Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[Robert]

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

[Michael W Richards]

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

Possibly Robert,...but then why would we believe she would provide anyone with her correct name while at the same time creating her history? If she invented her past I believe its probable she would have invented a name to use with it.

If she was Mary Jane Kelly on a birth certificate somewhere,...from either Wales, Ireland or England, it would have been found by now by one or more of the excellent researchers who are members here.

Like scores of others of that time, I believe its an alias she used....which raises a good question in my mind....did she use an alias due to her shame with her life and occupation....past bills unpaid maybe...or was she fearful of being found if she used her real name?

If its the 3rd reason.....then she would have had links to people capable of doing her harm. Perhaps with what they believed was good reason. Being a traitor...a snitch....and informant perhaps.

The years prior to the murders many National Security Police agencies were in the habit of sending their members to socialize and spy on Fenians staying in Paris, could she have been on one side or the other when she visited France, as an "escort" years earlier? Might what she learned at that time put her at risk later down the road?

Speculation of course...but interesting how many ties with France and Paris specifically we have to many of the Senior Investigators in the Ripper cases, and to many prominent terrorists, Fenian and otherwise.

For example....Anderson is recalled from Paris, not Switzerland, which we are to believe was his destination.

Cheers Robert

[Wickerman]

If she was Mary Jane Kelly on a birth certificate somewhere,...from either Wales, Ireland or England, it would have been found by now by one or more of the excellent researchers who are members here.

Like scores of others of that time, I believe its an alias she used....which raises a good question in my mind....did she use an alias due to her shame with her life and occupation....past bills unpaid maybe...or was she fearful of being found if she used her real name?

Hi Michael.

So when her father came looking for her in the East end, and she claimed to be avoiding him?, who was he looking for if it was not the name Mary Kelly, which was the name everyone in the East end knew her by.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

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

Another consideration, have you ever heard of people adopting a friends identity?

Regards, Jon S.