Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[Robert]

Or she may have been MJK, but the stories she told may have been hogwash.

[Michael W Richards]

The description of Mary by people who knew her well describes a tall woman of 5.8 waist length hair, fair, stout, attractive. The woman on the bed in Millers Court appears tall. The mattress length would be 6 ft . The woman on the bed if stretched out would seem to be about 5.8, not short.

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

The evidence of Maxwell and Lewis dovetails neatly together, but does not fit with anyone else evidence. The only explanation is they had the wrong woman. These mistakes are pretty common in indentity evidence

Maxwell sees 'Kelly' throwing up about 8ish am then sees her outside the Britannia about 8.45 to 9. Lewis' thinks 'he sees her drinking with friends in the Britannia at 10 am

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.

The only logical explanation is they had the wrong person.
Without these misleading witnesses no one would question her death in the early hours of the morning.

Miss Marple

I think thats a spot on summary of what the probabilities suggest Miss Marple.

However, on one point, no-one came forward to say that Mary was drinking in a pub the night before either. We have only her condition and her companions tankard to gather that information with.

I, like Lynn, believe that the woman found in the bed was the woman known as Mary Jane Kelly, but that Mary Jane Kelly was not her given name at birth.

Best regards and Happy Holidays all.

[miss marple]

The description of Mary by people who knew her well describes a tall woman of 5.8 waist length hair, fair, stout, attractive. The woman on the bed in Millers Court appears tall. The mattress length would be 6 ft . The woman on the bed if stretched out would seem to be about 5.8, not short.

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

The evidence of Maxwell and Lewis dovetails neatly together, but does not fit with anyone else evidence. The only explanation is they had the wrong woman. These mistakes are pretty common in indentity evidence

Maxwell sees 'Kelly' throwing up about 8ish am then sees her outside the Britannia about 8.45 to 9. Lewis' thinks 'he sees her drinking with friends in the Britannia at 10 am

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.

The only logical explanation is they had the wrong person.
Without these misleading witnesses no one would question her death in the early hours of the morning.

Miss Marple

[lynn cates]

logical distinction

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

[Robert]

I am sure that Barnett would have identified the clothes left in the room as Kelly's. No woman is going to disappear and leave her clothes behind. Therefore, if the woman in the room was not Kelly, Barnett must have been lying about the clothes, which I find unlikely.

It is possible that Barnett could have been genuinely mistaken about the clothes. But he'd have seen Kelly in those clothes very often - i doubt if she owned more than two dresses, maybe even only the one.

[Bridewell]

You may have seen the case of the mother who incorrectly identified a body of a car crash victim as her daughter. She was not lying at all and was, she believed, 100% correct, sadly for herself. She went through several years of grieving until, unbelievably, her daughter walked through the door! I can't remember where she had been or why but it had all been an honest mistake. The victim did bear a striking resemblance to her daughter but if a mother can misidentify a child, we can surely see how Barnett could. And the above case did not include the dreadful mutilations which surely meant Barnett didn't ponder the face for too long.

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.

[Tecs]

The word in dispute was 'ear' and 'hair' I think. It's on the statement as 'ear' and it's certainly possible that she had very distinctive ears. Either way, this was a man who had lived with MJK for quite some time. I believe his identification.

Also in response to Phil H who said that Barnett either was correct or deliberately lied,

Dear both,

This isn't neccessarily true.

You may have seen the case of the mother who incorrectly identified a body of a car crash victim as her daughter. She was not lying at all and was, she believed, 100% correct, sadly for herself. She went through several years of grieving until, unbelievably, her daughter walked through the door! I can't remember where she had been or why but it had all been an honest mistake. The victim did bear a striking resemblance to her daughter but if a mother can misidentify a child, we can surely see how Barnett could. And the above case did not include the dreadful mutilations which surely meant Barnett didn't ponder the face for too long.

regards,

PS I've just gone through the posts and seen that Raven also alluded to this phenomonon.

[RavenDarkendale]

Sorry, but this makes no kind of sense. Why would it be necessary for another woman to die in Kelly's place in order for her to escape? She could have moved to another city, changed her named and avoided detection without committing, or being party to, the brutal murder of a substitute.

Regards, Bridewell.

It would not be necessary for someone to die in order for her to escape. She did have her own room, which did indeed raise her above the others. IMHO, she allowed other women to stay with her out of kindness.

But if she went out and the other woman were murdered viciously while she was gone, any sane person would think that the murderer was in fact after Mary herself. By leaving town, perhaps asking Barnett to say the body was hers after all, she would escape whoever was after her.

As for taking Barnett's identification of the body over the statements of other witnesses, Barnett was distraught if he cared at all for Mary, and his identification would be rushed so he wouldn't have too look at the ruin of someone he cared for, and assumed it was her since the body was in her room.

Possibilities, possibilities...

[RivkahChaya]

Rivkah,

My apologies if your identical twin post was not meant seriously

My apologies if that wasn't clear, but, really, Separated at Birth? that didn't clue you in?

one of the things which raised Kelly (albeit only slightly) above the other unfortunates was that she had her own room which afforded her a degree of privacy. That being so, why would she descend to the level of the back-alley desperates when she had no need to do so?

