MJK's Body Identification?

[David Orsam]

Someone should look into this. I think it would be just the right job for David Orsam. I donīt communicate with him right now, but perhaps he will read this.

Job done Pierre:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=374665#post374665

I look forward to you refusing to agree with anything I've said.

[John G]

Hi John


I'm sure any list of conspirators is no more appropriate to the thread than a name and address of mr random lone killer .
Same for the name of the victim



I don't think I've said it's unreasonable to argue any point but it's certainly unreasonable to suggest that Maxwell was a fool or any less reliable than any other witnesses that have been mentioned in connection with jtr. The fact remains that hers was the strongest sighting of importance due to daylight and lack of alcohol .Many theorists put tremendous faith in Liz long,Cadosch,Schwartz,lawende,Richardson,Hutchinso n ......none of these even come close to Maxwell due to the circumstances i've mentioned yet they're not doubted .....if they fit a theory of course



we don't know the date Kelly moved to London with any certainty
If it wasn't for the home office files Schwartz would be the worst witness ever and would be completely ignored because he was unbelievably not called to the inquest

Hi Packers,

Well, I would certainly agree with you about Israel Schwartz being a poor/ dubious witness, as I've argued myself on Liz Stride threads!

Amongst other problems with Maurice Lewis is that his evidence was never properly scrutinized, i.e. by the police or coroner. In fact, all we have is a number of inconsistent newspaper reports. And, of course, journalists were not always totally reliable, for instance, they sometimes exaggerated, and neither were people who spoke to journalists! In fact, returning to the issue of Schwartz compare the police account with the newspaper version of his evidence-they're radically different!

Maxwell is poor witness because she didn't really know the woman she believed was Kelly, having only briefly spoken to her twice over four months. And, as I noted previously, her reference to Kelly having a speech impediment, not noted by any other witness, is a good indicator that she misidentified the victim.

As I've also noted, Maxwell would no doubt have spoken to a great many people over the relevant period, in what was a overcrowded neighbourhood, with a largely itinerant population, greatly increasing the risks of misidentification.

Debra Arif's excellent article in Ripperologist 148 refers to her recent research into Elizabeth Prater, whom she has discovered was probably a different person than earlier research suggested, and also much younger, i.e. 31. She also refers to comments attributed to John McCarthy that Kelly was 25 but looked 30. It's therefore perfectly plausible that these two individuals could have been confused for one another by someone who didn't really know Kelly.

Finally, as I've stated before, a woman was found dead in Kelly's room, and Kelly was never seen or heard from again. The sensible argument is therefore that the victim was Kelly, unless anyone can provide any evidence to refute that proposition, i.e. by providing a sensible alternative theory-preferably one not involving freemasons or a local conspiracy, as the one in the Austin case didn't turn out too well, perfectly illustrating that the locals were not criminal masterminds, nor the police a group of bumbling idiots- and a plausible alternative victim.

[Harry D]

William Beadle in his "Unmasked" book presents a solid case for Mary Kelly being murdered later in the day, around 10.00 - 10.45am, on account of the rigor mortis and buttressed by the multiple 'posthumous' sightings.

That being said, it would have been uncharacteristic for the Ripper to strike at this time when he murdered his previous victims in the early hours of the morning. One might argue that he didn't need the cover of darkness as he'd switched to indoors but people would've been up and about at that time. Someone could've came a callin' and taken a peep through the broken window just in time to see the Ripper finishing up his gory masterpiece. A realistic possibility had McCarthy sent Bowyer for the rent a little earlier than he did.

[packers stem]

Hi John

Hi Packers,

Well, I would certainly agree with you about Israel Schwartz being a poor/ dubious witness, as I've argued myself on Liz Stride threads!

Seems you may have misunderstood my last paragraph.
I'm in no way suggesting Schwartz was a poor witness. There are no grounds for believing that whatsoever.
My point was that if it weren't for the home office files we would have no record of Schwartz other than a single report in the star and no way of knowing how seriously his sighting was taken,which is evident from Swanson's report.

