was Mary Kelly really murdered

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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

[richardnunweek]

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

[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

[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

[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

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

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

Regards,

Simon

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

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

[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

[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