Finding more out about MJK

[MayBea]

Could that be why she left Joseph Fleming when it was alleged he would have married her? Her husband was still alive...She was not a widow...

...According to census records, Scotland has 10 times more Mary Kellys per census than Wales--around 300. If her name was really Mary Kelly and she was hiding her identity, she could still say she was from Scotland if it was true but she could say she came from Wales to be on the safe side. Same for England.

If she's being secretive about her identity in any way, why would a Mary Kelly from Wales say she's Mary Kelly from Wales?

That would be like a Tom Jones from Patagonia, who doesn't want anyone to know who he is, telling everyone he's Tom Jones from Patagonia!

[Scott Nelson]

That would be like a Tom Jones from Patagonia, who doesn't want anyone to know who he is, telling everyone he's Tom Jones from Patagonia!

Huh? I don't get it.

[Natasha]

Natasha,

What do you, or anyone else, think about Mary being secretive because she was still married?

What if her husband was still alive? Perhaps she left him because he was sick or abusive, and she felt guilty and didn't want to be identified. And she didn't want her boyfriends to find out.

Hi MayBea

I defo think it's a very good suggestion. Could it be possible that if her husband was still alive, that maybe he could have killed her?

[Natasha]

I am doubtful that MJK was pregnant any time close to her murder.

She would have been a terrible surrogate mother. Anyone with the wherewithal to pay someone to have a baby for them (a rather oddish idea back then) would not have left this surrogate to eke out a living through prostitution while drinking heavily and not eating properly (supposition but highly probable). At the very least, while she was carrying the baby her needs would have been provided for and we know she was in Whitechapel for at least 18 months prior to her death because she was with Barnett.

She had not had a baby recently. The uterus, while removed from the abdomen, was present and could be inspected and since nothing particular was noted, we can only assume that there was nothing particular to note. In other words, the clear signs of recent pregnancy were not in evidence. A recently gravid uterus would have been important information.

If it was an abortion gone wrong, there would be no reason to butcher her as was done. Simply closing the door and walking away would have been enough to erase the identity of the abortionist and the death would have been chalked up to a sad turn of events. Perhaps a charge of murder would have been brought, just as it was, but it would still have been against Person or Persons Unknown. Nothing would be gained by the carnage in this case.

If she had been pregnant longer ago than 18 months, then how was she to prove the disputed baby was hers? In her position in life, any respectable person's word would have been taken over hers. She wouldn't have been believed and at worse she might have found herself imprisoned on charges of libel or fraud.

I'm afraid the pregnancy angle raises more questions than it answers.

Hi Penhalion

Surrogate mother: it was a suggestion that entered my mind at the exact time I posted this theory. It kind of made sense at the time if the 'parents' who wanted this baby were higher up the social ladder, in desperate need for a child and who were too proud to mention being unable to have kids to anyone.

In regards to evidence of pregnancy, Bond's report was not exhaustive. Dr Philips report, I think, would be more illuminating.

I agree about the abortion theory.

I feel a great deal of information has been held back in regards to Kelly's death.

[GUT]

Hi Penhalion

Surrogate mother: it was a suggestion that entered my mind at the exact time I posted this theory. It kind of made sense at the time if the 'parents' who wanted this baby were higher up the social ladder, in desperate need for a child and who were too proud to mention being unable to have kids to anyone.

In regards to evidence of pregnancy, Bond's report was not exhaustive. Dr Philips report, I think, would be more illuminating.

I agree about the abortion theory.

I feel a great deal of information has been held back in regards to Kelly's death.

G'day Natasha

Held back by whom?

[Natasha]

G'day Natasha

Held back by whom?

Hi GUT

I think Barnett was holding back info. It just occurred to me that Barnett put Marie Jeanette Kelly on the death certificate, because he said she liked it or something to that effect. Why would he do that? Surely it would make sense to put her real name down for her family to reclaim her (if of course MJK wasn't). Of course the argument could be that he didn't know her real name.

As for the newspapers, they didn't have every bit of info, and a lot of investigative work that has been done does heavily rely on the papers.

The authorities knew more then they were letting on I think.

The police did not follow leads into certain aspects of the case properly either.

Also why did it not occur to the police to set some kind of trap for the ripper? The police beats were flawed. I know some of the techniques used then are nowhere near as advanced as now, but think of all the cases that were solved back then.

[MayBea]

Huh? I don't get it.

Someone from Wales comes looking for her...He or she asks possible relatives or acquaintances in London where she went...They say East End...He goes there and asks for Mary Jane Kelly from Wales...Bingo...He finds her!

Unless she wants to be found, either she's not MJK and/or she's not from Wales...I think you can rule out Wales and maybe keep the name.

Once you keep the name, how can you rule in Ireland or Patagonia, or even Scotland, and say she arrived in England in her twenties and tried to pass herself off as Welsh? Think of Sean Connery playing a Welsh cop...

