Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[Wickerman]

Hello Rivkah.

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

And then for "MJK" to ruin it by hanging about the next morning . . .

Cheers.
LC

I guess some people just never know when they're ahead!

[lynn cates]

escape

Hello Rivkah.

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

And then for "MJK" to ruin it by hanging about the next morning . . .

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

But as I see it there remains the possibility that Barnett got it wrong accidentally (or deliberately, if there was some "Fenian" angle) - but even if HE killed her, it would make no sense to deny the body was hers.

But here's a question for you: If he came to the body thinking it would be Mary's, and it was NOT her - how do we think he would have reacted? Why say it was her?

Phil H

It's a very good point that if Barnett killed her, he would surely know it was her, and surely identify the body as hers, because to say it wasn't would be inviting closer scrutiny, and he wouldn't want that.

I think Barnett has no motive for deliberately misidentifying her. The only reason for doing so would be to help her make some kind of escape, and it's hard to believe he would do that, and not either apparently be compensated for it, or go join her in Ireland, or Italy, or wherever she went. He seems to have stayed right where he was, and been none the richer for it. That would mean he took a huge risk for a woman he had recently left.

So, if he did misidentify her, I think it was purely accidental.

That, then, leaves the question of what did happen to MJK. She overheard that she had serendipitously been identified as a Ripper victim, and just left town? with what money? where did she stay the night before? people don't seem to like the idea that the coroner could have been wrong about the TOD, so MJK was somewhere else that night, not too far away, because she was back on Dorset briefly, to be seen by Caroline Maxwell, since one of the major pieces of the "MJK survived" theory is the next-day sightings. She didn't hop a train the evening before.

[Phil H]

Barnett (if innocent) would have been in shock anyway having lost his recenmt "lover".

Add to that the state of the body (assuming that he had not seen it before) and you increase the sense of shocjk he must have felt.

I think we have to take his identification at "face value" (sorry) and that the use of hair and ears, or eyes is actually confirmation that he was able to identify her by very personal but well-known features, as well as the appaling state of the body.

It does occur to me that even if he had identified her by means of even mkore personal marks on his body (as Edith was supposed to have recognised Harold's after Hastings) - say a scar or a mole - the Victorians might well have used a euphemism to mask that fact.

But as I see it there remains the possibility that Barnett got it wrong accidentally (or deliberately, if there was some "Fenian" angle) - but even if HE killed her, it would make no sense to deny the body was hers.

But here's a question for you: If he came to the body thinking it would be Mary's, and it was NOT her - how do we think he would have reacted? Why say it was her?

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

That means the victim was either MJK, or someone who had no business being there, unless we want to start weaving stories of MJK somehow procuring a victim for JTR, as part of her escape plan.

That would predispose that the body in Miller's Court was a victim of JtR. I think the total desecration of the body shows personal angst very unlike JtR's opportunity murders.

Either Kelly was killed by someone who had cause (in their own mind, anyhow) to viciously destroy her, or another woman was killed in fury, perhaps just because she was in MJK's room and bed.

A "from the window" ID seems questionable to me, because the eye tends to see what it expects. Try proofreading your own short story, for example. You might miss mistakes because you know what you meant to say, and the eye is fooled into reading it as typed correct. That's why writers use proofreaders who do not know the story. The body is in Kelly's bed, ero, it must be Kelly. I tend to think there had to be a closer look for the ID.

A case in point: Yes, Barnett knew her better than anyone. Yet husbands, wives, children, parents, etc. have certainly been known to misidentify a body as a missing loved one, often to the point of burying the body. I recall a case where either a Jewish or Muslim man (I think Muslim) was missing, a body found, identified, the body buried swiftly as is their custom, and then the dead man walking into the house wondering what was wrong! Mistakes happen, and that body was so destroyed a mistake would be easy to make.

God Bless

Darkendale

[Wickerman]

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.

One report has her ears cut off, so likely not "ear".

"The ears and nose had been slashed off, the flesh cut from one cheek, and the throat cut through to the bone."

So, "hair" just sounded like "ear", twas a mistake, tis'all.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil H]

I believe his identification.

But surely that's the nub of it.

Acceptance of Barnett's identification is a factor of belief in his honesty.

BUT - if he had deliberately lied... recognising that would depend on someone else saying "That is NOT the woman I knew as MJK!"

Then it would be Joe's word against their's. And as has been said by Chava "this was a man who had lived with MJK for quite some time" so no one could claim to know here better.

IF he deliberately lied and MISidentified her - how would we know?

I don't think he did lie, by the way (just in case anyone thinks I am abusing Joe).

Phil H

[Chava]

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.

