It wasnt Kelly theory

[Aethelwulf]

I think we have three choices:

1. MJK was murdered about 4am and Maxwell, Lewis and possibly others were all lying or mistaken.

2. Maxwell, Lewis and possibly others were correct and MJK was murdered after their sightings.

3. Someone else was murdered and MJK took the opportunity to disappear either from fear or the desire to start again somewhere else.

Cheers, George[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

It's two choices though isn't it. Option three is for time wasters.

[Wickerman]

It's two choices though isn't it. Option three is for time wasters.

Agreed!

[GBinOz]

Agreed!

Hi Jon,

I recall in a thread some time ago you expressed some interest in suspects with "strange eyes", the Bethnal Green Botherer for one. I've just been reading the A-Z and under the heading "Unidentified Man Seen By Thomas Bowyer" is stated that Bowyer saw MJK on the Wednesday talking to a man with "very peculiar eyes", and that those eyes suggest a man named George Netting, the suspect in the Mary Ann Austin murder of 1901. You are probably aware of this already, but I thought I'd mention it just in case.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I recall in a thread some time ago you expressed some interest in suspects with "strange eyes", the Bethnal Green Botherer for one. I've just been reading the A-Z and under the heading "Unidentified Man Seen By Thomas Bowyer" is stated that Bowyer saw MJK on the Wednesday talking to a man with "very peculiar eyes", and that those eyes suggest a man named George Netting, the suspect in the Mary Ann Austin murder of 1901. You are probably aware of this already, but I thought I'd mention it just in case.

Cheers, George

Thankyou George, you are correct about Bowyer's sighting, though I don't have the latest A-Z, just the original, so I'm not sure how the name George Netting became associated with the Bowyer/Bethnal Green/Britannia-man character.
The other physical feature of this 'suspect' is that he had an awkward gait - he walked funny - is that also the case with George Netting?

[spyglass]

Hi Abby!

I've stated on here before that Maxwell's testimony is one of the facets of this case that really fascinates me.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I just can't get away from the fact that I find her utterly credible.

She was challenged by the coroner but stood firm, and I believe Abberline stated that she was of good character and not an obvious attention seeker (and I'm sure he would know one of those when he came across them).

He may be a questionable witness, but Lewis corroborates her and I believe the shop keeper was able to verify the day.

The idea that she got the wrong day holds little water.

I think there is a possibility that the person who she believed was MJK was infact another woman who sometimes stayed with Mary in 13 Miller's Court, but I'm not entirely convinced of that either.

There is the possibility of the later time of murder which, whilst not impossible I find unlikely.

It pains me to say it but on balance I lean towards the body in Miller's Court not being that of the woman known as MJK.

Yep, I know that throws up a lot more problems than it solves:


Who was the woman in Miller's Court?

Dunno!

What happened to the woman known as MJK?

Dunno!

Where did she go with no money?

Dunno!

Why did Joseph Barnett identify the body as being that of MJK?

Dunno!



..........You're welcome!!!!!

Hi,

To suggest that Maxwell got her days wrong is really pushing it for me.
It all feels that the Inquest ( that raises questions in it self )was set up quickly and wanted it done with ASAP.
It also feels to me that Barnett was practically encouraged to think and say it was Mary.....I really dont think I could identify someone from a piece or even whole ear however well I knew them.

Regards.

[c.d.]

Hi,

To suggest that Maxwell got her days wrong is really pushing it for me.
It all feels that the Inquest ( that raises questions in it self )was set up quickly and wanted it done with ASAP.
It also feels to me that Barnett was practically encouraged to think and say it was Mary.....I really dont think I could identify someone from a piece or even whole ear however well I knew them.

Regards.

Hello Spyglass,

But if Maxwell is correct then the doctor's TOD is incorrect. So it appears that somebody got it wrong. What makes you believe that Barnett was "encouraged" in any way?

If there was some kind of cover-up by the police, why give Barnett an opportunity to identify her at all? Why not just give him the runaround until she was buried? I would think that would have fairly easy to do.

c.d.