[Scott Nelson]

Think of Sean Connery playing a Welsh cop...

Oh, well..now that it's put into proper perspective..

[Wickerman]

The police did not follow leads into certain aspects of the case properly either.

We are told that investigations were exhaustive, that even the most ludicrous had to be investigated - just in case....

Also why did it not occur to the police to set some kind of trap for the ripper? The police beats were flawed....

Detectives did dress up as women (females were not part of the force back then), some beat constable also resorted to wearing rubber tread on the soles of their boots, and some constables worked their beat backwards.

Due to the lack of official paperwork we have no real insight to all the measures taken to trap the killer.

[Natasha]

We are told that investigations were exhaustive, that even the most ludicrous had to be investigated - just in case....

I don't think they did enough to question the Jewish community, despite witness s giving descriptions of the possible killer.

Detectives did dress up as women (females were not part of the force back then), some beat constable also resorted to wearing rubber tread on the soles of their boots, and some constables worked their beat backwards.

Due to the lack of official paperwork we have no real insight to all the measures taken to trap the killer.

I know women didn't work the beats, but they did work as female searchers in prisons etc. Why did they not think to use them to work undercover? I know we don't have access to all the police paperwork, but I think some of the police were incompetent in some of the murders.

[Rosella]

These female searchers, wardresses etc in jails, weren't part of the police force, though. Even if they worked undercover they would have had no powers of arrest.

If they were seen in locales like pubs several times a week asking questions, however discreetly, they could well have been confronted by angry, aggressive and drunk men, and women wanting to know why they were being so nosey.

Such a situation could turn nasty quickly and they may have ended up requiring police to rescue them! Also, if by some chance they were in a pub where Jack was drinking one night the consequences could have been even worse!

[Natasha]

These female searchers, wardresses etc in jails, weren't part of the police force, though. Even if they worked undercover they would have had no powers of arrest.

If they were seen in locales like pubs several times a week asking questions, however discreetly, they could well have been confronted by angry, aggressive and drunk men, and women wanting to know why they were being so nosey.

Such a situation could turn nasty quickly and they may have ended up requiring police to rescue them! Also, if by some chance they were in a pub where Jack was drinking one night the consequences could have been even worse!

I know they weren't directly connected to the force.

Using undercover females today (in the vice squad for example) has, I'm willing to bet, high success levels.

Of course male policemen would need to be present, maybe shadowing the women. I don't think they would need to be too inquisitive where questions were concerned, I think it would serve just to keep their eyes and ears open. Also if they remained sober whilst on the job they would have a higher chance of drawing attention to a possible attack.

So I don't think it would have been such a bad idea for women to go undercover, seeing as most do now.

[Natasha]

Hi All

I was thinking about how Barnett IDed MJK, by her eyes and ears. Now here's a question, how often do you really look at someone's ears?

MJK's ears were cut off. I don't think they would be identifiable. I think that if Kelly had something maybe unusual about them, they were particularly big, maybe one had a mole, maybe a piece was missing, a scar etc, do you think that would help discover who she was? I mean if a picture is out there, and is yet to be revealed could something distinguishing about her ears hold the key?

Maybe this sounds nuts, but what do you lot think?

[RockySullivan]

About Kelly and McCarthy....is there any possibility that McCarthy was somewhat of a pimp? Something that struck me while reading about Kelly was that the door was locked and the key was missing...McCarthy at the crime scene didn't have a key? He's the landlord...don't you think he would have a copy of the key? Esepcially renting his room to prostitutes...who might simply disappear, skip out on the rent at anytime....McCarthy would leave Mary Kelly in sole possession of the only key? Is that so?

From what I read...i almost *felt* like McCarthy had a key...but didn't want to bring it and unlock the door as him being the only one in possession of a key besides Mary Kelly...and the door being locked....could cast possible suspicion on McCarthy...

[Natasha]

About Kelly and McCarthy....is there any possibility that McCarthy was somewhat of a pimp? Something that struck me while reading about Kelly was that the door was locked and the key was missing...McCarthy at the crime scene didn't have a key? He's the landlord...don't you think he would have a copy of the key? Esepcially renting his room to prostitutes...who might simply disappear, skip out on the rent at anytime....McCarthy would leave Mary Kelly in sole possession of the only key? Is that so?

From what I read...i almost *felt* like McCarthy had a key...but didn't want to bring it and unlock the door as him being the only one in possession of a key besides Mary Kelly...and the door being locked....could cast possible suspicion on McCarthy...

It does seem strange that McCarthy would give the only key to Kelly. I think it possible that he did have a key. He after all knew she received letters from her family, Barnett didn't even mention that and he lived with her. I suspect he would have let himself in to the room when ever he pleased, perhaps to look for any money that was lying around.

He also allowed her to stay at Millers Court despite the rent arrears, which is also strange.