Amongst other problems with Maurice Lewis is that his evidence was never properly scrutinized, i.e. by the police or coroner. In fact, all we have is a number of inconsistent newspaper reports. And, of course, journalists were not always totally reliable, for instance, they sometimes exaggerated, and neither were people who spoke to journalists! In fact, returning to the issue of Schwartz compare the police account with the newspaper version of his evidence-they're radically different!

I agree,it's an absolute travesty that Maurice Lewis wasn't called to the inquest and that no official police report survives....Doesn't mean there wasn't one though.
Fault for neither issue can reasonably be laid at the door of the witnesses though can it.
It was a running theme that vital witnesses were not called to the inquests from the stride and Kelly murders and we are left to wonder why...

Maxwell is poor witness because she didn't really know the woman she believed was Kelly, having only briefly spoken to her twice over four months. And, as I noted previously, her reference to Kelly having a speech impediment, not noted by any other witness, is a good indicator that she misidentified the victim.

Waved to my neighbour again this morning despite our lack of actual meaningful conversation.i knew her,she knew me. We didn't mistake each other for anybody else.
This in my view is extreme 'straw clutching' and nothing more.

As I've also noted, Maxwell would no doubt have spoken to a great many people over the relevant period, in what was a overcrowded neighbourhood, with a largely itinerant population, greatly increasing the risks of misidentification.

Once again they addressed each other by first names.The IPN has a good extended interview

Debra Arif's excellent article in Ripperologist 148 refers to her recent research into Elizabeth Prater, whom she has discovered was probably a different person than earlier research suggested, and also much younger, i.e. 31. She also refers to comments attributed to John McCarthy that Kelly was 25 but looked 30. It's therefore perfectly plausible that these two individuals could have been confused for one another by someone who didn't really know Kelly

I'm sure we all enjoyed Debra's article and I agree it was excellent research but I am sure Debra will concede that it just provided a point to ponder but the timings of Prater don't match, nor the content of statements.
Prater went out about 5.30 -5.45 for a rum then went back and slept until 11. Never mentioning being ill and sick in the street whereas Kelly had been drinking beer and been ill from the night before.
It's also worth remembering that Prater was next at the inquest after Maxwell, good chance they'd have bumped into each other

Finally, as I've stated before, a woman was found dead in Kelly's room, and Kelly was never seen or heard from again. The sensible argument is therefore that the victim was Kelly, unless anyone can provide any evidence to refute that proposition, i.e. by providing a sensible alternative theory-preferably one not involving freemasons or a local conspiracy, as the one in the Austin case didn't turn out too well, perfectly illustrating that the locals were not criminal masterminds, nor the police a group of bumbling idiots- and a plausible alternative victim.

You seem intent on trying to drag a theory into something that is about witness reliability. It's not relevant at all
People could easily disappear in those days simply by moving to a neighbouring Borough, it wasn't an issue at all

[packers stem]

William Beadle in his "Unmasked" book presents a solid case for Mary Kelly being murdered later in the day, around 10.00 - 10.45am, on account of the rigor mortis and buttressed by the multiple 'posthumous' sightings.

That being said, it would have been uncharacteristic for the Ripper to strike at this time when he murdered his previous victims in the early hours of the morning. One might argue that he didn't need the cover of darkness as he'd switched to indoors but people would've been up and about at that time. Someone could've came a callin' and taken a peep through the broken window just in time to see the Ripper finishing up his gory masterpiece. A realistic possibility had McCarthy sent Bowyer for the rent a little earlier than he did.

Hi Harry
Although I can't agree on an after 10 murder primarily due to the fish supper, presuming Bond's report is accurate, it should be pointed out that IF Elizabeth Long saw Chapman, and it's a big if,then Chapman was killed in broad daylight where any one of dozens of people readying themselves for work could have peeped out of the window and watched.

[John Wheat]

It wouldn't surprise me if Mary Kelly was killed alot later than the other victims. Maybe not after 10am though.

