was Mary Kelly really murdered

[Phil H]

I too am leaving the thread, there is no pint, IMHO, to a discussion without any intellectual basis and with no rigorous consideration of evidence. I'm afraid tat, for me, simply repeating that Barnett could have been too emotionally overwhelmed to perceive anything, flies in the face of both experience and logic.

why would he even bother to lock door he never tried to hide his victims before

This question ignores the relatively recent trend to ask - did JtR murder all the canonical victims and perhaps more? I believe there is now a significant body of opinion (though probably far from the majority) who would now seriously doubt that "Jack" was responsible for ALL the murders, with Stride and KELLY the two most frequently focused on.

The fact that the body was in a room, that the mutilations were more severe (and might indicate a desire to eliminate identity/personality, and thus a deeply PERSONAL motive); the gap/time elapsed since 30 September; MJK's mysterious past and other factors might all indicate a different interpretation of events and perhaps another killer. NOTE please: I am not saying Kelly was not a JtR victim, but to make assumptions on the basis that she unquestionably was, is IMHO to rely on fragile foundations.

I say again, speculation is fine, but the evidence should come first and the playing with ideas second. You are seeking to invent a scenario that flies in the face of many of the facts (as several of us have tried to explain) and to think up answers to questions you have not previously considered. That is neither sound nor sensible and is the reason for me no longer participating in this discussion.

Like DRoy, I wish you every good wish for your future on Casebook.

Phil

[DRoy]

Miss C,

Your double posts are getting a little out of hand!

This is my last post on this subject. I'm happy to share an insight and my experience but this topic is getting out of hand.

As Phil H has said (and ever so politely) there is nothing to support your theory. It's a frustrating thing for us to accept a theory when there is nothing in the evidence to accept it as anything but a silly hollywood story.

I have no doubt you've researched and spent a tonne of time coming up with your theory. However, I would say that you are missing out on some very valuable information a/o have interpreted things in a skewed way.

Besides this particular MJK theory, I hope to hear from you in other threads.

Cheers
DRoy

[miss c]

Phil
every aspect of this requires some sort of speculation as we do not have enough facts to be 100%sure of anything.
But i have not made guesses to form my opinion and have based my belief on the reports of her body discovery and the post motem report,
i believe that the condition of the body would have made a positive identification very difficult,and as i have mentioned before considering this is a area that has been widely debated for a long time there is clearly a valid argument to be made. mistaken
and i am not saying that everyone looked the same yet after the mutilation a similar body type and a woman with similar colour could have made the chance of the body having been mistaken for Mary Kelly possible,
i am not saying this is defiantly what happened but it is an option i fine plausible and quiet possible,
as for Barnett having had the bed as a reference i would accept that as a fair point except for the fact that she was not found in a way that he would have often seen her.
If myself or anyone else was faced with such a sight i doubt the first or even last thought anyone would say is " i think her she was a little taller than that" especially as position of the body would not have shown a natural position where height would be noticeable, also recognizable features of hands etc would have been disguised by blood and most likely not the focus of his attention.
In regards to hair she is reported to have long hair which is not evident in pictures as it seems to be underneath her and due to the amount of blood reported on the bed would have been affected by that, since Bennett had viewed the body from the doorway i believe (not by opinion but from having read the documents and report) that little details that would have maybe made him doubt who it was were not noticed.
Also if you read my earlier post i said i do not think the seconds sighting is as likely as the first and i do not think the murder was a conspiracy but Mary Kelly finding the body in her room and taking advantage of the situation. Sometimes the simplist solution can be correct.

Nothing i am saying is based on guess work i believe many if not all the mysteries surrounding Mary Kelly death can be explained by this theory.
For example
the room was in was a mess yet her clothes perfectly folded near by which made identification easier, do you think jack would have took the time to do this.

Also the door was locked yet another thing i don't think the killer would have done, the key was reported lost so to lock the door would require reaching through the window to lock it
1 this take precious seconds in which the killer risks being caught or drawing attention to himself

2 why would he even bother to lock door he never tried to hide his victims before

also i don't think she would have wanted to let Barnet know she was ok as they had split and she was reported as having said she could no longer stand to be near him

and she was in a lot of debt to her landlord and i believe that she may have seen this as a perfect way to escape that

the fire in the room also raises issues in my opinion, i doubt the killer would have took the time to light this and as it was so hot would have burned bright drawing attention to the address i find it much more likely that Mary would have lit this herself after returning to her room and finding the body as she decided what to

these are just a few of the things that are reported and cause question yet i find that they give a perfect basis for Mary Kelly to have been alive. If you can explain these in another way i would love to hear it. And this is not based on speculation it is based on the facts and trying to find a logic explanation for the questions surrounding these facts which in the ripper case is all anyone can do.
When all the evidence is laid out and there are still questions is it not acceptable to look at ways to make sense within the scenario

miss c

[miss c]

