story that has defied validation, hence, not likely anyone real),...why would you imagine then that she would provide anyone with any accurate details about her real name and past.

There is no way to authenticate what Barnett may have said, but the story could have really been about an older man that wasnt Marys father and someone who wanted to hide from....which might explain why she apparently chooses to avoid him after learning he is seeking her out. maybe an older man claiming to be her father came looking for her inquiring about her using her alias.

Maybe Kate was using variations of Marys alias to imply she knew her....and that got her killed. Maybe that was information she tried to sell.

I wonder who would have been worth more to HMG...Jack, or someone perhaps like General Millen. A man whose appearance is remarkably similar to the man George Hutchinson says he saw with Mary. We know that reward money was hard to pry from the government for the Ripper killings...but how much was paid for some witnesses at the Parnell Commission?

I know one asked for 10,000L to appear....do you have any idea what that would be in todays money? 20L had the buying power in 1888 of approx 1,500L Sterling today.

When looking at crimes like murder, I tend to look for the money. Dirt Poor unfortunates with zero influence in the governments affairs seems to me to be a group that could be no threat to anyone. But sensitive information is valuable.....and anyone from any walk of life might have it.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

I would have thought as much. Early on there was a report in "The Echo" indicating that she had worked for an abortionist. It was a mistake; story retracted. Their reporter returned to London admitting he could not find a trace of "MJK" in Cardiff.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
Yes, that the Rees story, if I recall.

Wasn't there some suggestion that Barnett first posed as "Kelly" when they first rented the room?, but that he took her name rather than her taking his name?
Mary was known as "Kelly" right from the start, from Pennington St. onwards, if I read it right. Yet she claimed to have been a "Davies/Davis" at one time.

Couple that confused state with the story that she descended somewhat rapidly from Cardiff, to London, the West End, then to the East End, just might be consistent with her running from someone or something.

Descending into the darkest hive of human existence and changing her name, tends to suggest she was hiding.

But, what a strange turn of coincidence that the bio she chooses to share with her new found friends fits very closely with the one known "Kelly" girl who did have a sister and several brothers, one named John, was born in Ireland, and moved to Wales when a teenager.

The chances of anyone just inventing a complex bio like that, and actually get the exact family name (Kelly)!!!! - must figure among thee most stunningly unbelievable examples of a coincidence.

Unless, this woman who took up with Joe Barnett actually knew Brymbo Mary.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Coming Forward

Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis describe the same woman, a description that is at odds with the description of Mary by her friends.

But both describe said woman as being known to them as Mary Kelly. If you're going to argue:

None is this is confirmed by the landlord of the Brittannia, and no one came forward to say they had been with her in the pub. Had she been drinking so late in the morning many more people would have seen her, and if she had not been murdered would have cleared up the mistake.

then surely you have to wonder why the woman mis-identified as Kelly didn't come forward to clear up that mistake. Some people weren't interested in coming forward. Perhaps that's true of the woman claimed by Maxwell & Lewis to have been Kelly but, on the same basis, perhaps it's also true of whoever was in the Britannia?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

"mjk"

Hello Colin. If you'll forgive the logicese solution, there is little doubt in my mind but that the dead woman found severely mutilated in Miller's Court was "MJK." But, similarly, I have grave doubts that she was MJK.

Cheers.
LC

When you put it like that, Lynn, so do I!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Tecs]

Okay, but what reason is there to believe that the woman in Mary Kelly's bed was not Mary Kelly? Which woman went missing on the night that Kelly died and never re-appeared? Are you aware of one? If not, why not accept the likelihood that the occupant of the bed was Mary Kelly?

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi bridewell,

Just to clarify, lest it be thought I advocate any conspiracy theories, I can perfectly well accept that the body was MJK no problem at all. And in all likelihood it was.

But there are those niggling issues that need to be addressed, namely the witnessess who say they saw her after the time the body was dead. I've gone through this in much more detail previously and don't want to repeat myself, but basically Maxwell under enormous pressure stuck to her story completely and I don't buy the idea that she could have got the day wrong for reasons I've listed before. If we are going to dismiss her as wrong/mistaken/lying etc just because her story doesn't fit our nice compact version of events, then we may as well dismiss every witness and abandon the whole thing. Of course, if a witness is clearly unreliable such as Packer et al, then we can have an opinion that takes that into account. But there's nothing in Maxwell's story that we can so easily dismiss, like it or not.

So, faced with this dilemma it's not unreasonable to consider an alternative version of events which satisfies everything that we know. The idea that the body was not Mary would satisfy everything that we know to be true and Maxwell's account. But it would mean that somebody else did die in her place. The fact that we know other women did share her room can surely only add to that possibility? And all the other little points fit too, such as if she did return and find the body in her place it would explain the cry of "murder" from her room and possibly the pool of vomit as she reeled from the scene. She may have had to discuss her fleeing with some close friends/associates and she was supposedly seen in the company of other people according to witnessess.

Basically, there is no smoking gun that says the alternative theory is untrue. I'm not saying I agree with it but I do object to people casually dismissing witnessess on the basis that they just must be wrong. I would be P'd off if in 120 years time somebody said that I was not doing what I said I was on the day of, for example, the school shooting in America last week. I'm not stupid, I know how a calender works and I know where I was and what I was doing when I heard the news and nobody has the right to say in years to come that I must be mistaken because it doesn't fit what they want it to.

As I've said before, Maxwell's week was boring routine, boring routine, boring routine, neighbour murdered and Lord Mayor's show, boring routine, boring routine etc etc. She did not get the day wrong and as above, if we dismiss her, then dismiss Lawende, Schwartz, Long etc.

And having said I wouldn't repeat myself, I have!

regards,