was Mary Kelly really murdered

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Abby Normal]

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

when men get intimate with women they get to know their partners body like the back of their hand very quickly. within only a couple of months(probably even sooner)of being with someone I know from many personal experiences very small details of that females anatomy-the shape of their hands, birthmarks etc and i am sure most(all) men/women are like this with their partners.
Her head could have been removed and taken away and barnett would still have been able to ID her.

From Hell was a great movie, but in reality it was Mary Kelly in that room.
There are enough real mysteries in the ripper case without needing to invent any silly ones.

[SnowWhiteTan]

Hi everyone! (My first post here, be gentle!)

I just had a discussion with my mum about this.

She said she doesn't think it was MJK who was murdered. (She's been reading a load of books).

But didn't Joe Barnett Identify her?

If MJK and Joe Barnett were living together and possibly in a relationship together, then he knew her well. Even if a person you know very personally is facially mutilated, you could still easily identify them couldn't you?

So either it was MJK and he made a positive identification, or it wasn't her. In which case Joe knew it wasn't her, but still lied that it was her.

So if she wasn't the victim, then Barnett knew this and lied for whatever reason. Why

[Cogidubnus]

Hi SnowWhiteTan

I believe the simplest explanations are generally the best...if Joe identified the body as Mary Kelly, then most probably it was her...as you say, despite the facial/bodily mutilations, he could probably tell...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Of course, the question "Was it really Mary Jane?", has developed a twist.

To be precise, was 'Mary Jane Kelly' the real name of the body on the bed?

There is growing possibility that the answer is 'no'.

So in a roundabout way SWT, your Mom may be right

[Errata]

Not to be a truly terrible human being, but does it matter whether or not it was Mary Kelly on that bed? I mean certainly in a cosmic sense it matters. But we all get fascinated by this crime for various and sundry reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the actual identity of the victims. I mean, for all I know Annie Chapman was identified by someone who thought it would be hilarious to see her try and become Not Dead (which is insanely hard to prove). So if Mary Kelly was my mom, I would absolutely care if it was in fact her. But what I care about is that victim was a person. And it doesn't matter who she was or what she was doing in that room, she didn't deserve that. Beyond that... this is not the healthiest lifestyle for women. They die all the time of any number of causes, and violence or even murder was not uncommon. I'm not entirely sure that Kelly's family would not have been relieved that it was over. Not that they wanted their child murdered, but having a family member who is an addict or in a high risk lifestyle results in some very complicated emotions. Sometimes a family is relieved to find their child dead because finally they know where their child is. They don't have to fear the worst anymore, because it's happened. So if it was another woman in that same lifestyle, the only difference to the people she mattered to was that they don't know how she died (which may well be a mercy), though they would have known she was likely dead. She became likely dead the minute she started turning tricks. And I'm not sure being the victim of a serial killer is better than dying of poisoned gin, or killed in a robbery, or dead of disease, or botched abortion, or childbirth, malnutrition, or getting drunk and falling into the Thames. If it wasn't Mary Kelly, does it matter? Does it mean something, or is it one of those pieces of trivia that sometimes crops up in these cases?

[Wickerman]

Not to be a truly terrible human being, but does it matter whether or not it was Mary Kelly on that bed? .....
If it wasn't Mary Kelly, does it matter? Does it mean something, or is it one of those pieces of trivia that sometimes crops up in these cases?

I would not describe the hunt for her true identity as trivia.


It matters because she was somebodys daughter. It matters because she likely has relatives alive today. It matters because there is a name on her tombstone which may not be correct. If it did not matter all tombstones would be blank.

We appear to have a similar problem in identifying Alice McKenzie, researchers have had no success in tracing her existence either, though McKenzie does not attract the same attention as Mary Jane.

[Errata]

I would not describe the hunt for her true identity as trivia.


It matters because she was somebodys daughter. It matters because she likely has relatives alive today. It matters because there is a name on her tombstone which may not be correct. If it did not matter all tombstones would be blank.

We appear to have a similar problem in identifying Alice McKenzie, researchers have had no success in tracing her existence either, though McKenzie does not attract the same attention as Mary Jane.

Which is why I say it matters in a cosmic sense, but not necessarily in an academic sense. For example, the name of every person known to have died at the hand of the Nazis, or due to an Atomic bomb are written down. Preserved for remembrance. But if I'm looking at the question of whether or not the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually cost less lives than an invasion, I don't need the names. In fact getting bogged down in the personalities can cripple my judgement. If I want to know why the Nazis were so hateful and so successful, I don't need the names. I look at this from a human behavior standpoint. For me it doesn't matter if these women were properly identified. I mean, it matters, but it doesn't matter to my focus on the case.

So essentially I'm asking this: We will never know whether or not any of those women were correctly identified, much less Mary Kelly. It's 120 years later, and theoretically we have a body to do a DNA test, but no one to compare it to. We don't even know if Mary Kelly was an alias or not. So unless we find Mary Kelly's family, we can't know. And even if we know for a fact it was not Mary Kelly, we have no way of putting a name to the victim. Does the woman deserve to be properly identified? Absolutely. But the odds of it happening are vanishingly small. So if we take it as given that we can't identify the woman in Miller's Court, the question becomes is it a significant part of the case? I mean, is the argument that she faked her death? Did the killer know her and spare her? Did she set up another woman to be murdered? Does it matter that it was or was not Mary Kelly? Or is it trivia (though not trivial) given the various reasons we all got sucked into this topic in the first place?