Phil
every aspect of this requires some sort of speculation as we do not have enough facts to be 100%sure of anything.
But i have not made guesses to form my opinion and have based my belief on the reports of her body discovery and the post motem report,
i believe that the condition of the body would have made a positive identification very difficult,and as i have mentioned before considering this is a area that has been widely debated for a long time there is clearly a valid argument to be made. mistaken
and i am not saying that everyone looked the same yet after the mutilation a similar body type and a woman with similar colour could have made the chance of the body having been mistaken for Mary Kelly possible,
i am not saying this is defiantly what happened but it is an option i fine plausible and quiet possible,
as for Barnett having had the bed as a reference i would accept that as a fair point except for the fact that she was not found in a way that he would have often seen her.
If myself or anyone else was faced with such a sight i doubt the first or even last thought anyone would say is " i think her she was a little taller than that" especially as position of the body would not have shown a natural position where height would be noticeable, also recognizable features of hands etc would have been disguised by blood and most likely not the focus of his attention.
In regards to hair she is reported to have long hair which is not evident in pictures as it seems to be underneath her and due to the amount of blood reported on the bed would have been affected by that, since Bennett had viewed the body from the doorway i believe (not by opinion but from having read the documents and report) that little details that would have maybe made him doubt who it was were not noticed.
Also if you read my earlier post i said i do not think the seconds sighting is as likely as the first and i do not think the murder was a conspiracy but Mary Kelly finding the body in her room and taking advantage of the situation. Sometimes the simplist solution can be correct.

Nothing i am saying is based on guess work i believe many if not all the mysteries surrounding Mary Kelly death can be explained by this theory.
For example
the room was in was a mess yet her clothes perfectly folded near by which made identification easier, do you think jack would have took the time to do this.

Also the door was locked yet another thing i don't think the killer would have done, the key was reported lost so to lock the door would require reaching through the window to lock it
1 this take precious seconds in which the killer risks being caught or drawing attention to himself

2 why would he even bother to lock door he never tried to hide his victims before

also i don't think she would have wanted to let Barnet know she was ok as they had split and she was reported as having said she could no longer stand to be near him

and she was in a lot of debt to her landlord and i believe that she may have seen this as a perfect way to escape that

the fire in the room also raises issues in my opinion, i doubt the killer would have took the time to light this and as it was so hot would have burned bright drawing attention to the address i find it much more likely that Mary would have lit this herself after returning to her room and finding the body as she decided what to

these are just a few of the things that are reported and cause question yet i find that they give a perfect basis for Mary Kelly to have been alive. If you can explain these in another way i would love to hear it. And this is not based on speculation it is based on the facts and trying to find a logic explanation for the questions surrounding these facts which in the ripper case is all anyone can do.
When all the evidence is laid out and there are still questions is it not acceptable to look at ways to make sense within the scenario

miss c

[Phil H]

Miss c

Is other much a stretch to believe that upon being confronted by such a sight that seeing Mary Kelly clothes folded near bed and the correct hair and eye colour amongst the horror inside a woman he cared fors address that Joe would have in a distraught state identified the woman he thought it must have been

So you are asking us to believe that by some COINCIDENCE a random occupant of the room, had precisely MJK's hair AND eye colour - and was otherwise sufficiently like MJK in build to etc to fool even a distraught Barnett?

Sorry but I don't believe it. Even in a distraught state, Barnett would have picked up differences. Even assuming he had fallen out of love with Mary (which does not appear to be true) he would still recognise her. It might be subliminal, but her hands and feet were not affacted by the mutilations and those are major give aways.

Further, do you assume MJK was part of a plot to disappear, or merely came across someone killed in her room? If the former, I'd like to know who else was involved, in your view. If accidental - why did she never let Joe know it was not her? (Especially given that you appear to believe that she would return to that nightmare room to retrieve something forgotten!!!)

Mjk hair colour is well documented as having been different at various times i think it is safe to say that she likely dyed it and at the time colour choices were limited so many woman most likely had similar coloured hair, due to the amount of blood at the scene the hairs thickness and style would have been difficult to be sure of.

The photographs do not suggest that the hair thickness and style were that disguised by blood.

