What is the 'Holy Grail' for definitively proving the identity of MJK

[DJA]

Thanks

[erobitha]

Now show us yours

Mine started here, but has had much more work done since which I am keeping for my book

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/mary-jane-kelly/738794-was-mjk-really-mary-thomas

[Losmandris]

Hello John

You are correct that there is considerable ambiguity between the various reports and private research but the current consensus between those of us most nearly involved who keep in touch (including UoL) is that Grave area 2 is the most likely spot. On the UoL report, Figure 9, this lies just behind and about 5 - 10m north east of the current headstone and this is where the GPR shows the intact coffin although there is a lot of ground disturbance which may make accurate location difficult. It's not perfect but it's the best we've got.

I am still in touch with both the Ministry of Justice and a firm of forensic undertakers who carry out a lot of exhumations (including several in that cemetery) and it still seems to be the case that if we can get the permission of the cemetery owners we will be allowed to proceed subject to no objections by those with relatives buried in close proximity. We do not have to prove that MJK was my relative, simply that there is a good case for it which can only be proved by exhumation. After all, no-one could prove that the body in the Leicester car park was related to the people who exhumed him (and that was also consecrated ground). In other words, what I am saying is that there is some latitude when it comes to exhumations for historical reasons and for identification of remains that might possibly be related to the applicant. The MoJ has invited me to submit an application together with the permission of the cemetery owner. That is where the matter (and the body) rests now. I am only applying to raise a single coffin. If it's not the right one, so be it. But, unfortunately, the cemetery owner is still reluctant to give permission and, just when it looked as if it might be possible, COVID intervened and I had a minor stroke. I am fully recovered now and would like to press on but I need to persuade the Secular Clergy Common Fund.

Wynne

Always happy to sign a petition!

Wishing you the best of luck and the best of health!

Tristan

[Prosector]

Hello John

You are correct that there is considerable ambiguity between the various reports and private research but the current consensus between those of us most nearly involved who keep in touch (including UoL) is that Grave area 2 is the most likely spot. On the UoL report, Figure 9, this lies just behind and about 5 - 10m north east of the current headstone and this is where the GPR shows the intact coffin although there is a lot of ground disturbance which may make accurate location difficult. It's not perfect but it's the best we've got.

I am still in touch with both the Ministry of Justice and a firm of forensic undertakers who carry out a lot of exhumations (including several in that cemetery) and it still seems to be the case that if we can get the permission of the cemetery owners we will be allowed to proceed subject to no objections by those with relatives buried in close proximity. We do not have to prove that MJK was my relative, simply that there is a good case for it which can only be proved by exhumation. After all, no-one could prove that the body in the Leicester car park was related to the people who exhumed him (and that was also consecrated ground). In other words, what I am saying is that there is some latitude when it comes to exhumations for historical reasons and for identification of remains that might possibly be related to the applicant. The MoJ has invited me to submit an application together with the permission of the cemetery owner. That is where the matter (and the body) rests now. I am only applying to raise a single coffin. If it's not the right one, so be it. But, unfortunately, the cemetery owner is still reluctant to give permission and, just when it looked as if it might be possible, COVID intervened and I had a minor stroke. I am fully recovered now and would like to press on but I need to persuade the Secular Clergy Common Fund.

Wynne

[jmenges]

The University of Leicester report (with which I was involved) needs to be taken in context with both the ground penetrating radar and the very thorough research done in the 1970s by David Andersen and the then cemetery superintendent. There is considerable doubt as to whether the coffin detected by the GPR was buried in the 20th century because there are no cemetery records showing a burial into MJK's grave after hers so it hinges upon whether that plot (identified as Grave Area 2 in the UoL report) is the correct one or not and that can probably only be established by raising and opening that coffin. The main objection to that appears to be whether or not the permission of relatives others buried nearby, or in the same grave, need to be obtained. I have established that the legal position is that they do not, providing that 3 months notice of intention to exhume that coffin is given, by posting a notice on the grave and no-one comes forward with an objection. If they do (and it is highly unlikely since there have been no burials nearby for at least 50 years) then it must be resolved by negotiation. I have been in touch with UoL recently and they have no further interest in the case (at least until and if DNA is obtained) so the only remaining barrier is the permission of the Secular Clergy Common Fund.
Prosector

