Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[Wickerman]

Would an eviscerated body cool faster?

Hi Rivkah.

Yes, it most certainly would, but cooling delays the onset of rigor, we do not know what the ambient temp. of the room that morning.

I mean, of course it would, but what was the standard for "temperature"?

Let me suggest you save this pdf, it includes Niderkorn's Standards for the development of Rigor, it was the 'Standard' for the 19th century autopsy.

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/timedeath.pdf

You should find it interesting.

IIRC an article I read once, the ME would additionally take a rectal temperature.

I don't see any suggestion of them taking a rectal temperature in the 19th century. They did open the brain as part of the autopsy proceedure, but also I see no suggestion that they took the temperature of the brain, which they do today if the body has been unduly exposed to cold temperatures.

Was the coroner in 1888 simply referring to "cold to the touch"? Eviscerated and undressed, wouldn't the body cool faster?

The most complete autopsy we have on the Whitechapel murders is one by Dr. Phillips on the body of McKenzie. Here Phillips does not record the ambient temperature at the crime scene, his only comment is "temperature moderate".
Describing the temp. of the body he say's only:
"Warmth still perceptible under right cheek. Body still warm where covered, where exposed quite cold"
This was about 30 minutes after the body was found.

Later, at 2:00 pm, at the same autopsy, Phillips noted the extent of the onset of Rigor as "well marked most in extremities".

This indicates the doctor only used his sense of touch. He had a thermometer so why didn't he use it?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi, Jon.

There's a difference between refusing to discount her evidence and accepting it at face value. I do the former, but not the latter.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Colin.

I tend to agree, there's no reason to dismiss her, but at the same time we know her story create's conflict.
Even taking Maxwell's (& M. Lewis) story as, 'well intended but, of mistaken identity' still create's questions, the problems are of less significance.

What other choice do we have..


Regards, Jon S.

[Tecs]

Hello all,

Just stepping in here, I feel that some people are suggesting something along the lines that positing the theory that the body was not MJK is some sort of wishful thinking (ie we don't want a young girl who we feel we know in some way to have been murdered) or looking from the outset at a conspiracy theory as conspiracy theorists do, or just refusing to accept simple truths.

I can't speak for anyone else of course, but for my part it's none of the above. It makes no difference to me if the body was or was not MJK and as I've said before I usually have no truck with conspiracy theories. What I have done is simply look at all of the known facts and then see if they all fit. The difficulty is that the generally agreed time of death cannot be correct if the body was MJK and Maxwell's sighting is correct. Those three factors cannot all be correct. So we have a duty to look at any possible alternatives. So,

1. T.O.D. is wrong. It could be and it may just be as simple as that.

2. Maxwell was wrong. She may be. So, should we doubt her? Well, she appears to have been absoutely certain of what she did see and was able to fix the day using her own movements as reference. There is also nothing in what we know about her to suggest that she was in any way unreliable. But if we sub-divide Maxwell's possibilities:-

A. The woman she saw was not MJK. Perfectly possible, but she said that she did know her and knew her for several months. She also described Barnett which appears to support her identification.

B. She got the day wrong. As I've said in previous posts, I don't buy this for a minute. These were practical, tough people and there were several reasons why she could fix the day. Suggesting that she just got the day wrong does her a disservice.

C. She was lying. Cannot be ruled out of course. But why? She appears to have gained nothing from it and went through the ordeal of standing up at the inquest in a hugely intimidating situation and sticking to her story. Had she been looking for some "cheap thrills" she would surely have backed down by then.

D. She was genuinely mistaken. She may have been. But if there is no reason to believe that she was mistaken, why should we?

If we add that another person backed up her story, then we can see why we must take her seriously, however unfortunate her evidence is.

So, if we accept what Maxwell said and say for the sake of discussion that MJK was alive on the morning the body was found, then what may be the truth?

It is perfectly possible that the Ripper struck at some time that morning after Maxwell had seen her. It is a change in M.O. but perhaps not as big a change as we think.

