MJK pregnancy

[MrBarnett]

It seems likely that Maria Harvey had a six-year-old son at the time.

[FISHY1118]

FWIW I believe Miller's Court was a misdirection event. The purpose of which was to remove Kelly out of London and that another was killed in her place. The mutilations of Kelly were functional as were the murder themselves. I'm sure Kelly, JTR (Blotchy?) and Astrakhan were all connected. I'm fully in on the conspiracy/cover up angle. What can I say?

The course of events is complicated by subsequent press reports that, although self-admittedly unconfirmed, tell a remarkable story. The Herts. and Cambs. reporter on 16.11. gives the following details of the events of the 8th/9th November:

"She had a little boy, ''aged about six or seven years'', living with her, and latterly her circumstances had been so reduced that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving ....a man who is described as respectably dressed, came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man accompanied the woman to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, the little boy being sent to a neighbour's house. Nothing more was seen of the woman. On Friday morning, it is stated, the little boy was sent back into the house, and the report goes that he was sent out subsequently on an errand by the man who was in the house with his mother. Confirmation of this statement is, it is true, difficult to obtain, and it remains in doubt whether anyone really saw the unfortunate woman on the morning of the discovery."

The Hertfordshire Mercury on the 10.11 also suggests that there was someone else in Kelly's room, but "there is no evidence as to who was in the house with her."

The Herts. Advertiser & St. Albans Times on 10.11 describes Kelly's son as around 10-11 years of age and adds: "The story of the crime current among the neighbours is that this morning - what time cannot at present be ascertained, but at any rate after daylight - she took a man home to her own room, presumably for an immoral purpose."


Is there anyway it can be confimed that Mary Jane Kelly had a son ? .

[MrBarnett]

Hi Mrs. Fiddymont

one might also mention Dr. Killeen's finding about Martha Tabram:


Ouch, I bet that stung the young doctor!

Especially since he had only recently left a position in a maternity hospital in Dublin.

[Mrs. Fiddymont]

Hi Mrs. Fiddymont

one might also mention Dr. Killeen's finding about Martha Tabram:


Ouch, I bet that stung the young doctor!

LOL, yes, so much for professional opinions!

[Kattrup]

This reminds me of a discussion I had years ago with my personal ob-gyn. He said that a professional (such as yes, an ob-gyn!) could generally determine thru examination that a woman has given birth. He said it's virtually impossible to determine whether one is a virgin or not, but it's usually much simpler regarding childbirth. Still, it seems there can sometimes be doubt...

Hi Mrs. Fiddymont

one might also mention Dr. Killeen's finding about Martha Tabram:

Dr. Keeling stated that he had made the most careful examination, and he could find no trace of the woman having had any children. - The witness Tabram was then recalled, and stated that he had had two children by the deceased, both boys, one was 15 and the other 18 years of age.

Ouch, I bet that stung the young doctor!

[Mrs. Fiddymont]

For those who think the non-reporting of pregnancy by Bond is proof of Gravida 0, meaning Mary never gave birth, may you take notice that his actual reporting of evidence of Gravida 0 for Rose Mylett was incorrect.



http://www.casebook.org/victims/mylett.html

This reminds me of a discussion I had years ago with my personal ob-gyn. He said that a professional (such as yes, an ob-gyn!) could generally determine thru examination that a woman has given birth. He said it's virtually impossible to determine whether one is a virgin or not, but it's usually much simpler regarding childbirth. Still, it seems there can sometimes be doubt...

[mpriestnall]

Hi Martyn, Well seeings how you asked and you seem interested ill share some of my thoughts , firstly i do still believe in a particular theory thats much frowned upon hear at the mere mention of the people involved with it , Although over the years it has been pointed out on many ocassions the faults with said theory , which i admit there are some things that dont add up, . But there are many other things that just cant be tossed away as, hmmm how shall i put it '' just a made up story and all a pack of lies'' . But enough of that one . Ive since been reading another theory that has captured my interest which revolves around something similar to what you have mention and i thought we might be on the same track . The person who presents this theory has been extremely dilligent in their research, and i find the attention to detail extraodiary when outlining a motive and the person/s responsible for the murder of Eddowes and then Kelly .


If youd like to discuss anything about either theory id be happy to do so just .P.M me anytime . Regards Fishy

Hi Fishy, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'll will pm you sometime.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy1118

I have no evidence or any particularly reason to think they even knew each other but I don't rule it out. What's your thoughts behind your question?

I focus on just the so-called canonical victims for simplicity and because it makes the most sense to me. I believe there was a scandal associated with Astrakhan that he was possibly being blackmailed for by Kelly and maybe by one or more of the remaining canonicals. Or Astrakhan with Jack were taking revenge for the scandal being exposed?

Just questions from me now! What's your take on the murders. Were they random purposeless murders by a madman or by a sane but psychopathic killer or what? Did any victims know each other? Was there a cover up by the "authorities" or should we take what Anderson, MacNaughton etc said at face value? Appreciate your thoughts about JTR and the murders.

Hi Martyn, Well seeings how you asked and you seem interested ill share some of my thoughts , firstly i do still believe in a particular theory thats much frowned upon hear at the mere mention of the people involved with it , Although over the years it has been pointed out on many ocassions the faults with said theory , which i admit there are some things that dont add up, . But there are many other things that just cant be tossed away as, hmmm how shall i put it '' just a made up story and all a pack of lies'' . But enough of that one . Ive since been reading another theory that has captured my interest which revolves around something similar to what you have mention and i thought we might be on the same track . The person who presents this theory has been extremely dilligent in their research, and i find the attention to detail extraodiary when outlining a motive and the person/s responsible for the murder of Eddowes and then Kelly .