[GBinOz]

Hi,

To suggest that Maxwell got her days wrong is really pushing it for me.
It all feels that the Inquest ( that raises questions in it self )was set up quickly and wanted it done with ASAP.
It also feels to me that Barnett was practically encouraged to think and say it was Mary.....I really dont think I could identify someone from a piece or even whole ear however well I knew them.

Regards.

Me neither. Particularly when Barnett stated "He saw the body by peeping through the window.".

[JeffHamm]

With regards to Kelly's identification, she was considered distinctive in two ways that would not be impeded despite the extent of the mutilations. First, by her hair (length and colour; and Barnett's reported "ears" was probably a mishearing of "hair"), and secondly she was of above average height. To find a "substitute", both of these characteristics would have to be met, and this seems pretty far fetched. (Note, by "was Kelly" I mean the woman Barnett had lived with, not that that was the name she was born under - it seems more and more probable that she was using an alias by the time she lived in the Whitechapel area).

The debate over the ToD is more complex. While the doctor's estimated early morning, their methods are simply flawed and really should not be viewed with any seriousness. That more or less leaves us with the reports of the cry of "murder", and the possibility of hearing someone leave the area a few hours later. Against that we have reports that Mary was seen later that morning by two people who indicate they knew her at least by sight. These sightings are argued that if those are genuine, then the body cannot be Kelly as there isn't enough time for the murder.

I've been thinking about that last idea recently, and I'm not so sure we can make that claim.

Consider the murder and mutilation of Eddowes. Given what we know about PC Watkins' patrol, it seems that Eddowes' killer probably spent no more than 5-6 minutes at the crime scene. While we don't have the same constraints for Chapman, it's clear from the Eddowes' crime that the doctor's estimation of 15 minutes is far too long and again, we're probably talking 4-5 minutes in that case (and possibly as little as 3 minutes according to some modern estimates - note Dr. Sequeira's estimate was 3 minutes for Eddowes).

While Kelly's mutilations were greater, can we really argue that it would take hours, given what was possible in minutes? At Miller's Court, the killer could be standing rather than crouched over a body on the ground. He can remove the internals and place them around the room. The increased mutilations to the face would not require a huge amount of additional time, nor would the removal of her breasts. After that, it's really just the removal of flesh from her legs and the removal of her heart from the chest cavity. I can't see those two additions requiring hours for someone who appears to be able to commit the Eddowes murder in the order of minutes. If we go with a conservative 5 minutes for Eddowes, then 15-20 minutes means we've tripled or quadrupled the amount of time at Miller's Court. Of course, one might argue that the killer would not be as pressed for time given he's indoors, but that's an assumption he works fast because he's concerned about time and not because he's in a sort of frenzy.

In short, I don't think "not enough time" is a valid argument with respect to the "it was not Kelly" idea nor as an argument against a murder in the morning.

I'm not sure I'm convinced she was actually murdered that morning, but in my view, I'm not sure it's as unreasonable an idea as it has often been portrayed.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Thankyou George, you are correct about Bowyer's sighting, though I don't have the latest A-Z, just the original, so I'm not sure how the name George Netting became associated with the Bowyer/Bethnal Green/Britannia-man character.
The other physical feature of this 'suspect' is that he had an awkward gait - he walked funny - is that also the case with George Netting?

Hi Jon,

I don't think the latest A-Z is published yet, so we probably both have the same edition. I don't know about his gait. After your comment about the strange eyes I have been noting any mention of that aspect in suspects. Apart from the Bowyer/Bethnal Green/Britannia-man character, there is Stride's companion at the Bricklayer's Arms, the milk vendor sighting, Frederick Deeming, Stephen White's sighting and Francis Thompson.

Cheers, George

[spyglass]

Hello Spyglass,

But if Maxwell is correct then the doctor's TOD is incorrect. So it appears that somebody got it wrong. What makes you believe that Barnett was "encouraged" in any way?

If there was some kind of cover-up by the police, why give Barnett an opportunity to identify her at all? Why not just give him the runaround until she was buried? I would think that would have fairly easy to do.

c.d.

