Identity of Mary Jane Kelly

[caz]

I have not posted any inaccurate commentary on positions which youve espoused over the many years here. Its those positions themselves that are inaccurate. Ive never suggested Bowyer should be looked at or the Millers Court murder, just for the records.

Which 'positions' exactly, Michael? It's pointless throwing out accusations if you can't provide any evidence, but I'm not your only victim in that regard, so I'm in good company.

If you mean an adherence to the C5, I've never espoused any such position.

If you mean all the victims 'actively soliciting' when they met their killer, I've never espoused that position either.

You need both Nichols and Chapman to have been actively soliciting your suspect, while even that's not set in stone.

And just for the record, nobody suggested you wanted Bowyer to be looked at as a potential suspect for MJK's murder.

My point was simply that as Bowyer was coming in the morning, specifically to collect whatever he could towards her rent arrears, it's nonsensical to argue that she had no need to beg, borrow or earn a single penny the night before. Where was her next meal or drink going to come from, for a start? And how did she know she was not on borrowed time, and could be slung out and replaced by someone who could pay?

[Michael W Richards]

You merely need to read what I have written, Michael, instead of speculating about what I mean, based on things I haven't written.

I wasn't mocking you for a theory you hadn't even suggested. I asked for 'nobody' to start suspecting Bowyer, on the basis that he claimed to be trying to collect MJK's rent arrears when he discovered her body. This was because you had speculated that she had no need to earn a penny in advance of his visit. Suspecting the men who discovered a victim has become a parlour game of late, but I didn't accuse you - or anyone in fact - of doing it with Bowyer.

Another little matter that drives me mad is how many times you have repeated the false accusation that I have ever insisted on 'The Canonical Group' - no more, no less - or that every victim was actively soliciting when their killer encountered them, whether or not they had admitted to any such intentions.

Please stop doing this, Michael. It gets you nowhere and it also makes you look like you have the greatest difficulty in absorbing and remembering the most basic details of what you are reading.

I have not posted any inaccurate commentary on positions which youve espoused over the many years here. Its those positions themselves that are inaccurate. Ive never suggested Bowyer should be looked at or the Millers Court murder, just for the records.

As to why we should believe that the woman in lucky room 13 is someone who is named Mary Jane Kelly legally I stand by the position that the only evidence we have is the recollected conversations of people closest to her at the time of her death. No-one has ever found an actual woman matching the stories she allegedly gave Barnett and others. If she isnt really someone with that name legally, then there are a few possible reasons that might be. To disappear might be one, to deceive another..

Its always so interesting to stand back and see that all of this is taking place with a heightened backdrop of political intrigue, espionage, terrorism, national security, spies and double spies, and that the Ripper investigations are being run by the very same men intimately involved in all those other activities. Imagine if Jack is really a rogue double spy under Andersons watch, for example. Does he expose that? Would he let it be exposed? Would Secrecy and National Security supersede public safety and the truth?

Just a what if....but showing that without new evidence, the intermingling of activities with Jacks is still a real possibility. And the reason the woman might not actually be someone named Mary Jane Kelly legally is due to that.

You see Caz I speculate using some sense of reality and reason, and with some actual foundations... I dont ignore any evidence whether it suggests a Jack the Ripper, or not. You do.

[Abby Normal]

Seen it, RJ, and am avoiding adding to it.

How many times has someone begun an almost identical thread since we've both been visiting this place?

And how illuminating have such threads been on a scale of 0 to 10?

Shall we start a poll?

Or a toll?

Or even a grassy knoll?

Love,

Caz
X

yes why dont you and rj go back to your ad nauseums on the diary thread. theres so much new and enlightening info you all provide on there. such great contributions to the ripper subject! lol talk about grassy knolls-you practically live in one.

But I see your ridicule of my thread dosnt stop you from being totally off topic on this one, nor for you joining in on that thread. rather hypocritical dont ya think?

I started it because theres alot of new posters recently with new ideas on the subject and apparently a bit of interest. One new poster mentioned maybe finding new incriminating info on Bury during his research of him. So ill leave you and rj to your passive aggressive relationship, and wont respond further as youve allready derailed this thread enough.

[caz]

I didn't avoid it for long...

[caz]

Seen it, RJ, and am avoiding adding to it.

How many times has someone begun an almost identical thread since we've both been visiting this place?

And how illuminating have such threads been on a scale of 0 to 10?

Shall we start a poll?

Or a toll?

Or even a grassy knoll?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Pleeeeease nobody suggest Bowyer killed her or I shall have the screaming abdabs.

You may wish to avoid the 'Okay, who's your favorite suspect' thread.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

...


Ever since I first started here Ive sparred with you about issues of speculation. The Canonical Group itself is speculation, let alone that anyone of the victims that did not state themselves that they were soliciting on the night they get killed were doing that anyway. Both are things you personally espouse as a sound foundation or basis for the investigations. When they.. of course... are not.