[John G]

Hi John



Seems you may have misunderstood my last paragraph.
I'm in no way suggesting Schwartz was a poor witness. There are no grounds for believing that whatsoever.
My point was that if it weren't for the home office files we would have no record of Schwartz other than a single report in the star and no way of knowing how seriously his sighting was taken,which is evident from Swanson's report.



I agree,it's an absolute travesty that Maurice Lewis wasn't called to the inquest and that no official police report survives....Doesn't mean there wasn't one though.
Fault for neither issue can reasonably be laid at the door of the witnesses though can it.
It was a running theme that vital witnesses were not called to the inquests from the stride and Kelly murders and we are left to wonder why...



Waved to my neighbour again this morning despite our lack of actual meaningful conversation.i knew her,she knew me. We didn't mistake each other for anybody else.
This in my view is extreme 'straw clutching' and nothing more.



Once again they addressed each other by first names.The IPN has a good extended interview



I'm sure we all enjoyed Debra's article and I agree it was excellent research but I am sure Debra will concede that it just provided a point to ponder but the timings of Prater don't match, nor the content of statements.
Prater went out about 5.30 -5.45 for a rum then went back and slept until 11. Never mentioning being ill and sick in the street whereas Kelly had been drinking beer and been ill from the night before.
It's also worth remembering that Prater was next at the inquest after Maxwell, good chance they'd have bumped into each other



You seem intent on trying to drag a theory into something that is about witness reliability. It's not relevant at all
People could easily disappear in those days simply by moving to a neighbouring Borough, it wasn't an issue at all

Hi Packers,

Just as an aside, there are numerous reasons to doubt Schwartz as a witness, as I have highlighted on other threads; this also demonstrates why we should approach witness testimony with caution, even where there are police and inquest reports.

I should imagine that the reason Lewis wasn't called as witness at the inquest, and why there are no surviving police reports, is that he wasn't considered by the authorities to be a credible witness: that's a modern approach, whose proponents generally have their own conspiracy theory to promote.

In any event, what were left with is a handful of contradictory press reports, which in no way can constitute reliable evidence. I mean, you would apparently dismiss decades of research, which has failed to establish any evidence for Kelly arriving in London prior to 1884, in favour of uncorroborated press reports stating that Lewis claimed to have known the witness for more than five years! Well, applying that logic, presumably you also believe that Matthew Packer sold rabbits to Jack the Ripper's cousin! And, as David argues on the other thread, maybe he said five months, not five years, or then again, perhaps five minutes! Who knows?

Maxwell was hardly a neighbour of Kelly, at least in the modern sense. This is frankly an absurd argument, as evidenced by the fact that she only briefly conversed with her twice in four months. In fact, I probably couldn't effectively ID most of my near neighbours, as I barely know, or don't know at all, most of them, and I've lived at my address for nearly 10 years! And, as I've noted before, it's hardly likely she would be on first name terms with someone she barely knew-I'm not on first name terms with most of my neighbours, in fact, I would be amazed if they actually knew my name, and I certainly don't know theirs! And are you aware how overcrowded this district was, with people coming and going all the time? Frankly, over a four month period, there may have been literally hundreds of women who could be legitimately referred to as "neighbours" of Maxwell.

As Stewart Evans wisely argued, "She [Maxwell] must have been on nodding terms with many such women in the neighbourhood...there is little doubt that she thought s he saw Kelly that morning. Once she was committed to stating this, she felt that she needed to give her account extra authority by exaggerating the conversation side of the sighting and restating her certainty about the identity of the woman She had spoken to." (Evans and Rumbellow, 2006). Makes perfect sense to me.

And, as I keep pointing, out, time of death estimates given at the time cannot be relied upon so, theoretically, Kelly could have been murdered after the Maxwell sighting.

I understand why you would wish to avoid discussing a conspiracy theory, however, without recourse to such extreme reasoning you cannot explain why a different woman was murdered in Kelly's room, and what she was doing there. Or why the perpetrator apparently went to such extremes to prevent effective identification. Or why Kelly immediately disappeared, never to be heard of again-but maybe you think this was just a coincidence!

