was Mary Kelly really murdered

[richardnunweek]

Hi Miss C,
I actually had Mary Kelly and Joseph Barnett as the killers way back in the 1970s, wrote many pages of work,and sent it to the News of the world, I thought it was rather good, it fitted many facts that at least 'then' I was aware of, and ended up with another female similar to Kelly being substituted for her , so that Mary could end the murder series without ever being suspected.
All good B movie stuff, but guess what, I received a rather polite ''reject''.
That is the trouble with the Jill theory, it does not fit the clues [ albeit we have very few] and it would mean that, as nobody saw the victims with another woman, the killer was never spotted,.. that and being a female,would help greatly avoiding apprehension.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

It would be interesting, miss c, if MJK was the killer - a neat (but to my mind "Agatha Christie") solution to the whole case. She stages her own death and vanishes.... but what do you think would have been her motive? and why did she not kill again (as serial killers are apparently supposed to do)?

More pertinently, perhaps, I think your proposal would fit the case as it was in the 60s or earlier. I remember reading a novel (maybe by Robert Bloch) where the killers were a couple, a girl and a man). Then the case was usually around the five "canonical" victims. Today the case is being deconstructed -we look at post MJK murders - Mckenzie, Coles; and at earlier attacks too. We argue about whether all the alleged victims are by the same hand. I don't feel that Jill the Ripper fits so well in that context.

Certainly MJK herself remains a puzzle and a paradox. Was her story, as re-told by Barnett true in any sense or a total fabrication? Why cannot we find her in the historical record (uniquely among the victims)? If not MJK WHo was she? Why did she lie?

I don't find the question of her not having been the victim totally impossible (all things considered) BUT as others have pointed out in this thread - the questions of how she passed off another body as hers; whether Barnett, McCarthy etc were in on the conspiracy etc have to be answered. Who was the "stand-in"? We have no reports of anyone else being missing, do we?

On the Mrs M issue, I can certainly vouch for the fact that one can be mistaken about the identity of another person. It has happened to me. Someone points out a third party (Martha) at a distance, they are pointing at the woman in the red dress, but you think she means the woman in the blue coat - thereafter in your mind, the woman in the bklue coat IS "Martha". But she never was or is.

You see the woman you think is Martha, and are later told she died earlier - before the time you saw her - what did you see? The explanation of course is straightforward, but before photographs and video, how would you ever find out that the woman you thought was Martha was never her? And how would others find out you were wrong - certainly if you stuck steadfastly to your story as you might well do.

I can well believe this happened with MJK.

Phil

[miss c]

DRoy
thank you for sharing your opinion, although i sense nothing i say will make you consider anything other than what you already think.
I do find it confusing that i can not find any of andthe evidence you keep refining to as definitive as everything i have read both on this site and others doubts almost every aspect of this case and the Mary Kelly case in one way or another, as another poster mentioned earlier the evidence only points to a murder being committed in 13 millers court but no one can be completely sure as to who was killed as they had none of the forensics we have today abduction the body was so obliterated that an idea could have been incorrect. Barnett may have been sure that the eyes he identified were that of Mary Kelly but having looked at the photos i find it hard to believe that he could be sure

miss c

[miss c]

Hi Phil
i agree that the Mary Kelly as the killer is almost 100% unlikely, its just an idea i like to play about with and thought i would ask for opinions,
as too Mary Kelly not having been the victim, it is likely that someone could have been ordered in her place and no one would dvds have known, im sure it was not unheard of for woman at that time to come and go from the asda and no body to notice or comment as it was how life was, also it wouldn't have took much of a similarity, hair colour and eyes were more or less all that was left to identify,
and as to the sighting, correct me if im wrong, but im sure Mrs M spoke to and say Mary Kelly leave her address which unless im wrong makes it harder to explain away her sighting does it not

miss c

[miss c]

Hi Phil
i agree that the Mary Kelly as the killer is almost 100% unlikely, its just an idea i like to play about with and thought i would ask for opinions,
as too Mary Kelly not having been the victim, it is likely that someone could have been ordered in her place and no one would dvds have known, im sure it was not unheard of for woman at that time to come and go from the asda and no body to notice or comment as it was how life was, also it wouldn't have took much of a similarity, hair colour and eyes were more or less all that was left to identify,
and as to the sighting, correct me if im wrong, but im sure Mrs M spoke to and say Mary Kelly leave her address which unless im wrong makes it harder to explain away her sighting does it not

miss c

[Phil H]

Miss c

In my experience, if you know someone intimately and over a reasonable period of time, there are things about them that become unmistakeable in a crod or at a distance - the way they carry themselves; walk, use their hands, the tilt of their head, hairstyle, height, bulk etc. Even if you have not seen someone for years, you still recognise them, though their hair has gone grey and they have a lined face....