I dont assume any of the witnesses who claim to have seen or spoken with the victims just before they get killed did in fact know the soon to be victims, using Mary Kelly as the example. I need evidence before I can be sure they have any value. I dont have any evidence from any of those witnesses other than Julia, and Mary Ann Co, both who we can say for certain knew Mary, and spoke with Mary the night she is killed.

That being said, there is little that is known for certain about these.

You merely need to read what I have written, Michael, instead of speculating about what I mean, based on things I haven't written.

I wasn't mocking you for a theory you hadn't even suggested. I asked for 'nobody' to start suspecting Bowyer, on the basis that he claimed to be trying to collect MJK's rent arrears when he discovered her body. This was because you had speculated that she had no need to earn a penny in advance of his visit. Suspecting the men who discovered a victim has become a parlour game of late, but I didn't accuse you - or anyone in fact - of doing it with Bowyer.

Another little matter that drives me mad is how many times you have repeated the false accusation that I have ever insisted on 'The Canonical Group' - no more, no less - or that every victim was actively soliciting when their killer encountered them, whether or not they had admitted to any such intentions.

Please stop doing this, Michael. It gets you nowhere and it also makes you look like you have the greatest difficulty in absorbing and remembering the most basic details of what you are reading.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

But again, you need to explain how Jack would know that a woman was or was not soliciting without approaching them. As for a gamble, what would a woman mistakenly approached by Jack tell the police? And that assumes that she would take the trouble to tell the police. If Jack simply approached her and made no sort of threat or exhibited odd behavior I see no sort of "gamble" on his part.

You also need to explain how we could possibly know whether or not a woman who was not actively soliciting would respond if approached and offered money.

To me, the whole soliciting or not question is a moot point.

c.d.

In those circumstances any interaction between the parties would soon reveal what that woman was doing hanging around in the middle of the night. If he approaches a woman at that time before he can be sure she will take him into the dark its risking behaving oddly during what amounts to be a perceived murder spree. The woman might mention any odd encounter, possibly putting his next venture at greater risk. If comes up and offers a woman who by good fortune or hard work or both has a place to get off the streets at night, some money for sex, that would be mentioned. I would think at that time what Im suggesting was likely the preliminary police profile...seeks out prostitutes, acts as "client"...maybe because they facilitate his need for some modicum of privacy. He needs to pick them up efficiently to have achieved the record he supposedly has. Any miscue would draw attention.

Maybe he's just "down on whores".

[Dickere]

Off topic, Michael, but these witnesses are not mutually exclusive. Yes, Mary Ann Cox saw MJK going into her room with Blotchy, but nobody saw him come out again, so it's entirely possible they both did, and therefore Hutch could have seen MJK engaging with another man later that night. Similarly, Carrie Maxwell and Maurice Lewis could have seen MJK the following morning, because nobody could have given an exact TOD. It's hard enough to do that today, without hard evidence of a last sighting alive and first sighting dead.



So why did Bowyer come round in the morning to try and collect some of that back rent, only to find her beyond paying?

Was he lying about what he was doing there? Pleeeeease nobody suggest Bowyer killed her or I shall have the screaming abdabs.

Back to MJK's identity...

Love,

Caz
X

MJK's real name was Lechmere, obviously. He got around to her after a bit of practice.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

But again, you need to explain how Jack would know that a woman was or was not soliciting without approaching them. As for a gamble, what would a woman mistakenly approached by Jack tell the police? And that assumes that she would take the trouble to tell the police. If Jack simply approached her and made no sort of threat or exhibited odd behavior I see no sort of "gamble" on his part.

You also need to explain how we could possibly know whether or not a woman who was not actively soliciting would respond if approached and offered money.

To me, the whole soliciting or not question is a moot point.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Ever since I first started here Ive sparred with you about issues of speculation. The Canonical Group itself is speculation, let alone that anyone of the victims that did not state themselves that they were soliciting on the night they get killed were doing that anyway.

Hello Michael,

Well of course it is speculation. Has anyone on these boards ever argued that the C5 is an indisputable, certified metaphysical fact? We simply don't know and most likely never will.

As for the argument that a woman absolutely had to be soliciting in order for her to be a Ripper victim it has been pointed out to you numerous times that Jack would have no way to determine whether they were or were not soliciting unless he approached them. Since we have no way of knowing their response to being approached regardless of whether they were actively soliciting or not, all bets in that regard are off.

c.d.

P.S. Welcome back. I noticed you were away for a while.

Thanks cd...wasnt sure I was coming back but I checked the site recently and had to throw in my 2 cents.