Alternatively though, if Maxwell was right and the Time of death also is right then we must entertain the possibility that the body was not MJK.

If we had absolutely no reason to believe this then we might dismiss it, but there are some reasons. We know for a fact that other women did use the room, so the idea of somebody else being there is not crazy at all. Also, there are a few minor conjectures that might fit some known facts. eg the strange cry of "murder" could very well have been Mary returning and finding a body in her bed. The vomit could have been Mary's reaction to this. If she had found the body, she may have instantly come up with the idea of fleeing then.

I think some people on this thread have in some way come to the conclusion that the murder was in some way essential to the fleeing theory. That is not the case. I don't think for a moment Mary plotted to kill someone and dress the body up as herself by disfiguring it beyond identification. But stumbling upon the body, she may have realised that this was an opportunity and only then come to the conclusion. If she was paranoid, she may have believed that she was the intended victim. Either way, I only think the possibility of her fleeing came to her (If she did) after finding the body.

Finally, if she did come up with a plan to flee, she would indeed need money and a bit of help. So she would need to speak to some friends and associates perhaps, and didn't Lewis and Maxwell say that she was seen in the company of several people that morning?

If we imagine it as a triangular problem with three points1,2,3.

1= Body is MJK.
2= T.O.D. was early hours of the morning.
3= Maxwell did see MJK at 8.30 ish.

If we agree that 1,2 and 3 can't all be correct, then

1+3 correct = T.O.D. wrong and is much later than we thought.
1+2 correct = Maxwell wrong.
2+3 correct = Body not MJK

We can see that suggesting the body may not have been MJK is actually a perfectly rational possibility deduced from the evidence we have available, not a crazy suggestion.

It's not impossible!

regards,

[Wickerman]

Oh well done Tecs, just when we thought we were sorting the wheat from the chaff, along comes someone who lays all the cards on the table and drags us back to square one!


Really, seriously, good post Tecs.

Ok, not that your overview convinces me that both Maxwell & Lewis did not make a mistake, but, it is appreciated that you thought to lay out the significant issues in a logical manner.

Hypothetically then, if we consider the body was not Barnett's lover, but he had already claimed that her "hair" (which we read elsewhere was a distinctive feature) and her "eyes" (which means what? - the body had blue eyes and so did Kelly?) taken together were distinctive enough that he felt comfortable the body was his girlfriend.

Which must also mean, though not stated, that the clothes in the room, and her chemise were also recognizable by him as her possessions?

Another factor might be that the body (whoever it was) had to be someone in their mid twenties (with 'red'? hair and same colour eyes).

Statistically what are we prepared to accept?

Thanks again Tecs, good post.
Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

veracity

Hello Jon. Of course that all depends upon Barnett's veracity.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Of course that all depends upon Barnett's veracity.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

What are you saying, Barnett would lie about the stranger on the bed?

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

Another thing to remember is that Barnett probably knew what the other women using the room looked like. They may have looked different enough from MJK, that even in a mutilated state, it was obvious to him that the body couldn't be one of the other women. Therefore, if it wasn't MJK, it was a complete stranger, who coincidentally, looked quite a bit like MJK.

I doubt that Barnett would have taken this task lightly, and I think that he would not have wanted the body to be Kelly-- you know, he would not have wanted the woman he knew to be dead, and would have preferred it to be a stranger. A lot of people, when asked to identify the body of a loved one in a morgue, at first can't get the words out, or even say that it isn't, but when the ME is pretty sure for other reasons who the person is, and the identification is a formality, they let the person sit a few minutes, then look again, and they say "Yes."

I heard this from someone I know who is a liaison between the medical examiner's office (in a city where I used to live just south of where I am now), and the funeral home that usually handles bodies post-forensic autopsy, so she deals with families who have had someone murdered, or otherwise a victim of violence, on a regular basis. She also dated the K9 handler for the cadaver dogs. She's got some stories.