The UofL report identifies the most promising location of the communal burial section Kelly lies in is an area away from the plot where her headstone currently sits. Her headstone is in the wrong place. As the report explains, this area, as well as the ground underneath her headstone, as been built up with enough earth to have allowed for up to 3 more stacked burials in the 1940's and 1950's. So while you say that the cemetery records show no burials on top of Kelly in the 19th century is correct, it is impossible to determine whether there are one, two or three 20th century burials on top of Kelly due to the fact that the exact location of her plot is unknown. It is also recorded that the headstones in the area have been moved and then replaced to make room for mowing and landscaping, so it is not certain that the headstones accurately mark the location of their intended plots.

As for the GPR, the report states that the reflections of the four rows of graves match up to the post-1947 layout of the cemetery. If the entire communal burial area was examined with the GPR and also detected a reflection three or so feet deep, then it would again support UofL's conclusion- that the entire area contains 20th century burials on top of the 19th century ones.

It's my understanding that there are more objections, or hurdles for you to overcome, before you can commence digging other than obtaining the permission of relatives. Primarily, as the applicant and surviving descendant, you must prove that the remains being exhumed are those of Elizabeth Weston Davies, not Mary Jane Kelly.

JM

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I seem to recall you saying that the SCCF were having none of it?

Keep at it anyhow. Like I've said before, I think your case for Mary / Elizabeth is really interesting and certainly not beyond the realms of plausibility.

[Prosector]

The University of Leicester report (with which I was involved) needs to be taken in context with both the ground penetrating radar and the very thorough research done in the 1970s by David Andersen and the then cemetery superintendent. There is considerable doubt as to whether the coffin detected by the GPR was buried in the 20th century because there are no cemetery records showing a burial into MJK's grave after hers so it hinges upon whether that plot (identified as Grave Area 2 in the UoL report) is the correct one or not and that can probably only be established by raising and opening that coffin. The main objection to that appears to be whether or not the permission of relatives others buried nearby, or in the same grave, need to be obtained. I have established that the legal position is that they do not, providing that 3 months notice of intention to exhume that coffin is given, by posting a notice on the grave and no-one comes forward with an objection. If they do (and it is highly unlikely since there have been no burials nearby for at least 50 years) then it must be resolved by negotiation. I have been in touch with UoL recently and they have no further interest in the case (at least until and if DNA is obtained) so the only remaining barrier is the permission of the Secular Clergy Common Fund.
Prosector

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Wynne- The University of Leicester’s report makes it clear that the coffin detected by Ground Penetrating Radar was put in the ground in the mid-20th century.

JM

The Leicester Uni study made it pretty clear that finding her was near impossible. Which is unfortunate, because Dr Wynne's research was solid, and definitely a good candidate. As you would know of course, having interviewed him!

Available in the podcast section, totally free!

[DJA]

David, I don't claim that Elizabeth W D was definitely not alive after 1888, just that I haven't been able to find her in the records (and nor has anyone else as far as I know) and the family lost track of her after her marriage to Craig in 1884 except for, I believe, her brother Johnto.

No problems there Wynne.
I was replying to another poster.
Know people in that industry.Understand.

Found a couple of likely relatives here in Oz.
Would you like me to ring them some weekend?

[jmenges]

Wynne- The University of Leicester’s report makes it clear that the coffin detected by Ground Penetrating Radar was put in the ground in the mid-20th century.

JM

[Losmandris]

In answer to Tristan - yes, if a coffin with remains including bones is found (and the ground penetrating radar suggests that the coffin in that grave is in reasonable condition) then I think that the Bond autopsy report suggests that there would be sufficient knife marks on the femur and the cervical vertebra to match them with MJK's skeleton. Possibly on the facial bones as well. The soft tissues would have long since disappeared. DNA would need to be obtained from teeth. If there are any teeth there would be about a 50% chance of obtaining mitochondrial DNA. And David, I don't claim that Elizabeth W D was definitely not alive after 1888, just that I haven't been able to find her in the records (and nor has anyone else as far as I know) and the family lost track of her after her marriage to Craig in 1884 except for, I believe, her brother Johnto.