The fact that the first 2 women specifically stated what they were doing to friends, and that we do not have such evidence for the remaining 3 on the Canonical list, we have only their known circumstances to gauge what they were doing at the time they met their killer. Since we have evidence in the first 2 cases they were actively soliciting, and that it likely involved strangers, that means that scenario provided the perfect opportunity to get a potential victim in the dark alone. That may well be why he chose those 2 victims, which would suggest that anyone not clearly planning to take him into the dark alone would be a gamble for him. He couldnt afford mistakes.

The active solicitation angle may well be the definitive litmus test for future crimes and their probable inclusion on "JacksList".

[c.d.]

Ever since I first started here Ive sparred with you about issues of speculation. The Canonical Group itself is speculation, let alone that anyone of the victims that did not state themselves that they were soliciting on the night they get killed were doing that anyway.

Hello Michael,

Well of course it is speculation. Has anyone on these boards ever argued that the C5 is an indisputable, certified metaphysical fact? We simply don't know and most likely never will.

As for the argument that a woman absolutely had to be soliciting in order for her to be a Ripper victim it has been pointed out to you numerous times that Jack would have no way to determine whether they were or were not soliciting unless he approached them. Since we have no way of knowing their response to being approached regardless of whether they were actively soliciting or not, all bets in that regard are off.

c.d.

P.S. Welcome back. I noticed you were away for a while.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Caz,

...

Off topic, Michael, but these witnesses are not mutually exclusive. Yes, Mary Ann Cox saw MJK going into her room with Blotchy, but nobody saw him come out again, so it's entirely possible they both did, and therefore Hutch could have seen MJK engaging with another man later that night.

Again, my emphasis is on whether we can say Hutch for certain actually knew the woman identified as Mary Kelly of Millers Court in the first place. We do not have that evidence that shows he did. I dont argue that someone could have left the room later in the night, in fact the finding of the room as empty excluding Marys remains by Bowyer confirms that Blotchy did in fact leave, and by virtue of the absence of accounts of anyone who saw him after he entered the room, he evidently left unseen.

Similarly, Carrie Maxwell and Maurice Lewis could have seen MJK the following morning, because nobody could have given an exact TOD. It's hard enough to do that today, without hard evidence of a last sighting alive and first sighting dead.

Obviously this is the same situation, without any validation that either actually knew Mary Kelly by sight and name...(we even have Maxwell suggest Mary knew her by name)...we cannot be certain they did. On the other hand, we have every reason to suspect that Mary Ann Cox and the woman identified as Mary Jane Kelly did know each other and likely spoke to each other. Thats why I said I favour things we can be certain of over speculating whether or not something was truthful.

So why did Bowyer come round in the morning to try and collect some of that back rent, only to find her beyond paying?

He was sent to "see if" any money would be paid, not neccesarily to collect money. Mary has obviously not been paying rent yet she still lives there, so what changed that night to make you think she went out again to earn money for the arrears? Pubs were closed, she couldnt spend any money and did need money for arrears, so what do you believe would motivate her to go out again to earn? She didnt before midnight..no money was found earned from Blotchy, and she apparently didnt need to have any money for Bowyer to ensure she could stay there.

Was he lying about what he was doing there? Pleeeeease nobody suggest Bowyer killed her or I shall have the screaming abdabs.

Not sure why you would create from thin air a theory I havent suggested then mock it, but not totally surprised you did ...I believe he was sent to see if he could collect any money.

Back to MJK's identity...

Love,

Caz
X

Ever since I first started here Ive sparred with you about issues of speculation. The Canonical Group itself is speculation, let alone that anyone of the victims that did not state themselves that they were soliciting on the night they get killed were doing that anyway. Both are things you personally espouse as a sound foundation or basis for the investigations. When they.. of course... are not.

I dont assume any of the witnesses who claim to have seen or spoken with the victims just before they get killed did in fact know the soon to be victims, using Mary Kelly as the example. I need evidence before I can be sure they have any value. I dont have any evidence from any of those witnesses other than Julia, and Mary Ann Co, both who we can say for certain knew Mary, and spoke with Mary the night she is killed.

That being said, there is little that is known for certain about these.

[GBinOz]

Carrie Maxwell and Maurice Lewis could have seen MJK the following morning, because nobody could have given an exact TOD. It's hard enough to do that today, without hard evidence of a last sighting alive and first sighting dead.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

If Maurice Lewis saw her at 10am and Bowyer discovered the body at 10:45am, it doesn't leave much time for Mary to return to her room with the killer, be murdered and butchered, and for the killer to escape, covered in blood, through the busy streets in broad daylight. I feel that if these witnesses are to be believed, it was someone other than Mary that was the victim.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Her's another report that would, if believed, seem to exonerate Blotchy and A-Man:

The Evening Times on 10 November :
"On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before".
"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday"

Cheers, George