[RivkahChaya]

I realize that. I also realize that I don't know much about regional dialects in England in the 1880s. However, I thought the dispute was over ear/hair, and everyone was pretty sure he said "eyes." I thought it was an unusual thing, since the eyes were pretty obscured, and it seemed to me that the hands and hair were clearer, not to mention that without the context of the flesh around them, I'm not sure how recognizable a person's eyes are-- my husband's eyes are very distinctive, but it's as much the shape of the orbit, as the iris. So I thought it might be an either/or question between MJK, and one other person.

If we could look for that, you know, try to track down whether someone made that specific inquiry, or get some idea of what the other woman looked like, we could settle the question. It seems like with all the trying to track down MJK, so one has looked much into these other woman, even the people who are sure one of them was the real victim.

I've never seen even a vague description of the other women who had shared the room recently, in particular, the one who had shared it the most recently. If we could find some piece of description that makes her really different from MJK-- very short, or black-haired-- then we would know at least, that it wasn't the other woman known to be using the room.

That means the victim was either MJK, or someone who had no business being there, unless we want to start weaving stories of MJK somehow procuring a victim for JTR, as part of her escape plan.

No, please don't do that. If MJK had that intention, give her the credit of getting someone who looked a little more like herself.

[Phil H]

It's far from impossible or implausible, Rivkah.

But the main reason for garbled reporting appears to have been that things said were misheard and I suspect that that was the case with "eyes".
We will probably never know for certain.

Phil

[RivkahChaya]

Here's a thought on what Barnett could have meant if he did, in fact say eyes: maybe someone asked him directly if it were possible that this was the other women known to be sharing the room with MKJ, and it happened that the two women did not have the same color eyes, and the corpse had the same color eyes as Kelly, so Barnett replied that of the two (or three, whatever) women know to be using the room in the last week or so, MJK was the only one with the same color eyes as the corpse.

[Phil H]

One thing is clear - either Barnett identified the body correctly or he deliberately lied.

As Rivkah and I both pointed out on another thread, there were enough points of reference intact on the body - shape of head and jawline, ears, hands and fingers, hair colour and style etc - that one would know instinctively whether this was someone you knew intimately or not.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

@ Jon Guy

The eyes are there, alright, nearly buried in mutilated tissue, but they are out of socket. One eye looks like another without a frame of reference to help.

@ Sherlock Holmes

I started the speculation because of the witnesses that put Kelly on the street alive at a time when that body was dead. It could be they were mistaken as to time and/or identification, but the possibility that they were right is also there. If they have their facts straight, then the body is likely not Kelly. Some poor woman died there under horrible circumstances that totally destroyed her.

I am not saying that the body there in Miller's Court absolutely could not be Mary Kelly. But it is a possibility and in this type of investigation, any and all possibilities should be perused. The idea that Kelly could have escaped is hardly new.

Pro Kelly being the victim:
1) It was her room
2) Barnett, her lover, identified the body as belonging to MK
3) She never came forward to say she was alive, nor was she seen again by the ones who said they had seen her.

Con Kelly being the victim:
1) Also testimony from Barnett and others that she often shared her room with other unfortunates. Barnett gave that as a reason why he left her.
2) Witnesses place her alive on the street and in a pub at a time when that body was long dead if the coroner's reported time of death is correct.
3) Mary Kelly reportedly had more than one outfit of clothing, so the clothes left in the room (folded neatly) become less of a clue that the body was MK.
4) A positive identification on that body without modern methods-- i.e. dental records, DNA, fingerprints, forensic reconstruction of the face, etc is a tad shaky, given the reasons why Barnett thought he knew her. This body would definitely go any or all of these routes to positively identify it if the murder occurred today.

God bless

Darkendale

[Sherlock Holmes]

If i am wrong and it was MJK why this speculation that it wasn't and what started all this speculation?

Mr Holmes

[Jon Guy]

Hi Michael

I am a very firm believer that Barnett said by the hair and eyes.

Barnett`s actual quoted words were I identify her by the ear and eyes, which to me, is most definately hair and eyes. Barnett pronounces hair as ear, in an irish cockney sort of way.

Not only are the hair and eyes obvious characteristics to recognise someone by but Kelly`s ears were partially removed anyway (maybe only one ear remained and Barnett referred to it, which is why he said ear and not ears, (but I doubt that).

Kelly`s eyebrows had been removed but the eyes were not mutilated so they were certainly there for Barnett to see in Millers Court, maybe not obvious to us in the black and white photo.

Barnett was certainly in Millers Court whilst the body was there. Whether he would have been allowed into the room I don`t know, but he must have had a peep through the window unless he was advised to wait until she was cleaned up at the mortuary.

I recall that only Kelly`s face was visible when the inquest jury were taken to see her lying in the mortuary. In fact, it was noted that although she looked a terrible mess they had seen a lot worse lying in mortuaries.