MJK's Body Identification?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;374734]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

Hi Steve,

It is an historical problem. History has been written as if Morris Lewis and Caroline Maxwell had the same opinion and were both right. It is a matter of misinterpretation of the sources, that is, a matter of misinterpretation of the past. All we have left from the past is sources. Primary sources and source criticism will solve such problems as these. And generate knowledge instead of belief.

Regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

Have you found a primary source for 'judges' yet Pierre?

[Joshua Rogan]

I'm puzzled....if the evidence indicates that a woman was murdered in room 13 in the early hours of the morning, but Mary was alive and seen going to and from her room in daylight....what was she fetching milk for? Surely not to make a cuppa for the mutilated corpse she'd just spent half the night sharing a room with?

[Pierre]

Have you found a primary source for 'judges' yet Pierre?

There is no need of finding such a source.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I'm puzzled....if the evidence indicates that a woman was murdered in room 13 in the early hours of the morning, but Mary was alive and seen going to and from her room in daylight....what was she fetching milk for? Surely not to make a cuppa for the mutilated corpse she'd just spent half the night sharing a room with?

Amazing, isn´t it? And all of that just because they do not understand this: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9540

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Hi John



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 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.



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....



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



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...




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




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



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

Hi Packers,

Well, you obviously take a much more positive view of witness statements than I! Although this thread is not the time discuss Schwartz, there are many problems with his evidence, not least the cachous issue. As for Packer, he was a totally hopeless witness, as I've discussed in other threads. And, just out of interest, is there any witness statement you don't believe?

David's analysis does, indeed, demonstrate that there were various versions of Lewis' account. However, consider this point: Packer initially told Sergeant White that he saw nothing suspicious. However, following subsequent press statements, White was sent back to re- interview packer. The point being is that it's inconceivable that Lewis wasn't interviewed/'re-interviewed after speaking to the press. The fact that we have no police reports concerning Lewis speaks volumes: he probably admitted he lied, or at least claimed he was seriously misquoted, but this was not recorded/ publicized for fear of deterring other witnesses from coming forward.

By the way, are you of the opinion that every press report should be unquestionably accepted as representing the absolute truth? Not only in respect of reporter accuracy, but also as regards accepting the veracity/accuracy of the interviewee? If not, what's so special about the Lewis reports?

I note with interest that you still have not provided an alternative theory for the victim found in Miller's Court being anyone other than Kelly. I therefore restate this point: if the woman found in Kelly's room wasn't Kelly than who was she? What was she doing in Kelly's room? Why does not a single account/rumour exist, referring to Kelly's disappearance and the grand conspiracy you allude to? Do you think the Metropolitan Police were so incompetent so as to suggest they were about as effective as the Keystone Cops?

Finally, regarding Maxwell, I refer back to my earlier point about her claim that Kelly had a speech impediment, indicating she was confusing Kelly with someone else.

[John G]

Millers Court was a fairly small area and, as I recall, the Maxwell address (used on a letter) was directly opposite Kelly's (I'm basing that on a discussion here and don't know this for a fact.

I can't imagine two women who lived directly opposite each other for a few months not recognizing the other. Each would have witnessed the comings and goings at a close distance.

They didn't have to have known each other, names or any history, but they would most certainly be able to recognize each other unless they were blind.

This was an immensely overcrowded neighbourhood. I believe 14 Dorset Street alone comprised 39 inhabitants in 1881. And people would have been coming and going all the time.

[packers stem]

Evening John

Hi Packers,

Well, you obviously take a much more positive view of witness statements than I! Although this thread is not the time discuss Schwartz, there are many problems with his evidence, not least the cachous issue. As for Packer, he was a totally hopeless witness, as I've discussed in other threads. And, just out of interest, is there any witness statement you don't believe?

Not totally sure where Schwartz mentioned cachous but I'll leave that one.
Witnesses I doubt? Of course
Elizabeth Long clearly had to be mistaken.
After changing her name it if I remember she went from not being able to identify Chapman to a positive ID
Hopeless witness and the idea that jtr carried out the mutilations in broad daylight I'm the backyard of where dozens of people readying themselves for work would be able to watch is rediculous in my opinion yet many researchers believe it because of Mrs long/Darrell

Sarah Lewis,George Hutchinson and a few in Berner Street plus Lawende who could just have seen any couple.