I don't suppose there are any other potential leads for the DNA? Has anyone traced 'their' Mary to people around today?

Tristan

[Prosector]

In answer to Tristan - yes, if a coffin with remains including bones is found (and the ground penetrating radar suggests that the coffin in that grave is in reasonable condition) then I think that the Bond autopsy report suggests that there would be sufficient knife marks on the femur and the cervical vertebra to match them with MJK's skeleton. Possibly on the facial bones as well. The soft tissues would have long since disappeared. DNA would need to be obtained from teeth. If there are any teeth there would be about a 50% chance of obtaining mitochondrial DNA. And David, I don't claim that Elizabeth W D was definitely not alive after 1888, just that I haven't been able to find her in the records (and nor has anyone else as far as I know) and the family lost track of her after her marriage to Craig in 1884 except for, I believe, her brother Johnto.

[DJA]

The problem I have is the name I have for her is quite common, so I cannot conclusively rule out she may appear somewhere after 1888 - but I do lose track of her in the census records in 1881.

Again, none of this will ever be proven conclusively without DNA that is reliable. I’m very surprised you believe that you can claim yours was definitely not alive post 1888.

Now show us yours

[Losmandris]

I think most of you are familiar with my theory that she may have been my great aunt Elizabeth Weston Davies. You are probably also aware that I obtained provisional agreement from the Ministry of Justice to exhume the body in Leytonstone Catholic cemetery, the proviso being that I also obtain permission from the cemetery owner, the Secular Clergy Common Fund, which is not forthcoming. An extensive survey was carried out by Leicester University in 2015 which concluded that there was at least a fair chance that the grave marked Marie Jeanette Kelly was the correct one and that is supported by David Andersen who probably knows more about the location of the grave than anyone else. Without an exhumation there will not be DNA and, even then, a very good chance that it will prove nothing.

Like many others, I have carried out extensive BMD research for both Mary Jane Kelly and Elizabeth Weston Davies (or Craig as she was after 1884) but have found nothing after 1884. When Francis Craig died in 1903 he was intestate and the UK government Bona Vacantia Division advertised in the national press for any possible claimants to his estate (of which Elizabeth would have been one) but no-one came forward.

I'm willing to support anyone who could help in getting an exhumation. it's a very slim chance but, I think, one worth attempting.

Prosector

I really wish you the best of luck with this. If you do get permission, I think it will be a real challenge to actually locate her body, that said it would be worth trying as i think it is such an interesting enterprise. If you did get permission, would there be anyway or means of identifying the remains. With your professional hat on, do you think their would be any markings or damage to the bones as a result of the murder?

Tristan

[Prosector]

I think most of you are familiar with my theory that she may have been my great aunt Elizabeth Weston Davies. You are probably also aware that I obtained provisional agreement from the Ministry of Justice to exhume the body in Leytonstone Catholic cemetery, the proviso being that I also obtain permission from the cemetery owner, the Secular Clergy Common Fund, which is not forthcoming. An extensive survey was carried out by Leicester University in 2015 which concluded that there was at least a fair chance that the grave marked Marie Jeanette Kelly was the correct one and that is supported by David Andersen who probably knows more about the location of the grave than anyone else. Without an exhumation there will not be DNA and, even then, a very good chance that it will prove nothing.

Like many others, I have carried out extensive BMD research for both Mary Jane Kelly and Elizabeth Weston Davies (or Craig as she was after 1884) but have found nothing after 1884. When Francis Craig died in 1903 he was intestate and the UK government Bona Vacantia Division advertised in the national press for any possible claimants to his estate (of which Elizabeth would have been one) but no-one came forward.

I'm willing to support anyone who could help in getting an exhumation. it's a very slim chance but, I think, one worth attempting.

Prosector