Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[Wickerman]

And that also confuses, you say the name USED by the victim at no 13 was NOT MJK.
Which implies that everyone lied about the name the person living there used.

No, thats opposite Steve, only the victim lied about her name. Everyone else used the name she gave them.

That it was not the real name of the woman, I agree 100% .

I was asking Simon if that is what he means, that it was not the real name, or does he mean something else entirely.

Steve

We all know what Simon means.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Abby,

No one was murdered in Millers Court.

Simon

Simon, read the blurb for your book online. Don't me to be rude, but sounds bloody awful. Given choice I'd plump for Ike's pink soc routine.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

No one was murdered in Millers Court.

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hi Steve,

What I mean by fictitious is that Mary Kelly did not exist in any corporeal form.

There was no mistaken identity, and there's nothing to be gained by looking for her. She did not exist. She was wholly imaginary, invented by someone to be the Ripper's final victim.

I know the "how" of Millers Court, but I am still looking into the "why."

Best wishes,

Simon

so the woman murdered in millers court who was known as Mary kelly did not exist?

[Abby Normal]

Regarding the option that Caroline Maxwell may have lied ? Just a few suggestions why she may have done so

1- Her husband Henry was JTR. Seems a bit far fetched but this idea has intrigued me. Caroline gives him an alibi IE Mary was killed after nine in the morning when Henry may have one. He is possibly the Henry Maxwell who died 25 May 89 thus ending the murders. Dorset st is a very good location for the murderer to have lived considering the murders of Annie [ if around dawn ] , and Mary [ perhaps heavily bloodstained ] , and the piece of Kate's apron being found on a route which could lead to Dorset st. Also Geo profiles seem to indicate Flower and Dean st for the killer , which of course is very close to Dorset. There is also Wideawake man who was standing outside the very place, [ supposedly observing the court ] were Henry Maxwell was working that night.

2- Henry Maxwell was Wideawake man who the police would obviously try and find and eliminate . Maxwell made her statement a few days before Hutch and she would have no way of knowing he would come forward. Perhaps he was wary of the police full stop and wanted an alibi. Or maybe he was involved in some illegal activities and he didn't want them snooping around.

3-Henry Maxwell could have been in the employ of John Mcarthy, as in an extra shilling was earned if he kept watch on Millers Court making sure no one did a moonlit flit while he was on duty across the road. We know Mary was well behind with her rent for instance and it was payday the morning after.
Henry may have dozed off at say 3 in the morning thus failing in his duty so to speak . Probably the last thing on Mcarthy's mind would be Henry Maxwell, but Henry may not have seen it that way, and perhaps he was a little scared for himself, especially if Mcarthy was on friendly terms with William Crossingham, and Henry or Caroline was worried about his position as deputy lodging house keeper by him not keeping a proper eye on the court that night, which may have made him [ in Caroline or Henry's mind ] , look untrustworthy.

Regards Darryl

wasnt there a ripper letter sent from his address?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

What I mean by fictitious is that Mary Kelly did not exist in any corporeal form.

There was no mistaken identity, and there's nothing to be gained by looking for her. She did not exist. She was wholly imaginary, invented by someone to be the Ripper's final victim.

I know the "how" of Millers Court, but I am still looking into the "why."

Best wishes,

Simon

[etenguy]

Thanks Eten! Ill check it out!

Funny though this exchange between us has actually not changed my mind about maxwell and a later murder, instead has increased slightly IMHO barnetts chance of having killed Mary and being the ripper. oh well to each his own!

Hi Abby

I certainly think Barnett's 'left on good terms routine' was not entirely true - they had clearly fallen out. Maybe not irrevocably but who knows. He is unlikely to tell anyone that given the murder though.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Regarding the option that Caroline Maxwell may have lied ? Just a few suggestions why she may have done so

1- Her husband Henry was JTR. Seems a bit far fetched but this idea has intrigued me. Caroline gives him an alibi IE Mary was killed after nine in the morning when Henry may have one. He is possibly the Henry Maxwell who died 25 May 89 thus ending the murders. Dorset st is a very good location for the murderer to have lived considering the murders of Annie [ if around dawn ] , and Mary [ perhaps heavily bloodstained ] , and the piece of Kate's apron being found on a route which could lead to Dorset st. Also Geo profiles seem to indicate Flower and Dean st for the killer , which of course is very close to Dorset. There is also Wideawake man who was standing outside the very place, [ supposedly observing the court ] were Henry Maxwell was working that night.

2- Henry Maxwell was Wideawake man who the police would obviously try and find and eliminate . Maxwell made her statement a few days before Hutch and she would have no way of knowing he would come forward. Perhaps he was wary of the police full stop and wanted an alibi. Or maybe he was involved in some illegal activities and he didn't want them snooping around.

3-Henry Maxwell could have been in the employ of John Mcarthy, as in an extra shilling was earned if he kept watch on Millers Court making sure no one did a moonlit flit while he was on duty across the road. We know Mary was well behind with her rent for instance and it was payday the morning after.
Henry may have dozed off at say 3 in the morning thus failing in his duty so to speak . Probably the last thing on Mcarthy's mind would be Henry Maxwell, but Henry may not have seen it that way, and perhaps he was a little scared for himself, especially if Mcarthy was on friendly terms with William Crossingham, and Henry or Caroline was worried about his position as deputy lodging house keeper by him not keeping a proper eye on the court that night, which may have made him [ in Caroline or Henry's mind ] , look untrustworthy.

