Mary Jane Kelly found?

[Bridewell]

We don't know that the remains,disfigured beyond all recognition, found in millers court are Mary Kelly anyway...

There is no reason whatever to believe that the remains were not those of MJK.

[packers stem]

I don't think anyone expects that Barnet identified the body while at Millers Court. The police will conduct an official identification and bring him to the mortuary to see the body at his leasure - no quick glances through a broken window.

Hi wickerman
Wherever the identification attempt was made, do you not accept there was little to identify? How long would you seriously expect Barnett to stand over the body studying strands of hair or the eyes?

[packers stem]

There is no reason whatever to believe that the remains were not those of MJK.

Hi Bridewell
Caroline Maxwell is without doubt reason enough to suspect that the body may not have been Mary Kelly plus Maurice Lewis' sightings.
Best eye witness testimony we have,broad daylight.if we are unwilling to believe them what's the point...you can forget Hutchinson,sightings of blotchy etc.... All considerably weaker than maxwell or Lewis due to lighting

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell
Caroline Maxwell is without doubt reason enough to suspect that the body may not have been Mary Kelly plus Maurice Lewis' sightings.
Best eye witness testimony we have,broad daylight.if we are unwilling to believe them what's the point...you can forget Hutchinson,sightings of blotchy etc.... All considerably weaker than Maxwell or Lewis due to lighting

There was no problem with lighting for Barnett's identification and he knew her better than Maxwell or Lewis.
The two sightings, taken together with Barnett's identification, are reason to believe that the killing took place later than Dr Bond suggested, but not to believe that MJK was not the victim.

[Bridewell]

Further to the above, if the argument is pursued that MJK was not the victim, it requires an assumption that:
(1) Someone else died whose absence went unremarked.
(2) MJK never resurfaced to reassure her friends that she was alive and well.

I've seen it argued that another woman was killed to facilitate the voluntary disappearance of MJK herself, but without a credible explanation as to why murder was necessary in order to accomplish that. It was easy enough to disappear in 19th century London without resorting to such extremes.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Bridewell;350212]Further to the above, if the argument is pursued that MJK was not the victim, it requires an assumption that:
(1) Someone else died whose absence went unremarked.
(2) MJK never resurfaced to reassure her friends that she was alive and well.

Exactly, Bridewell. We would also have to assume that Mary pulled off this disappearing act without taking any of her clothes or possessions from her apartment and that she also did this with apparently no funds at her disposal.

As for Barnett, I find it hard to believe that even a quick look at the body was not sufficient for him to realize that this was the woman that he had shared his bed with.

c.d.

[packers stem]

The mention of the lighting is in relation to eye witness testimony not Barnett's identification...although we don't know that anyway it's not relevant, I'm saying that Barnett is unlikely to have done more than glance at her face, I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption,the poor woman had been pretty much skinned... Just can't see him running his hands through her hair looking for hair strands unstained.
All evidence we have, mostly the fire and the undigested fish and potatoes suggests the early hours.... Fish and chips for breakfast?? Got my doubts,I'd go for an evening meal on that personally.
Kelly went to great lengths to inform friends she was ready to 'make away with herself' over the preceeding days. If there was a 'plan' Barnett could well have been in on it away making the body identification completely irrelevant.
She knew she was the hunted,she disappeared....with help...and someone else was set up to take her place.
Mary Kelly had to be seen to be dead for whatever reason... I'm not screaming royals here,I don't claim to know what's behind it but I do know that Mary Kellys were extremely rare in London at that time.. The last 2 victims were both using the name on the day they died, you'd have to be very blind to the obvious not to accept the likelihood that the killer/killers were looking for Mary Kelly.This is why she couldn't just run away,she'd have always been hunted.... Of course she never surfaced to tell people she was alive and well, would have been suicide and people did just 'disappear' who could have not been missed who could have died in her place.Isn't this thread about a woman whose absence went unremarked.. Until now anyway

[c.d.]

Kelly went to great lengths to inform friends she was ready to 'make away with herself' over the preceeding days.

Hello Packers Stem,

I have never heard that before. Can you provide evidence that that was the case? Not trying to be snotty here but you make a lot of unsubstantiated statements in your post and it seems to come off as proven fact rather than conjecture. Again, no snottiness intended.

c.d.

[packers stem]

Apologies cd, thought this was common knowledge..
The complete jtr hardback page 257
"there was some suggestion that she may have been scared of a man (or men) unknown to her east end associates.It was known to her friends that she was frightened by the ripper murders and contemplated leaving London "
Jtr uncensored facts Paul Begg paperback page 151
Albrook's evidence is valuable for the insights it provides into Kelly's character. 'about the last thing she said was "whatever you do don't do wrong and turn out as I have" she had often spoken to me in this way and warned me against going on the streets as she had done.She told me too that she was heartily sick of the life she was leading and wished she had money enough to go back to Ireland where her people lived.... '
Page 152
A source whose name is not given, but who was described as an associate of the deceased and who told the same story of Kelly intending to 'make away with herself', from which it might be safe to assume it was Margaret.....

[GUT]

Honwas she hunted by?

Why if going to such extremes to fake her death did she stop and have a chat with Mrs Maxwell?

Just doesn't add up.

[packers stem]

Hi GUT
Did say I don't claim to know why or who all I'm sure of is Mary Kelly was the ultimate goal for whatever reason...
48 Mary Kellys in London in 1891 in a city of millions.... And the last 2 of 5 using the name on the day they died...
Chance???? Sorry,no chance. Odds against would be too ridiculous for words If others wish to follow the crowds and believe it's just one of those things cos it fits their theory,then they can do that but for me no...I will never accept that as coincidence

[Robert]

It seems that, far from wanting to do away with herself, Kelly refused to die on any terms whatsoever.

[packers stem]

Hi Robert
She didn't want to 'do away with herself' as in suicide...she wanted to 'make away with herself ' as in vanish

[GUT]

Hi GUT
Did say I don't claim to know why or who all I'm sure of is Mary Kelly was the ultimate goal for whatever reason...
48 Mary Kellys in London in 1891 in a city of millions.... And the last 2 of 5 using the name on the day they died...
Chance???? Sorry,no chance. Odds against would be too ridiculous for words If others wish to follow the crowds and believe it's just one of those things cos it fits their theory,then they can do that but for me no...I will never accept that as coincidence

Only if you accept she was the last.

[Rosella]

Why does everything always have to be some convoluted conspiracy, (as in the name Kelly being significant) instead of several very unfortunate (not using that word in the Victorian sense) and I'll-fated women meeting a serial killer and being murdered by him?

Yes, Eddowes had a pawn ticket in the name of Jane Kelly with her on the day she died. I'm sure though, that in her conversation with Jack on the way to Mitre Square she didn't go over the story of her life, of her pawning her boyfriend's boots under a false name (as hundreds of others did when they pawned property) and if they exchanged anything more than first names, (or even that) I would be very surprised.

Caroline Maxwell must have seen another person and took her to be Mary. I believe with all my heart that she did have a conversation with a woman who felt ill and vomited that morning. I'm equally certain that Caroline, although sincere, just simply made a mistake and it wasn't Mary.