was Mary Kelly really murdered

[miss c]

Hi everyone.
Thanks for all your responses but i still fond what your saying is just the point i was trying tp make. And that ostensibly that everyone is so quick to discount this as real evidence with no real reason.
It is highly unlikely that the witness could be wrong about the day as she gave her statement that very day and im sure she would not be mistaken about that. Also its pure speculation that she didn't know her well enough to be sure as i know people myself that i only know vaugly but would still recognise them in passing.
Also i have read various accounts, although i am unable to find names sorry, of there who are also meant to have seen her on the morning on the 9th but were not allowed to give testimony at the inquest so this may not be isolated incident of only one or two sightings.
Add to this the fact Mary Kelly often had other woman staying at her address and the way her face was destroyed beyond recognition then i think its fair to say that there is a strong possibility that it may not have been her who was murdered.
I just don't understand why people are so quick to discount this as real evidence and discount it so easily.
Miss c

[miss c]

Sorry bout the spelling blunders in previous post, i really should check my predictive txt before posting which i promise to do from now on.
I also would like to add that i understand that everyone has a different opinion on this matter and i enjoy a good debate but would love some to give this topic some real merit as one of the cases most interesting mysteries

[miss c]

apology for misspelled words in post

Sorry bout the spelling blunders in previous post, i really should check my predictive txt before posting which i promise to do from now on.
I also would like to add that i understand that everyone has a different opinion on this matter and i enjoy a good debate but would love some to give this topic some real merit as one of the cases most interesting mysteries
miss c

[curious]

I just don't understand why people are so quick to discount this as real evidence and discount it so easily.
Miss c

Hello, Miss C,
Welcome to the boards. Hope you enjoy your time here!

I suspect that when it seems that people are "quick" to discount something, it MAY mean only that they considered it in depth for a long time, arrived at a conclusion that makes sense to them, and are currently intrigued by other facets of this case.

In other words, they were slow to arrive at their conclusion, but have moved on since forming it.

I consider the time frame here very intriguing as it seems reasonable that the body would have been in full rigor at the time of discovery IF the earlier time was correct. Since the body was just going into rigor, it seems to make the daylight sightings possible -- but then you have the unknown because so much flesh was stripped from the body and rigor is a chemical reaction in the muscles.

The discovery of the letter with Maxwell's address has also made me re-consider my opinion of Mrs. Maxwell and her testimony -- she may have thought the life of a loved one was at stake.

I have also considered the possibility that the woman known as MJK was not the person found dead in that room. There seem to be some fair indicators in that direction.

So many people, so many opinions for so many reasons . . .

Good luck with this question and your time here!

curious

[richardnunweek]

Hello Miss C,
First of all welcome to the boards,
I agree that the murder at Millers court is a complex mystery, but the Mary Kelly enigma is the most discussed out of the others.
During all the years that I have been a member, the entire episode has been discussed countless times, every single witness has been dissected , and a huge amount of speculative posts have found there way on to this site.
I appreciate that some threads appear not to have taken off, and it can be frustrating when one feels that . [ Its happened to me many times], but you have started one that is very popular, so that need not apply.
Regards Richard.

[DRoy]

Miss C,

And that ostensibly that everyone is so quick to discount this as real evidence with no real reason.

What evidence? Do you mean Maxwell? She said she only talked with MJK a couple times before over a four month period. Maurice Lewis? He said he saw MJK at 8am and then 10:00am. He also claims he saw Mary and Barnett the previous night at the Horn of Plenty public house but Barnett was actually playing whist at a friends house.

It is highly unlikely that the witness could be wrong about the day as she gave her statement that very day and im sure she would not be mistaken about that. Also its pure speculation that she didn't know her well enough to be sure as i know people myself that i only know vaugly but would still recognise them in passing.

Yes it is speculation. But what makes more sense? She knew her and therefore the police and doctors are all wrong...or...the person she thought was MJK wasn't?

Also i have read various accounts, although i am unable to find names sorry, of there who are also meant to have seen her on the morning on the 9th but were not allowed to give testimony at the inquest so this may not be isolated incident of only one or two sightings.