In death, Joe might still have known her hands, her hair - colour, texture, fine or wiry etc. her hands would be known to him, her fingernails, the length of her fingers - there would be moles or scars on her body that he might recognise. Jack (or Jill) did not remove all of those.

So I am left with two possibilities:

a) Joe (and others) lied by misidentifying the body in No 13; or

b) it really was MJK.

I don't see any other possibilities. You simply DO NOT (at least in my experience) mistake a recent partner, however mutilated. The idea that MJK could find an exact double - hair colour and type, ears, height, size etc, to me is simply too far-fetched to be credible.

Harold Godwinson (after Hastings) and Charles the Rash of Burgundy were both identified after battles in which their bodies had been stripped and mutilated, by people who knew them well, Edith (Harold's mistress0 and (I think) Charles' valet.

Sorry, but I don't see a double as a practical possibility UNLESS a fairly widespread and complex conspiracy was in hand. Then (just) maybe.

Phil

[miss c]

Richard
its nice to find that im not the only one to have considered this, and although i don't necessarily believe it to be true i do think it could explain quiet a few things, like the way the body in millers court was destroyed in such a way, i found if you look at an issue then see if you can make that person (in this case Mary Kelly) you can usually make it work, and if nothing else it allows me to have a little fun working through it
miss c

[miss c]

Richard
its nice to find that im not the only one to have considered this, and although i don't necessarily believe it to be true i do think it could explain quiet a few things, like the way the body in millers court was destroyed in such a way, i found if you look at an issue then see if you can make that person (in this case Mary Kelly) the suspect you can usually make it work, and if nothing else it allows me to have a little fun working through it
miss c

[Mr Lucky]

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.

Hi All,

The possibility that the killer was a woman was mentioned before the S.G.O. letter in the Times, the earliest I've seen is 10th Sept 1888 Aberdeen Journal.

'I have heard a doubt expressed as to whether the murderer is a man at all, some people inclining to believe that this furious beast is a woman'

The Aberdeen Journal appeared to have close connections with the Central News Agency.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The best way to disappear is to "die".

Regards,

Simon

[miss c]

Phil
although to a degree i do agree and understand what you are saying i also after seeing pictures of millers court find it more than possible that a mis identification could have easily been possible, the scene Joe was faced with would be more than enough to confuse someone, and seeing the correct eye colour and hair although this along with most everything in the room would be covered with blood making it harder to identify, add to this the address and clothes folded, i think most would make an identification as who the address thought it should be giving this basic level of evidence to support it

miss c

[miss c]

Phil
although to a degree i do agree and understand what you are saying i also after seeing pictures of millers court find it more than possible that a mis identification could have easily been possible, the scene Joe was faced with would be more than enough to confuse someone, and seeing the correct eye colour and hair although this along with most everything in the room would be covered with blood making it harder to identify, add to this the address and clothes folded, i think most would make an identification as who the address thought it should be giving this basic level of evidence to support it

miss c

[miss c]

Hi All,

The best way to disappear is to "die".

Regards,

Simon

Simon
your short comments have me wondering of your opinion of this topic and the likelihood as to Mary Kelly not having been murdered in millers court

miss c

[DRoy]

Miss C,

Sorry, when I speak of "evidence" I'm talking mostly about testimony and quotes. Neither of course are fool proof and shouldn't always be trusted as the gospel but surely they have clout. Newspaper accounts are not always accurate so there is less clout given to them.

You're right, I can't be persuaded to change my mind about MJK until such time as evidence resurfaces. Until then, everything but Lewis and Maxwell have said should not outweigh the evidence available. Police and doctor's didn't believe them so why should we?

Phil H has made some great comments on this topic as have many others. I don't think anyone is saying it isn't possible, it's just highly unlikely.

Cheers
DRoy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Miss c,

Why not?

The only obligation on the part of the corpse in Room 13 was to be unrecognizable as "MJK", the woman who disappeared.

Following which a few people solemnly identified the corpse as "MJK".

Job done.

Why? I have absolutely no idea as yet.

But "MJK's" life history, which continues to resist all investigation, does smack of an elaborately-contrived back-story.

Regards,

Simon