Regards Darryl

[c.d.]

From a strictly practical standpoint, I don't see any need to include an asterisk any time we use her name.

c.d.

[Darryl Kenyon]

As Wick points out Mary Kelly is probably an alias . Mary [ if indeed that was her first name ], possibly had good reason for inventing a back story and name. If Caroline Maxwell was talking to someone else they might have used the alias as well, [ interchangeable identities may have caused confusion for anyone looking for said girls ]. Would that person [ if Maxwell was talking to someone else she believed to be MJK ], then come forward and give their real name ? If she was in fear for herself for whatever reason, I doubt it.

Just a thought, Darryl

[Elamarna]

It only stands to reason Steve, to me at least, that after decades of experienced researchers looking for a Mary Kelly who fits, or closely fits, the expected details given by witnesses, the name used by the victim of room 13 was not Mary Kelly.

What her real name was we may never know, but we were told at the time, one witness who knew her told the press, "I know the woman well, I have often drunk with her but, bless your life: I don't know her proper name, we called her 'Mary Jane', we don't often know one anothers names, nobody knows mine".
Lanc. Eve. Post, 9 Nov. 1888.

Mary Kelly was not her real name, this should be apparent to most students of the case by now.

And that also confuses, you say the name USED by the victim at no 13 was NOT MJK.
Which implies that everyone lied about the name the person living there used.

That it was not the real name of the woman, I agree 100% .

I was asking Simon if that is what he means, that it was not the real name, or does he mean something else entirely.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Nothing changes does it Michael?
When the room is quiet and dark there are two equal possibilities - she is either in, or out.
If she is in, she is either asleep or dead and we have no witnesses to support either view.
If she is out she could be seen, and we do have two witnesses, three if we include Sarah Lewis, who saw Kelly out after 1:30 am.
Hutchinson saw Kelly about 2:00-2:30?, Lewis saw the same 'couple' that Hutchinson was watching (Astrachan & Kelly), then Kennedy saw Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am.
The fact you choose to ignore them is a problem you have to deal with.

So Wick, still going with the Lewis being one person and Kennedy being another huh? Talk about ignoring evidence. There is no evidence Hutchinson was there or even knew Mary Kelly. There is a person seen by Sarah Lewis, (just the one, no aliases), wearing a Wideawake Hat. And she didnt say she saw Mary, she saw "another young man with a woman passed along - the man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out".

If you want to debate a point, please just use real information in your rebuttal.

[Wickerman]

Not got your latest yet, maybe oct.
so cannot see your latest musings Simon.

Ficticious?
I suppose that depends what you mean by that term.
If you mean, not real name, not real background then I have no issue.

Or are you suggesting that no one was using that name at all , staying in Miller's Court?

Steve

It only stands to reason Steve, to me at least, that after decades of experienced researchers looking for a Mary Kelly who fits, or closely fits, the expected details given by witnesses, the name used by the victim of room 13 was not Mary Kelly.

What her real name was we may never know, but we were told at the time, one witness who knew her told the press, "I know the woman well, I have often drunk with her but, bless your life: I don't know her proper name, we called her 'Mary Jane', we don't often know one anothers names, nobody knows mine".
Lanc. Eve. Post, 9 Nov. 1888.

Mary Kelly was not her real name, this should be apparent to most students of the case by now.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Apologies for not including the quarrel info. It is reproduced below and can be found in the suspect section of casebook.



Happy to disagree on the rest but the more you probed me about my belief and understanding of what happened to MJK the more I am inclined to accept Maxwell and the later time - thanks for helping to consolidate my thoughts around this, even if they are very different from yours.

If you haven't read already, the analysis by the Spanish medics that I posted a few pages back is an interesting read.

Thanks Eten! Ill check it out!

Funny though this exchange between us has actually not changed my mind about maxwell and a later murder, instead has increased slightly IMHO barnetts chance of having killed Mary and being the ripper. oh well to each his own!

[etenguy]

hi eten
thank you for providing the harvey sources. while her name is not specifically mentioned its obvious that she is the one barnett is talking about. i was wrong about that so thanks for correcting me.
is there a source for the window breaking argument being specifically about harvey too?

the rest well just have to agree to disagree my friend.

Hi Abby

Apologies for not including the quarrel info. It is reproduced below and can be found in the suspect section of casebook.

October 30th, 1888: Barnett and Kelly have a quarrel at 13 Miller's Court, during which a window is broken and Joseph leaves to take up lodgings in Bishopsgate. It is alleged that the quarrel arose because Kelly was allowing a prostitute to share their lodgings.

Happy to disagree on the rest but the more you probed me about my belief and understanding of what happened to MJK the more I am inclined to accept Maxwell and the later time - thanks for helping to consolidate my thoughts around this, even if they are very different from yours.

If you haven't read already, the analysis by the Spanish medics that I posted a few pages back is an interesting read.