Hi C.D.

Assuming it was a Police cover up of some sort,and they knew it wasnt Kelly, then it would surely be in their interest to get the body ID as her.
How accurate was establishing TOD back then ?
I ask this because I was reading about the essex boys murders recently that happened in the mid 90's....and the Coroner could not give an estimated TOD to this case.....which I found really surprising.

Regards

[Wickerman]

Hi,

To suggest that Maxwell got her days wrong is really pushing it for me.
It all feels that the Inquest ( that raises questions in it self )was set up quickly and wanted it done with ASAP.
It also feels to me that Barnett was practically encouraged to think and say it was Mary.....I really dont think I could identify someone from a piece or even whole ear however well I knew them.

Regards.

It was her 'hair' that was her defining feature, not an ear. The confusion is over mispronunciation - no-one is identified by an ear, that's ridiculous.

[spyglass]

It was her 'hair' that was her defining feature, not an ear. The confusion is over mispronunciation - no-one is identified by an ear, that's ridiculous.

Hi
I stand corrected, I didnt know or remember reading that, I assume that is fact rather than assumption.

I was led to believe that because of the disturbing state of the body, Barnett was only asked to look at the ear and possibly something else.
I only dip in and out of the case these days, and my memory isnt what it once was.

Regards

[Wickerman]

Hi
I stand corrected, I didnt know or remember reading that, I assume that is fact rather than assumption.

I was led to believe that because of the disturbing state of the body, Barnett was only asked to look at the ear and possibly something else.
I only dip in and out of the case these days, and my memory isnt what it once was.

Regards

As Dr Bond wrote:
".....and ears being partly removed..."
Should make it clear that a mutilated ear is not sufficient to identify anyone.
https://www.casebook.org/official_do.../pm-kelly.html

don't feel bad, 'ear' was reported in the press by a few reporters, while others wrote 'hair', but as we know the 'ears' had been mutilated then they wouldn't have been in any condition to form a key point of identification, whereas her hair was the same length & same color - so there we have it.

[Abby Normal]

It was her 'hair' that was her defining feature, not an ear. The confusion is over mispronunciation - no-one is identified by an ear, that's ridiculous.

ear ear!

[JeffHamm]

Hi C.D.

Assuming it was a Police cover up of some sort,and they knew it wasnt Kelly, then it would surely be in their interest to get the body ID as her.
How accurate was establishing TOD back then ?
I ask this because I was reading about the essex boys murders recently that happened in the mid 90's....and the Coroner could not give an estimated TOD to this case.....which I found really surprising.

Regards

Hi spyglass,

Estimating the ToD even today is in terms of gross level approximations. In 1888, the doctor's were basing their estimates by touching the surface of the body with their hands to feel for warmth and then basing their approximation on that. Even today, when they take multiple actual internal body temperature with a thermometer, and apply some calculations based upon research into body cooling, etc, it still results in estimates that span a couple hours. What the Victorians did is, for all intents and purposes, useless. While TV shows often depict medical estimations of ToD as being accurate, the reality is that the measurements taken are so variable that we're dealing with very wide time windows. In the JtR cases there are a few cases, Nichols, Eddowes, and Stride, where the doctors appear pretty accurate. However, it seem pretty likely that they were aware of other bits of information, such as the PC patrol times, and really what they were doing should be viewed as deciding if, in their opinion, the medical information was consistent with the ToD derived at from other sources of information. If not, it might suggest the murder happened elsewhere and the body dumped where it was found. So they weren't really "estimating the ToD" in those cases, they appear to be confirming that the condition of the body was consistent with a ToD indicating the murder happened where it was found. In the two cases where such external information appears to be minimal, or lacking, Chapman and Kelly, are the two cases where conflict between the doctor's guess at the ToD and some witness testimony shows up. Given we now know that you cannot determine the ToD by feeling the body, I recommend that these times given by the doctors just be ignored. If we have other sources of information to narrow the time down then use that, and where we don't, keep all options open. Not everyone agrees with me on that, but then, where would the fun be if they did?

- Jeff