Further Barnett had seen Mary earlier the previous evening, so would have known the present colour of her hair, would he not? Again you seem to be taking COINCIDENCE too far for my taste.

Boy size/type also was similar amongst woman due to similar eating habits and dieting was not a concern.

But others, including Dew, appear to have reported that MJK was a particularly striking figure. Do you suggest that all women look alike to their lovers (or all men for that matter)? Does Annie Chapman resemble Liz Stride? Does kate eddowes resemble tabram - there were clearly distincy body types around. Sorry the argument is too generalised for me to accept.

Height i agree is not as easy but as long as height was similar would anyone really notice at the time, and is the documented height not from the autopsy.

I'm not interested in arguments made up as you go, I'm afraid. As I remarked in an earlier post that is not a good, useful or proper way to use evidence. It is a sort of special pleading. Barnett would, I note, have had the BED as a frame of reference - a bed on which he had no doubt often seen MJK recline.

So a variation of an inch or two probably wouldn't have been picked up on when viewing the body.

I believe it would, especially given other indications of difference.

Consider this - whether in shock or not, would not barnett have displayed some surprise had he realised that, even in the smallest (possibly subliminal way) Mary might have escaped? Relief can overcome shock you know.

I come back to my two options, set out much earlier in this thread:

Either Barnett correctly identified her, or he was part of some conspiracy.

So far you have not provided any evidence to support your proposal that MJK survived, other than possible sightings by others (such as Mrs M). What else would, in your view, support your contention in terms of evidence NOT speculation?

Phil

[lynn cates]

general

Hello Phil. Thanks.

I ask anyone who:

1. believes "MJK" survived Miller's Court

2. sees her as biding after the killing took place.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mutilations

Hello Simon.

"Were the MJK mutilations necessarily contemporaneous with the time of death?"

No. Of course, they must have occurred post mortem.

Obviously, one could inflict them to frustrate recognition.

But whom and why? And why would "MJK" be there still after the fact?

Cheers.
LC

[miss c]

Simon
in regards to your question i have never read anything that says anything either way on the murder and wounds being from the same time but due to the late examination of the body it is possible and raises an interesting point.


Phil h
as those is not only my opinion but a well documented theory i do believe other ostensibly a possibility that the body in millers court may not have been that of MJk
in response to how the body could have been wrongly identified i think we should not be quick to look at the simplest of explanations
firstly as Mjk hair colour is well documented as having been different at various times i think it is safe to say that she likely dyed it and at the time colour choices were limited so many woman most likely had similar coloured hair, due to the amount of blood at the scene the hairs thickness and style would have been difficult to be sure of. Boy size/type also was similar amongst woman due to similar eating habits and dieting was not a concern. If you look at many descriptions of the victims there is similarity in build in a few cases. Height i agree is not as easy but as long as height was similar would anyone really notice at the time, and is the documented height not from the autopsy. So a variation of an inch or two probably wouldn't have been picked up on when viewing the body.
A brief summery of post motem wounds that were documented follows

the whole surface of the abdomen and thighs removed

breasts were cut off

face hacked beyond recognition

the face gashed beyond recognition, nose cheeks eyebrows and ears having been partly removed
lips blanched out and cut by several incisions running down to chin also many cuts across all features

take this into account and what was really left to identify. Is other much a stretch to believe that upon being confronted by such a sight that seeing Mary Kelly clothes folded near bed and the correct hair and eye colour amongst the horror inside a woman he cared fors address that Joe would have in a distraught state identified the woman he thought it must have been

as to her returning to miller court i believe the first documented sighting was her leaving and was unlucky seen, the second sighting i have my own doubts about and the witness may have been mistaken, although if she was seen i find it plausible that she could have left something in her room that she felt worth going back for, not something of perhaps great money value but maybe a sentimental item, although i do find the second sighting highly unlikely.

My comments and opinion here is not something i take as fact. Yet i like to keep an open mind on these issues as i have found in the past that being quick to discount certain theories can sometimes hinder your ability to give new info the credibility it deserves if it does not fit into a set theory that you have decided as fact

miss c

[miss c]

Simon
in regards to your question i have never read anything that says anything either way on the murder and wounds being from the same time but due to the late examination of the body it is possible and raises an interesting point.


