was Mary Kelly really murdered

[richardnunweek]

Hi Miss C,
With respect you are achieving a lot of double posting, is it by design ?
Regards Richard.

[miss c]

Miss c

its nice to have someone who can agree with me on the points i have made previously,

Respectfully, having people agreeing with you, does not balance or outweight, examining the evidence. In my view, it really would be perverse to argue that the body was other than that of MJK unless you are prepared to argue a fairly elaborate cover-up/conspiracy.

i am still trying to find anything as to why someone would be murdered in her place, ie mistaken identity, Mary Kelly faking her death, or even just a strange turn of events etc etc, it is one of the reasons i toyed with the idea of her having been the killer all along.-

I don't quite follow the logic of that paragraph. How can you toy with an idea when you have found no evidence?

I would also strongly argue against inventing a theory and THEN seeking the facts to support it. It simply never works. Please, please, work FROM the evidence.

Phil

Phil
with respect i think you have greatly misjudged me.
You appear to think i am just playing with the whole case yet i have been researching with the help of this site for years. I have an extensive amount of files which hold all the information i have gathered and know as much as most who follow the case . I do not play around with ideas and make up facts to go along with what i want to make work. I have had many theories which have not worked out and so i have moved on. My beliefs on Mary Kelly are based on the research i have done and the conclusion i drew from them as you have done. Just because i saw things in a different way does not deserve your critsism in the severity in which you gave, as with this case all any one can do is draw conclusions from what they find and make there own opinions.
Your belief is different to mine but that doesn't make it wrong, all my comments are frequently questioned on many different sites and writings and the fact its such a frequently debated matter shows its worth discussion on some level

miss c

[miss c]

Sorry miss c - and I take it at face value that you simply wish to "play with" ideas - BUT I cannot believe that Joe Barnett would have been mistaken simply given the state of the corpse.

In my view it is ridiculous to believe that someone who had been the dead woman's lover would mistake her body for that of someone else. the way her hair was parted, the size and shape of the skull and jaw - sorry, no mistake likely.

Of course, there is one possibility (I have raised this before) Joe killed her and thus KNEW it was her. To me the mutilations are incredibly personal and more likely to have been effected by a lover than a third party killer.

phil

Phil
im sorry if my wording of "playing " around with ideas made you think that i do not take this seriously, but i do, to seriously as many people who know me often say, by playing around i simply meant lookin at things from a different less conventional way, which i find to be a fun way to spend my time. I want to look at many angles and not just those that are obvious,
i hope you now understand my meaning and i apologise for my bad choice of wording

miss c

[miss c]

Sorry miss c - and I take it at face value that you simply wish to "play with" ideas - BUT I cannot believe that Joe Barnett would have been mistaken simply given the state of the corpse.

In my view it is ridiculous to believe that someone who had been the dead woman's lover would mistake her body for that of someone else. the way her hair was parted, the size and shape of the skull and jaw - sorry, no mistake likely.

Of course, there is one possibility (I have raised this before) Joe killed her and thus KNEW it was her. To me the mutilations are incredibly personal and more likely to have been effected by a lover than a third party killer.

phil

Phil
im sorry if my wording of "playing " around with ideas made you think that i do not take this seriously, but i do, to seriously as many people who know me often say, by playing around i simply meant lookin at things from a different less conventional way, which i find to be a fun way to spend my time. I want to look at many angles and not just those that are obvious,
i hope you now understand my meaning and i apologise for my bad choice of wording

miss c

[Phil H]

Miss c

its nice to have someone who can agree with me on the points i have made previously,

Respectfully, having people agreeing with you, does not balance or outweight, examining the evidence. In my view, it really would be perverse to argue that the body was other than that of MJK unless you are prepared to argue a fairly elaborate cover-up/conspiracy.

i am still trying to find anything as to why someone would be murdered in her place, ie mistaken identity, Mary Kelly faking her death, or even just a strange turn of events etc etc, it is one of the reasons i toyed with the idea of her having been the killer all along.-

I don't quite follow the logic of that paragraph. How can you toy with an idea when you have found no evidence?

I would also strongly argue against inventing a theory and THEN seeking the facts to support it. It simply never works. Please, please, work FROM the evidence.

Phil

[miss c]

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

Hi Simon
its nice to have someone who can agree with me on the points i have made previously,
i am still trying to find anything as to why someone would be murdered in her place, ie mistaken identity, Mary Kelly faking her death, or even just a strange turn of events etc etc, it is one of the reasons i toyed with the idea of her having been the killer all along.-

do you have any ideas on the matter?

Miss c

[miss c]

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

Hi Simon
its nice to have someone who can agree with me on the points i have made previously,
i am still trying to find anything as to why someone would be murdered in her place, ie mistaken identity, Mary Kelly faking her death, or even just a strange turn of events etc etc, it is one of the reasons i toyed with the idea of her having been the killer all along.-

do you have any ideas on the matter?

Miss c

[Phil H]

Sorry miss c - and I take it at face value that you simply wish to "play with" ideas - BUT I cannot believe that Joe Barnett would have been mistaken simply given the state of the corpse.

In my view it is ridiculous to believe that someone who had been the dead woman's lover would mistake her body for that of someone else. the way her hair was parted, the size and shape of the skull and jaw - sorry, no mistake likely.

Of course, there is one possibility (I have raised this before) Joe killed her and thus KNEW it was her. To me the mutilations are incredibly personal and more likely to have been effected by a lover than a third party killer.

phil

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The best way to disappear is to "die".

Regards,

Simon

[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.