And doesn't it strike you as odd that there was not a single rumour concerning her supposed disappearance? Despite the fact that, presumably, many people must have been aware of it, including those that were drinking with her just minutes before the victim's body was discovered, if Lewis is to be believed. I mean, it's a wonder that they didn't take the opportunity to make some money by selling their story to the press!

[John G]

It wouldn't surprise me if Mary Kelly was killed alot later than the other victims. Maybe not after 10am though.

Hi John,,

Yes, this is perfectly plausible as modern forensic science has demonstrated that the time of death estimates given at the time cannot be relied upon.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=packers stem;374627]

[B]Hi,

With high probability, Morris Lewis was NOT an attention seeker. The sources referring to Lewis do not contain any reliable statements of him having said that he saw Mary Jane Kelly, a dead woman, walking in and out of her room on Millerīs Court. This is what the sources do NOT say.

If he had been an attention seeker, he would have been very explicit and the sources would have been much more reliable as to what he said. There would have been much less variation in the statements about the sighting.

The most probable explanation for the existence of the Morris-sources is that it was the journalists who were the attention-seekers. With a very high probability, there were many journalists on Dorset Street and in Millerīs Court on the 9th and thereafter, who spoke with anyone they happened to meet or see. They would have been looking for people to interview all the time.

And this Morris Lewis just happened to be in the neighbourhood and just happened to be interviewed.

All of the interviews where focusing on the murder on Kelly and nothing else . Therefore, the journalists connected everything they heard and everything they saw to the murder.

Even a simple and meaningless statement from a random person saying he saw a woman going in an out of a house was bound to be connected to that. You can actually see the tendency in the first sources referring to Lewis, where the journalists write "deceased" instead of "woman".

Another very probable explanation, which also much be taken into consideration, is that the statements of Maxwell with a rather high probability would have influenced the Lewis-sources. The journalists were reading other newspapers and were trying to put the statements into a context and to draw conclusions. When the Central News Agency telegraphed the Maxwell statements, the journalists also started to interpret those statements as being "true", and from that moment other sources, like the Lewis-sources, were influenced by the point of view that Mary had been alive at eight oīclock in the morning.



Hi Pierre
You state this as if you have a primary source for something that is unknown

Hi,

It is only a matter of analysing the primary sources. They are in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner.

If you would like to understand what happened on the night when Mary Jane Kelly was murdered and mutilated, analyse the sources.

The question we want to answer is:

What is the only possible time series for the events of the night when Mary Jane Kelly was murdered and mutilated?

The first we must do is to exclude everything impossible.

The sources we should use for a start is a letter from Dr Bond (p. 400-402), the witness statements from the inquest and from the police report on the 9th.

That is the hierarchy for the reliability and validity of these three different types of historical sources.

Kind regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

Hi John

Hi Packers,

Just as an aside, there are numerous reasons to doubt Schwartz as a witness, as I have highlighted on other threads; this also demonstrates why we should approach witness testimony with caution, even where there are police and inquest reports.

Quite simply, no there isn't. Schwartz statements could be down to Hungarian interpreters or more likely someone didn't fancy the idea of the accomplice holding a knife. A pipe makes so much more sense I don't think. standing there in the drizzle lighting a pipe and watching the assault makes so much sense... In a novel.Schwartz initial press statement strongly indicated an accomplice, the official statement makes an attempt to distance things. It's little wonder he wasn't allowed anywhere near the inquest is it really. Absolutely nothing to do with reliability. Plenty of considerably more unreliable witnesses were called during the course of the murders.As long as there were no 'boats rocked' all was Ok

I should imagine that the reason Lewis wasn't called as witness at the inquest, and why there are no surviving police reports, is that he wasn't considered by the authorities to be a credible witness: that's a modern approach, whose proponents generally have their own conspiracy theory to promote.