Phil h
as those is not only my opinion but a well documented theory i do believe other ostensibly a possibility that the body in millers court may not have been that of MJk
in response to how the body could have been wrongly identified i think we should not be quick to look at the simplest of explanations
firstly as Mjk hair colour is well documented as having been different at various times i think it is safe to say that she likely dyed it and at the time colour choices were limited so many woman most likely had similar coloured hair, due to the amount of blood at the scene the hairs thickness and style would have been difficult to be sure of. Boy size/type also was similar amongst woman due to similar eating habits and dieting was not a concern. If you look at many descriptions of the victims there is similarity in build in a few cases. Height i agree is not as easy but as long as height was similar would anyone really notice at the time, and is the documented height not from the autopsy. So a variation of an inch or two probably wouldn't have been picked up on when viewing the body.
A brief summery of post motem wounds that were documented follows

the whole surface of the abdomen and thighs removed

breasts were cut off

face hacked beyond recognition

the face gashed beyond recognition, nose cheeks eyebrows and ears having been partly removed
lips blanched out and cut by several incisions running down to chin also many cuts across all features

take this into account and what was really left to identify. Is other much a stretch to believe that upon being confronted by such a sight that seeing Mary Kelly clothes folded near bed and the correct hair and eye colour amongst the horror inside a woman he cared fors address that Joe would have in a distraught state identified the woman he thought it must have been

as to her returning to miller court i believe the first documented sighting was her leaving and was unlucky seen, the second sighting i have my own doubts about and the witness may have been mistaken, although if she was seen i find it plausible that she could have left something in her room that she felt worth going back for, not something of perhaps great money value but maybe a sentimental item, although i do find the second sighting highly unlikely.

My comments and opinion here is not something i take as fact. Yet i like to keep an open mind on these issues as i have found in the past that being quick to discount certain theories can sometimes hinder your ability to give new info the credibility it deserves if it does not fit into a set theory that you have decided as fact

miss c

[Phil H]

Miss c

I quite understand your intent - "playing with ideas" is just a phrase - but I do have reservations about our approach.

As my first post should have indicated, I neither agree nor disagree with you on this issue, since I have drawn no firm conclusion and have no theory to peddle.

What I am concerned about is the treatment of evidence. Hence my query about a paragraph in a previous post of yours.

Turning to more recent points you have raised:

i don't believe she necessarily faked her own death i think its much more likely that she found the body of one of the woman she let stay there and took advantage of the situation,

This begs so many questions as, in my mind, to be unfeasible. For instance, was Jor Barnett part of her plan? If not did he deliberately identify a random body as that of he former lover for whom he apparently felt a lot? The "random woman" is my way of asking how MJK could have ever thought that someone with (say) different hair colour, height, shape, facial features (underlying bone structure) would pass as her?

this would explain why she was in millers court either having found body and left when first seen and maybe later that mornin she had a change of heart for a brief time or realised she had forgot something,

So, you are asking us seriously to accept that having decided on a risky ploy to "disappear", MJK then REAPPEARED in her locality, where she was well known, to retrieve WHAT? In that sparsely furnished room - what could have been so important? But actually the question is superflouous - the entire idea is IMHO frankly unbelievable.

Simon

Were the MJK mutilations necessarily contemporaneous with the time of death?

How far apart in time do you suggest they were - minutes or hours?

Are you suggesting/implying two hands at work - a killer and then a mutilator? If so, that sounds rather like (was it Mei Trow's?) idea that "Jack" stumbled across Tabram's dead or dying body (killed by someone else) and then stabbed her 38 further times!!!!

Two killers for Kelly - could be a catchy title for a novel!!!

Lynn

"She stages her own death and vanishes." ... But then why hang about in Miller's Court to be seen by Mrs. Maxwell?

If that question is directed at me, you are asking the wrong man. I have never asserted that she did such a thing.

Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Good question. I would be interested if anything exists to support that.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Were the MJK mutilations necessarily contemporaneous with the time of death?

Regards,

Simon

[miss c]

Richard
i don't understand why it is double posting, i am only clicking the button once so don't know why its happening
sorry

Lynn
i don't believe she necessarily faked her own death i think its much more likely that she found the body of one of the woman she let stay there and took advantage of the situation, this would explain why she was in millers court either having found body and left when first seen and maybe later that mornin she had a change of heart for a brief time or realised she had forgot something, this is my opinion of what could have happened if in fact it was not her body

miss c

[miss c]

Richard
i apologise for the double posting, i don't know why its happening im only hitting sort once so i don't understand why its happening

sorry
miss c

[lynn cates]

self defeating

Hello Phil.

"She stages her own death and vanishes."

But then why hang about in Miller's Court to be seen by Mrs. Maxwell?

Cheers.
LC