Maxwell and Lewis. There was another person but can't recall who it was or whether they were ever named. It's not about being allowed to testify at the inquest, there was no benefit to do so. Based on your theory of allowing everyone to testify, we would have had a circus of people telling rubbish stories like Mary had a child, lived on the second story, etc.

Add to this the fact Mary Kelly often had other woman staying at her address and the way her face was destroyed beyond recognition then i think its fair to say that there is a strong possibility that it may not have been her who was murdered.

The people that visited Mary testified. They are alive! If they're alive then who's dead? Or are you suggesting Mary took one of her friends place and became them?

I just don't understand why people are so quick to discount this as real evidence and discount it so easily.

I think it's quite easy to discount it because it isn't evidence at all. All the evidence proves MJK was murdered.

Phil H has a true and good reason to question Maxwell's story. There could very well be more to that story. That theory has much more weight than MJK being alive.

Cheers
DRoy

[miss c]

Hi once again,
i am really enjoying hearing all the different points of view , its nice to have people to discuss these things with even if they don't necessarily agree,
here is a little theory i have been working on or at least trying too lol.
i already know how unlikely if not completely impossible this theory is but sometimes it is fun to play around with ideas, i have not shared this line of thinking before for fear of ridicule but where else but amongst other jack the ripper enthusiasts can i,
so here it goes..
Firstly this goes with the Jill the ripper theory, whilst investigating this line of thinkin i realised how little, if anything we really know about Mary Kelly, so what if Jill the ripper was Mary Kelly, and that's why there are so many issues with her murder,
im ready for all comments lol, i know this is highly unlikely but an interesting twist on the whole case.
Miss c

[Simon Wood]

Hi DRoy,

All the evidence proves is that someone was murdered at Millers Court.

Regards,

Simon

[miss c]

Hi DRoy
you raise good points, yet i have looked into this in great detail over the last months and still fine wholes in what we know,
firstly as i have previously mentioned only speaking to someone a few times does not justify saying they would not recognise them, also if it had been someone else she recognised as someone she knew vaugly and mistook for Mary Kelly why is there no report of her realising this at a later date when she must have saw them around, also although i cannot remember the source which i will find and put the like on a future post, it states that her appearance was shocking, Mary kelly explained this away as due to drink, but her appearance is described as memorable so does this not mean its unlikely to be wrong,this article is also t.e one which stated she was say that morning by many who noticed her appearance,
secondly saying that for the witness to be right the police and docs had to be wrong is a bit far fetched as it is well documented that due to the condition of the body and amount of time that past between it bein found and examined that the time of death has always been in question.
Finally is it not possible that's since we know so little about her that there could have been at least one or more friends we don't know of and they would not have came forward. If they were murdered and assumed to be Mary kelly.
I am not for one second saying this is what happened but am pointing it out as what i believe to be a valid point
miss c

[DRoy]

Simon,

All the evidence proves is that someone was murdered at Millers Court.

Barnett, Bowyer and McCarthy all said it was MJK based on appearance. They would know better than Maxwell or Lewis.

Couldn't you use your argument for any person through history who was murdered without DNA testing having been completed? Come on Simon!

Cheers
DRoy

[Phil H]

I don't know whether this is the right place to go into the "Jill the Ripper" question, miss c, even though you have raised it in your own thread.

I'll just say this:

The theory is not new - as I recall, William Stewart and (perhaps) Conan Doyle advocated similar ideas. (The A-Z states that it can find no evidence of Doyle having done so in writing though.) At the time of the murders, the Rev Lord Sydney Godolphin Osborn also advanced a similar view. the thought was that the killer might have passed un-noticed as either a midwife or an abortionist.

This idea was linked, I believe, with the mistaken view that MJK was pregnant when killed.

Others here will be better placed than I (no criminologist) to say whether the crimes were capable of having been perpetrated by a woman. My understanding is that the concensus is that they are not, but I may be wrong or out-of-date!