He paid extra? They got drunk and passed out? Just because MJK may have made some of her money giving quickies in alleyways doesn't mean that occasionally, men with more money didn't pay for "the girlfriend experience." But, "they got drunk and passed out" is still more likely. Anyway, I was making that up as I went along.

Sorry, but this makes no kind of sense. Why would it be necessary for another woman to die in Kelly's place in order for her to escape?

I isn't. I was addressing the idea that Barnett both killed the woman in Miller's Court, and misidentified her. He might have done one or the other, but not both, because it simply doesn't make any sense. Why would he kill someone he didn't know, that brutally, but then, from our best information, live a pretty uneventful life. Lust/serial/rage killers don't do that. People with a specific target, or something to gain do, but what reason would he have for killing an unknown woman? Unless there was some really bizarre coincidence, where she was a mob informant, and he was a hitman, who chose a JTR copycat this one and only time, I can't think of a reason for Barnett to kill someone in that room, other than MJK-- except for it being part of some plan involving identifying a body as hers, so that she is "dead."

But then, we'd either expect him to follow her after a time, or be paid off, and neither one appears to have happened.

Of course, you can't very well go to the police and complain that the person who hired you to kill someone won't pay up, so I suppose Kelly just could have stiffed him.

But that whole sidetrack was just about the Barnett did it/Barnett screwed up the ID. I don't think both are possible. Actually, I happen not to think either one is true, although I allow that in the real world, one or the other could have happened. Just not both.

[Bridewell]

MJK came home later, having spent part of the night with a client,

Rivkah,

My apologies if your identical twin post was not meant seriously, but one of the things which raised Kelly (albeit only slightly) above the other unfortunates was that she had her own room which afforded her a degree of privacy. That being so, why would she descend to the level of the back-alley desperates when she had no need to do so?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

The only reason for doing so would be to help her make some kind of escape,

Sorry, but this makes no kind of sense. Why would it be necessary for another woman to die in Kelly's place in order for her to escape? She could have moved to another city, changed her named and avoided detection without committing, or being party to, the brutal murder of a substitute.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Chava]

Rivkah, I see all that watching of One Life To Live finally took its toll

The shortest distance between two points here is that it was MJK that died and either Caroline Maxwell was mistaken or she was hopeful of a payoff from an eager journalist looking for a scoop.

The larger question to me is this: how come MJK is the goddess of very-possibly-highly-dodgy eyewitness evidence? Maxwell testifies that she saw her at least 4 hours after she died. Hutchinson's evidence is so detailed that I can only think he jumped on a time-machine, snagged an iPhone, took a fast shot of the couple and then consulted it as he gave his statement. Neither is credible to me yet here we are 120+ years after the event, still parsing every line!

[Phil H]

Brilliant Rivkah - the whole case solved with hardly a loose end!!

One possible alternative, is it possible that the "twin" was an identical brother - Ianto - who was into cross-dressing when off duty? He turns up to find his sister, murders her and it is HE - in drag - who is seen by Mrs M?

Ianto - is a misheard Jane TOO - which he used to call himself when a child. "I'm (Mary) Jane too!!"

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

I think that one of the explanations for her supposed appearance when she should have been dead, is that she had returned home and discovered the body of the other woman. Being sick, as she is said to have told Mrs M, might have been a reaction to that discovery.

I think her twin, who had been put up for adoption, because her mother couldn't handle twins, had been trying to track her down, and finally found where she was living in London, waited outside Miller's Court, until very late, then realizing she could let herself in by pulling the latch through the broken window, did so.

That's when JTR, or whoever killed her, found her.

MJK came home later, having spent part of the night with a client, and did not recognize the woman as her twin, because, first or all, mutilations, and second, she's never really had a good look at herself. She's never been photographed, or had much access to good mirrors.

She goes to get a beer, and think. The woman may have been killed by the Ripper, but MJK doesn't know that. She's a bit of an egomaniac, and a little histrionic as well, and doesn't know that she wasn't the intended victim. Maybe Barnett killed the woman in the middle of the night, thinking it was her, and didn't have enough light to see that it wasn't. Maybe she has robbed clients who have fallen asleep on her, and she thinks one of them has come after her (maybe she recently did that). Maybe the Ripper stalked and targeted specific women for days before killing them.

So she decides to flee. She doesn't know for sure the woman in the room will be identified as her, but she can hope.

So Caroline Maxwell does see her.

MJK doesn't know anything about forensic science, or determining time of death, so she doesn't know it could be a problem to be seen shortly before the body is discovered. She just makes sure she isn't seen again after.

Barnett makes a good-faith ID of the identical twin.

[Phil H]

I think that one of the explanations for her supposed appearance when she should have been dead, is that she had returned home and discovered the body of the other woman. Being sick, as she is said to have told Mrs M, might have been a reaction to that discovery.

I do not adhere to this theory, I just record it as part of the discussion.

Having looked at the situation from all angles, and also considered Barnett's identification, I can only conclude that Mrs M was mistaken (however firmly she believed she was not) and either saw someone else she believed to be Kelly or was wrong about the day.

I think, on balance and unless further evidence emerges, that it was MJK who died in that room - but NOT at the hands of "Jack".

Phil H