I think you'll find that generally conspiracy theorists complain about the lack of files but if people can use this 'taken as trophy' argument to explain missing files, Mary Kelly mortuary photo for one, then you can use the same for a potential official statement from Lewis. Theorists constantly brand inconvenient witnesses as 'unreliable' without good cause.

In any event, what were left with is a handful of contradictory press reports, which in no way can constitute reliable evidence. I mean, you would apparently dismiss decades of research, which has failed to establish any evidence for Kelly arriving in London prior to 1884, in favour of uncorroborated press reports stating that Lewis claimed to have known the witness for more than five years! Well, applying that logic, presumably you also believe that Matthew Packer sold rabbits to Jack the Ripper's cousin! And, as David argues on the other thread, maybe he said five months, not five years, or then again, perhaps five minutes! Who knows?

Contradiction? I can't see any. David's post yesterday is worth a read
As for Packer he was regarded highly enough to be interviewed personally by Bruce.... Any others whisked off to Scotland Yard? Only then did his times alter, in the hand of Bruce, it was only this that made him appear unreliable.... Conveniently once again
I'm pleased you appear to have found record of Kelly's existence and place of abode prior to 1884. Maybe you should post it so people can stop searching for her. Last I was aware these decades of research had failed to find her.... Anywhere.... Ireland, Wales or London but if you've found her in Wales or Ireland showing she wasn't in London this is a massive step forward....

Maxwell was hardly a neighbour of Kelly, at least in the modern sense. This is frankly an absurd argument, as evidenced by the fact that she only briefly conversed with her twice in four months. In fact, I probably couldn't effectively ID most of my near neighbours, as I barely know, or don't know at all, most of them, and I've lived at my address for nearly 10 years! And, as I've noted before, it's hardly likely she would be on first name terms with someone she barely knew-I'm not on first name terms with most of my neighbours, in fact, I would be amazed if they actually knew my name, and I certainly don't know theirs! And are you aware how overcrowded this district was, with people coming and going all the time? Frankly, over a four month period, there may have been literally hundreds of women who could be legitimately referred to as "neighbours" of Maxwell.

Our experiences of neighbours vary. Some we may speak to more often than others but that is absolutely no grounds for claiming a misidentification for convenience sake. I'm well aware how busy Dorset Street but this has no bearing upon which people knew each other and how well.
Well worth reading Maxwell's account in the IPN if you haven't done so

As Stewart Evans wisely argued, "She [Maxwell] must have been on nodding terms with many such women in the neighbourhood...there is little doubt that she thought s he saw Kelly that morning. Once she was committed to stating this, she felt that she needed to give her account extra authority by exaggerating the conversation side of the sighting and restating her certainty about the identity of the woman She had spoken to." (Evans and Rumbellow, 2006). Makes perfect sense to me.

I appreciate the work of all the well versed ripperologists over the years but please don't tell me we're going to use Ripperologist opinion as evidence now!
Can you imagine the reaction if someone tried to pass off a Knight opinion as evidence...

And, as I keep pointing, out, time of death estimates given at the time cannot be relied upon so, theoretically, Kelly could have been murdered after the Maxwell sighting.

We've been over the fish and potatoes so many times now. It's not a breakfast.... Unless of course you're suggesting the Bond report is a nonsense, you may then have a point

I understand why you would wish to avoid discussing a conspiracy theory, however, without recourse to such extreme reasoning you cannot explain why a different woman was murdered in Kelly's room, and what she was doing there. Or why the perpetrator apparently went to such extremes to prevent effective identification. Or why Kelly immediately disappeared, never to be heard of again-but maybe you think this was just a coincidence!

She was clearly untraceable prior,why should she be post?

And doesn't it strike you as odd that there was not a single rumour concerning her supposed disappearance? Despite the fact that, presumably, many people must have been aware of it, including those that were drinking with her just minutes before the victim's body was discovered, if Lewis is to be believed. I mean, it's a wonder that they didn't take the opportunity to make some money by selling their story to the press!