If youd like to discuss anything about either theory id be happy to do so just .P.M me anytime . Regards Fishy

[mpriestnall]

Well i can hardly wait to hear this one . One more question if i may , Do you think Kelly and Eddowes knew each ''very well '' ?

Hi Fishy1118

I have no evidence or any particularly reason to think they even knew each other but I don't rule it out. What's your thoughts behind your question?

I focus on just the so-called canonical victims for simplicity and because it makes the most sense to me. I believe there was a scandal associated with Astrakhan that he was possibly being blackmailed for by Kelly and maybe by one or more of the remaining canonicals. Or Astrakhan with Jack were taking revenge for the scandal being exposed?

Just questions from me now! What's your take on the murders. Were they random purposeless murders by a madman or by a sane but psychopathic killer or what? Did any victims know each other? Was there a cover up by the "authorities" or should we take what Anderson, MacNaughton etc said at face value? Appreciate your thoughts about JTR and the murders.

[FISHY1118]

FWIW I believe Miller's Court was a misdirection event. The purpose of which was to remove Kelly out of London and that another was killed in her place. The mutilations of Kelly were functional as were the murder themselves. I'm sure Kelly, JTR (Blotchy?) and Astrakhan were all connected. I'm fully in on the conspiracy/cover up angle. What can I say?

Well i can hardly wait to hear this one . One more question if i may , Do you think Kelly and Eddowes knew each ''very well '' ?

[mpriestnall]

''The obliteration of the Miller's Court victim's face to allow a substitute to be made.'' Hi Martyn , this point in perticular makes it sound like kelly might have been the intended victim , are you of that opinion ? , just curious.

FWIW I believe Miller's Court was a misdirection event. The purpose of which was to remove Kelly out of London and that another was killed in her place. The mutilations of Kelly were functional as were the murder themselves. I'm sure Kelly, JTR (Blotchy?) and Astrakhan were all connected. I'm fully in on the conspiracy/cover up angle. What can I say?

[FISHY1118]

'

I'm 100% sure I know the ids of Jack, Astrakhan and Kelly and can demonstrate this in a compelling way. You'll have to wait for the book though for me to substantiate these claims.

In the meantime here's a list of some of the things that raise my suspicions about the Miller Court event:

- The sightings of Maxwell and Lewis (whose description seem to match the picture of Kelly in the IPN of the 17th November).
- The obliteration of the Miller's Court victim's face to allow a substitute to be made.
- The non-optimal way Kelly was identified. The hands and feet would have been more reliable than the eyes and ears on a obliterated face.
- The complete non-discovery to date of Kelly that supports the supposition that Kelly's narrative supplied by Barnett at the inquest is false.
- Barnett's nervousness at the inquest. Could be written off due understandable stress at his loss and not used to appearing at an inquest. Or because he was lying and was afraid of being caught out.
- The suspiciously world record abridged one-day inquest.
- Waiting for bloodhounds that were of little use at that particular murder scene. I believe Anderson, Arnold, Phillips and Warren are
all on record as discounting the usefulness of bloodhounds in the streets of Whitechapel.
- The sudden inexplicable loss of interest by the press in Kelly's murder.
- The non-appearance of an highly important witness (Hutchinson) at the inquest.

Apologies for being off-topic here.

Martyn

''The obliteration of the Miller's Court victim's face to allow a substitute to be made.'' Hi Martyn , this point in perticular makes it sound like kelly might have been the intended victim , are you of that opinion ? , just curious.

[mpriestnall]

Pardon me, squire; but, if I may...

Is it not more likely that 'hair' (the length, colour, hairline and styling all seemingly untouched, to judge by the photo) was meant, rather than 'ear' ("the ... ears being partly removed")...?

As for the eyes, do we not gather that the actual eyeballs were left intact, making it possible to see their familiar colour?

I really don't feel it's my job to interfere in someone else's investigation; but I myself would be hard-put to identify my own girlfriend by her hands and feet ... and I think Barnett the Billingsgate porter probably said " 'air", not "ear"...

M.

I thought hands and feet, might have more details to allow a safer identification, particularly as they were left less unmutilated than the eye area. I accept this is a case by case situation and Barnett's identification may have been by Kelly's hair not ears.

Squire Martyn

[etenguy]

Is it not more likely that 'hair' (the length, colour, hairline and styling all seemingly untouched, to judge by the photo) was meant, rather than 'ear' ("the ... ears being partly removed")...?M.

Hi Mark. This does seem more likely to me - that hair rather than ears was meant.

As for the eyes, do we not gather that the actual eyeballs were left intact, making it possible to see their familiar colour?

I wonder about this. Eyes become cloudy within a couple of hours of death and quite opaque after a few more hours. - I'm not sure they would be a good basis for making an identification by the time Barnett got to see the body.

[Mark J D]

... things that raise my suspicions about the Miller Court event:

- The non-optimal way Kelly was identified. The hands and feet would have been more reliable than the eyes and ears on a obliterated face.

Pardon me, squire; but, if I may...

Is it not more likely that 'hair' (the length, colour, hairline and styling all seemingly untouched, to judge by the photo) was meant, rather than 'ear' ("the ... ears being partly removed")...?

As for the eyes, do we not gather that the actual eyeballs were left intact, making it possible to see their familiar colour?

I really don't feel it's my job to interfere in someone else's investigation; but I myself would be hard-put to identify my own girlfriend by her hands and feet ... and I think Barnett the Billingsgate porter probably said " 'air", not "ear"...

M.