Anyway, I can't think of a reason for Barnett to be deliberately untruthful. If he if the one who killed the woman in the bed, then he certainly knows who it is, and has an interest in identifying her correctly, and thus having the investigation close as quickly as possible. An incorrect ID will have the police poking around the room, and asking him a lot more questions, and asking his and Kelly's mutual friends a lot of questions. A correct ID is likely to have the murder chalked up to a Ripper crime, and he is free.

Unless Barnett is in on some kind of escape plan for MJK, but that's just silly. She doesn't need a substitute body for an escape plan, and Barnett doesn't seem to receive any compensation, nor does he go to join her once the coast is clear.

[RavenDarkendale]

@ Tecs

Thank you. Exactly what I had in mind when I started this thread, that something in the facts wouldn't add up if TOD, witnesses, and identification were all correct.

Frankly, if I came home to a dead man in my bed, I would vanish myself. See what if the circumstances were the same today as then, i.e., no fingerprints, dental records, DNA, etc. If the body is not identified as me, I become the main suspect in the killing. If it is identified as me, I know they got the wrong person and will figure that when they learn heir mistake they'll be after me again.

Some have wondered why she allowed herself to be seen if fleeing was her choice. Old habits die hard. A sensible reason for her being sick has already been pointed out--discovery of the body. As for her drinking, she had the habit and God knows I would need a drink after finding that body!!

See if I disappeared, a large portion of my book collection would also vanish, because I've had to trace many of them down. I would hope that the authorities would suspect murder and robbery, and I would start over somewhere else. Since I live in VA, California or Texas would look good to me as being places I could loose myself. Perhaps she returned to the West End brothel, to France, or back to Ireland

God Bless

Darkendale

[lynn cates]

reservations

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"What are you saying, Barnett would lie about the stranger on the bed?"

No, not particularly. One must, however, express some doubts about his whole story since none of it is corroborated by the historical record.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hi Lynn.

What are you saying, Barnett would lie about the stranger on the bed?

Regards, Jon S.

If MJK asked him to, yes.

[Tecs]

Hello all,

FAO Wickerman and Raven,

Just wanted to say thanks for appreciating the post, makes it all worthwhile!

thanks both,

regards,

[Tecs]

If MJK asked him to, yes.

Absolutely,

If we do suspend opinion for a minute and consider MJK fleeing after discovering the opportunity to do so, as I said in the long post I did, she would need some help. It's not difficult to imagine her asking,

"Please, just do this one last thing for me Joe."

Is it?

regards,

[RivkahChaya]

But that means he never would have cracked, not once in all those years, not even at her funeral, nor in front of her family, if that is who was there. Since we know where he was for the rest of his life, we can assume that we would know if he eventually told someone, and it seems he didn't, not even years later, when one might suppose it really wouldn't matter so much anymore, and not even when he'd had too much to drink.

Has anyone tried to trace the other names that are associated with the women who supposedly stayed in the room? Did any of them have a history that abruptly stopped in the fall of 1888?

[Chava]

That's a damn' good question RivkahChaya. I don't know if anyone ever has and someone should!

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"What are you saying, Barnett would lie about the stranger on the bed?"

No, not particularly. One must, however, express some doubts about his whole story since none of it is corroborated by the historical record.

Cheers.
LC

Merely "'er 'air and eyes" Lynn, hardly a ID to call conclusive. I believe the key to Barnett's statements is located within the circumstances of his ID. Where exactly did he view Mary? When? Ive read reports that say police let him see her through the window while she was still in bed. Neither her 'air or her eyes would be visible from there. Her hair was down her back, her eyes covered by a flap of slashed skin.

Heres a possible reason Barnett might be a liar. Maybe he moved out of room 13 because he knew Mary was in imminent danger. Maybe he knew someone was looking for her, maybe she told him. Maybe he was frightened of this person too. Maybe so frightened and so weak morally that when he hears of Marys death and sees her beyond any help, he acts in a manner to save his own skin. If he tells what he knows, he knows he'll be doomed.

Would you tell the grand kids that one when they ask about those scary days? Would you own up to being a coward..even when it couldnt matter less what you did back then, in practical terms?

I say....hmm.

Cheers