Not in the slightest.There were no sightings after 10. Three at least before hand though that we know of

[curious]

We've been over the fish and potatoes so many times now. It's not a breakfast....

I don't think fish and potatoes for Kelly's breakfast is out of the question -- as leftovers from a meal the night before. Pizza isn't normally considered a breakfast food either, but don't you know someone who has admitted to having leftover pizza when they awaken in the morning?

Or who chooses to have cereal for an evening meal or bedtime snack? I know some folks who occasionally desire a big breakfast meal of eggs, sausage, gravy and biscuits as an evening meal.

Kelly was an extremely poor woman. If she had had fish and potatoes the night before and managed to save a few morsels, then I can see her eating it when she awoke the next morning.

curious

[packers stem]

[QUOTE=Pierre;374723]

Hi,

It is only a matter of analysing the primary sources. They are in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner.

If you would like to understand what happened on the night when Mary Jane Kelly was murdered and mutilated, analyse the sources.

The question we want to answer is:

What is the only possible time series for the events of the night when Mary Jane Kelly was murdered and mutilated?

The first we must do is to exclude everything impossible.

The sources we should use for a start is a letter from Dr Bond (p. 400-402), the witness statements from the inquest and from the police report on the 9th.

That is the hierarchy for the reliability and validity of these three different types of historical sources.

Kind regards, Pierre

And none of these sources can tell us that Mary Kelly was dead at 8am

[packers stem]

I don't think fish and potatoes for Kelly's breakfast is out of the question -- as leftovers from a meal the night before. Pizza isn't normally considered a breakfast food either, but don't you know someone who has admitted to having leftover pizza when they awaken in the morning?

Or who chooses to have cereal for an evening meal or bedtime snack? I know some folks who occasionally desire a big breakfast meal of eggs, sausage, gravy and biscuits as an evening meal.

Kelly was an extremely poor woman. If she had had fish and potatoes the night before and managed to save a few morsels, then I can see her eating it when she awoke the next morning.

curious

Hi curious
There are probabilities possibilities
Using possibilities is likewise known as stretching credulity
The probability is that the victim bought ,or was bought, a fish supper the night before
A possibility is that Charles Warren bought it for her as he was in the capital at the time ,of course this would be rediculous but still possible .
Surely we need to stick to probability over possibility .
For my mind the clinging to 'possible' alternate explanations over the obvious just to hang on to a theory is what's held ripperology back further than it should have done

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=packers stem;374730]

And none of these sources can tell us that Mary Kelly was dead at 8am

Packers stem,

Agreed, nothing in those sources can definitively prove that MJK was dead at 8am, however, there is a definite tendency to suggest that she may have been.

Your argument is based entirely on the statements of Maxwell and Lewis, from what I can see, both of whom were appear to be casual acquaintances.
It is obvious however that you believe this deeply.

Have to say that I fail to understand why you rate these more than any others.

regards


Steve

[Elamarna]

Dear All

This thread started out as was it MJK in 13 Millers Court,


There appear to be 3 issues discussed he,:

1. It was not MJK

This view is based on the statements by Maxwell and Lewis, which are taken by some as being more reliable than those of Barnett and Mccarthy.
The reasoning for this deduction is still unclear to me.

2. It was MJK

This is to some degree the reverse of point 1.
However is it really reasonable to think that a regular lover would not be able to recognised the body of his partner.
I for one can identify mine from the rear, seeing no face and maybe little hair.
The view that it was MJK ( or at least the person known as such) is reinforced by the non appearance of MJK ever again.


3.It was MJK, but she was killed after being seen that morning

Again this view places very heavy reliance on the statements of Lewis and Maxwell.
There appears to be an argument about remains of food in the stomach, however:

1. Digestive rates do vary, are affect by sleep and indeed death itself.

2. There is no way of knowing when the victim last ate. Various suggestions have been given over the years, but nothing I have seen could be considered conclusive.
Therefore it really does not matter when the victim ate, or how digested the food was in proving the id of the body does it?

Steve