Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[Cogidubnus]

But as I recall, no one reported hearing a louder cry, did they?

Hi Phil

From the Inquest testimony of Sarah Lewis:

"I sat awake till nearly five - a little before four I heard a female voice shout loudly once Murder!"

I believe Christer is quite right though in asserting that other inhabitants of the Court subsequently jumped on the bandwagon

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Phil

From the Inquest testimony of Sarah Lewis:

"I sat awake till nearly five - a little before four I heard a female voice shout loudly once Murder!"

I believe Christer is quite right though in asserting that other inhabitants of the Court subsequently jumped on the bandwagon

All the best

Dave

It was reported in the press that several women came forward suggesting they heard this cry, but they all heard it at different times. The earliest I believe was 1:45 am, the latest "just after 4:00 am".
Most of the claims were dismissed, according to the press.

The desire to be interesting has had its effect on the people who live in the Dorset-street-court and lodging-houses, and for whoever cares to listen there are
A HUNDRED HIGHLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL STORIES,
which, when carefully sifted, prove to be totally devoid of truth. One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded.

Well I am simply shocked! shocked, I tell you.

[Michael W Richards]

if Mrs Prater's room is at the front of the building (over the shed) rather the rear, it just might explain the possibility of her hearing a cry from the court faintly, whilst the other witnesses, facing on to the court, heard it louder?

But as I recall, no one reported hearing a louder cry, did they?

Phil H

Phil,

Eliabeth heard a faint cry of murder, "as if from the court",..Sarah heard it "as if at her door".

That volume differential pretty clearly puts the cry emanating from the courtyard somewhere. Since their times roughly match as well, I believe we have legitimate "ear" witnesses.

Cheers

[Phil H]

Interesting.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

Today you could hear screams and gunshots and nobody interviewed would admit to hearing anything.

Case in point:

Last Wednesday I was visiting my son and daughter-in-law in Augusta, GA. They live in a large, multi-building apartment complex. The area is well taken care of, the apartments very nice. Not a seedy or down-ridden housing project at all.

My daughter-in-law is a graduate student, so she was at collage. My son, my wife, and I left the house at 12:00 noon to get something to eat and look around a bit. Bright sunny day, not a cloud in the sky. We arrived home at 3:00pm to find the place torn to pieces and cleaned out, electronics, jewelry, lock box, etc.

Now Jon and Chy have three big dogs which were locked in their kennels under the kitchen table. These dogs back very loudly and try to get out of the kennels at the slightest excuse. They must have gone wild when someone came through a window with a broken latch, unlocked the back door for their accomplices, and carried out TV, X-Box, Wii, DVD player, my laptop, games, jewelry, a .40 caliber fully loaded semiautomatic, etc, No neighbor would admit to seeing or hearing anything!

[RivkahChaya]

Today you could hear screams and gunshots and nobody interviewed would admit to hearing anything.

Case in point:...

Jon and Chy have three big dogs which were locked in their kennels under the kitchen table. These dogs back very loudly and try to get out of the kennels at the slightest excuse. They must have gone wild when someone came through a window with a broken latch.... No neighbor would admit to seeing or hearing anything!

Yes, but, it's possible the dogs bark at other things too. If the dogs bark any time a car door slams outside, a siren goes by, they see something outside the window, like a bird or a squirrel, and soforth, it possible that the neighbors tune them out.

A lot of things sound like gunshots: cars backfiring (if you haven't ever really heard a car backfire, come to Indiana; I never heard one when I lived in New York), firecrackers, bottles breaking, utility transformers blowing, cars hitting trees, and if you live in the country, people firing blanks to scare birds away from cornfields. I don't call the police every time I hear something that sounds like gunfire, and so far, I have never had the police come around to ask me whether I heard any shots fired the day before, and I've never opened the paper, or a webpage, to see that someone was shot near where I live, and I either heard nothing, or heard something I dismissed as something other than gunfire.

It isn't a question of not getting involved. I've called 911 a few times when I've heard fights that sounded one-sided (one person was in a position to seriously injure the other, or one person sounded a lot more scared than the other), or that the fight might be headed toward property destruction. But I've never been moved to call for either dog-barking, or "gunfire."

[RavenDarkendale]

@ RivkahChaya

I know. It's funny. I hear gunshots all the time as I live in a rural area. People hunt, kill varmints and pests. and target practice a lot. I do myself.

Yet when a man killed himself week before last less than a quarter of a mile away, I heard nothing though I was home at the time. I found out about it on the nightly news. Rum old world...

[Chava]

I don't think we would be having these discussions if we knew for sure who MJK was. But all the obfuscation around her identity is, I think, spilling over into questions around her survival. That's not to say I don't think the questions should be asked. But it's easier to ask them about someone who already has an aura of mystery.

For myself, even though her face was completely destroyed, it sounds like her physicality and her hair were such that she was identifiable by those methods. But then I believe that the person taking Barnett's statement misheard 'hair' for 'ear'. Hair is not just identifiable by colour but also by form and texture. You wouldn't mistake a strawberry-blonde with straight fine hair for a strawberry-blonde with thick wavy/curly hair.

Hi RivkahChaya! You make me think I should have nic'ed myself NachaChava!

[Michael W Richards]

I don't think we would be having these discussions if we knew for sure who MJK was. But all the obfuscation around her identity is, I think, spilling over into questions around her survival. That's not to say I don't think the questions should be asked. But it's easier to ask them about someone who already has an aura of mystery.

For myself, even though her face was completely destroyed, it sounds like her physicality and her hair were such that she was identifiable by those methods. But then I believe that the person taking Barnett's statement misheard 'hair' for 'ear'. Hair is not just identifiable by colour but also by form and texture. You wouldn't mistake a strawberry-blonde with straight fine hair for a strawberry-blonde with thick wavy/curly hair.

Hi RivkahChaya! You make me think I should have nic'ed myself NachaChava!

Hi Chava,

Long time no see.

Heres what I believe happened with the ID,...it was reported that Mary was removed from the room around 4:30-5:00pm that afternoon. Which means from the time we are told they first entered the room until they put her remains in a box to be taken away is approx 3-3 1/2 hours. I dont believe that they could have learned of Barnett, then tracked him down and brought her to the room for an in-situ ID in that short a period of time. So his ID was like a mortuary one, like the jurors saw. She was covered head to toe excluding her face... which they repaired somewhat, but I believe its with that prep that he is shown her for his ID.

Which to me makes the ID a little more compelling, because he would have been shown the eyes and they could have shown him her hair by moving any cloth that may have obscured it...although at that time I believe it was down her back inside the temporary coffin.

All the best Chava

[Jon Guy]

Hi Michael

I dont believe that they could have learned of Barnett, then tracked him down and brought her to the room for an in-situ ID in that short a period of time.

Abberline took a statement off Barnett that afternoon in Millers Court.

The Police would have been looking for him as soon as they were aware of the body.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

Abberline took a statement off Barnett that afternoon in Millers Court.

The Police would have been looking for him as soon as they were aware of the body.

Ive read that Jon, and if true, then it would imply that the police altered the appearance of Mary Kelly to some extent to allow him to see her eyes. Something I highly doubt myself. Ive read that he made an ID from the window late that afternoon in one report.

My post is based on the specific nature of his ID Jon....in that her eyes, to my understanding and belief, were not visible in the photos we have seen. Im somewhat skeptical that the best he could do is identify parts of her that were obscured while she lay there in the first place, when her feet and hands were visible and should have been easy to recognize by a lover. Her overall body length should have been a factor for him.

But he named only the eyes and 'ear or hair, depending on which you subscribe to.

Best regards

[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.

[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

[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