Other questions might be - are all the murders by the same hand. In recent times the issue of whether Stride and Kelly were killed by the same hand as Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes has been debated in my view wih some credibility. So I think you would need to consider whether you are suggesting all the crimes were by a single, female killer. In that context, Schwartz's evidence suggests that Stride was attacked by a man - but was he her killer?

You might also want to examine the question of the fire in MJK's room; the burnt clothing etc etc. What was "Jill's" motive in taking "trophies" from some victims? Where do you stand on Eddowes' apron scrap?

The female killer is an ingenious solution to the enigma of JtR but personally, I have yet to be remotely convinced by it. A midwife or an abortionist rings less true, as an example, than Odell's schochet (religious butcher) - for me, if we are looking for a "type" rather than an individual. The idea is closer to Agatha Christie than an evidence based approach to a real murder... but you and others may differ on that.

I applaud lateral thinking, however, and it is no doubt time this idea was discussed again.

Phil

[DRoy]

Miss C,

firstly as i have previously mentioned only speaking to someone a few times does not justify saying they would not recognise them, also if it had been someone else she recognised as someone she knew vaugly and mistook for Mary Kelly why is there no report of her realising this at a later date when she must have saw them around,

True, it doesn't mean only seeing someone a couple times doesn't mean they couldn't be recognized. However, if Maxwell was wrong in identifying Mary the first time, then she'd always be wrong. Whether she found out later she made a mistake or not doesn't matter because the police obviously felt she was mistaken. Would Maxwell really approach the police or a reporter after testifying at the inquest where she was positive she knew Mary and tell them "oops, I made a mistake, it wasn't Mary"?

also although i cannot remember the source which i will find and put the like on a future post, it states that her appearance was shocking, Mary kelly explained this away as due to drink, but her appearance is described as memorable so does this not mean its unlikely to be wrong,this article is also t.e one which stated she was say that morning by many who noticed her appearance,

Assuming your source is a newspaper article? You have to be careful about trusting everything you read in the papers. There is much discussion about this throughout the boards. As mentioned, her own neighbours and apparently her friends still got things wrong and they were all reported in the papers.

secondly saying that for the witness to be right the police and docs had to be wrong is a bit far fetched as it is well documented that due to the condition of the body and amount of time that past between it bein found and examined that the time of death has always been in question.

Time of death is still being disputed. I agree. I don't necessarily agree with the doctor's time of death give or take a couple hours but again, these people weren't stupid. They may not have got it exactly right but they'd have to be quite incompetent to be as wrong as you suggest.

Finally is it not possible that's since we know so little about her that there could have been at least one or more friends we don't know of and they would not have came forward. If they were murdered and assumed to be Mary kelly.

Anything is possible but is it likely or probable? No. Her "friend" would have to have at least some features that match Mary so much so that it fools her ex-lover and her landlord, not to mention any of those that saw the body. Mary would then have to hide so nobody that did know her would not find her. Does she do that? No she hangs about the same neighbourhood where she lives so that Maxwell can see her and then goes drinking so Lewis can see her. That doesn't make sense.

Cheers
DRoy

[miss c]

DRoy
i know the body was identified by her partner, but he admitted himself it was based on eyes and hair colour along with an ear which is not 100% identification so still raises doubt.

Phil
thank you for your comments, i know the Jill. Angle has been covered, but the point i was attempting to make was, wouldn't it be interesting if Mary Kelly herself was the killer

miss c

[miss c]

DRoy
i know the body was identified by her partner, but he admitted himself it was based on eyes and hair colour along with an ear which is not 100% identification so still raises doubt.

Phil
thank you for your comments, i know the Jill. Angle has been covered, but the point i was attempting to make was, wouldn't it be interesting if Mary Kelly herself was the killer

miss c

[DRoy]

Miss C,

Barnett & McCarthy both said there was no doubt whatsoever that it was MJK. That doesn't raise doubt in my mind as they knew her best.

I had commented on many things and when you put them together it leaves little doubt the body was that of MJK.

DRoy