David's analysis does, indeed, demonstrate that there were various versions of Lewis' account. However, consider this point: Packer initially told Sergeant White that he saw nothing suspicious. However, following subsequent press statements, White was sent back to re- interview packer. The point being is that it's inconceivable that Lewis wasn't interviewed/'re-interviewed after speaking to the press. The fact that we have no police reports concerning Lewis speaks volumes: he probably admitted he lied, or at least claimed he was seriously misquoted, but this was not recorded/ publicized for fear of deterring other witnesses from coming forward.

David's research does indeed show that the press association put out partial reports varying but nothing conflicts. What is clear is the connection between 'dan' and Mary Jane drinking at 10 and it's quite clear from very early on that Lewis knew who he was talking about.

Ah poor Packer eh?
He told White initially that he'd seen nothing suspicious.
Of course he did....is a fruiterer selling fruit suspicious?
Only when he was approached about the grapes would he remember the couple, just common sense really.

I agree it is inconceivable that Lewis wasn't interviewed so where is the report? This goes also for Kennedy and there at least 2 press reports that positively state she had been interviewed . Presumably they landed in the same bin as the Kelly mortuary photos?

By the way, are you of the opinion that every press report should be unquestionably accepted as representing the absolute truth? Not only in respect of reporter accuracy, but also as regards accepting the veracity/accuracy of the interviewee? If not, what's so special about the Lewis reports?

Nope. Maxwell, Lewis and the unidentified young woman corroborate each other though and that's the difference

I note with interest that you still have not provided an alternative theory for the victim found in Miller's Court being anyone other than Kelly. I therefore restate this point: if the woman found in Kelly's room wasn't Kelly than who was she? What was she doing in Kelly's room? Why does not a single account/rumour exist, referring to Kelly's disappearance and the grand conspiracy you allude to? Do you think the Metropolitan Police were so incompetent so as to suggest they were about as effective as the Keystone Cops?

Oh dear.... Again?
Ok John. Find me another random serial killer who has, by absolute fluke, found that his last 2 victims both used the same name or were believed to be that person on the day they were killed
In the 1891 census there were 104 Mary Kellys in London County between the ages of 25 and 45...
104 only.... Out of a population of about 4.5 million
It wasn't the common name in the South of England that some make it out to be.
If, you find another random killer who fits that pattern then we can discuss theories on another thread possibly.
Just one will do....
The final 40% of victims having the same uncommon name....I'll leave that with you

Finally, regarding Maxwell, I refer back to my earlier point about her claim that Kelly had a speech impediment, indicating she was confusing Kelly with someone else.

Could you point this out to me please John.
It's not in the inquest report,nor in the IPN of the 17th or the Times of the 12th
Not that it's particularly relevant but interesting as I seem to remember someone once spotting something about protruding teeth so may back up Maxwell's claim if true

[curious]

This was an immensely overcrowded neighbourhood. I believe 14 Dorset Street alone comprised 39 inhabitants in 1881. And people would have been coming and going all the time.

You have someone who was reportedly a loud and obnoxious drunk living directly across from a respectably married woman for at least four months. How can you believe the respectably married woman would not recognize her neighbor?

It's not as though they hopped into cars and drove everywhere. They walked.

[John G]

You have someone who was reportedly a loud and obnoxious drunk living directly across from a respectably married woman for at least four months. How can you believe the respectably married woman would not recognize her neighbor?

It's not as though they hopped into cars and drove everywhere. They walked.

Well it could be due to the fact that, over a 4 month period, Maxwell may have had literally hundreds of "neighbours", or even encountered individuals visiting residents, or staying on a temporary basis. And many of these people would have enjoyed a drink-the fact that Maxwell suggested to "Kelly" that she should go to the Britannia, after being told, "I have the horrors of drink upon me", indicates she may have been one of them! Maybe you thought Dorset Street was a quite, sleepy cul de sac. Er, no! And this is further emphasized by the fact that even Maxwell only claims to have encountered Kelly twice in 4 months, despite her being an "obnoxious drunk living directly across" from her.

By the way, one of the encounters with "Kelly" was from "across the street", so that individual may not have even been a local resident.

Apart from the above reservations, your post makes perfect sense!

[packers stem]

You have someone who was reportedly a loud and obnoxious drunk living directly across from a respectably married woman for at least four months. How can you believe the respectably married woman would not recognize her neighbor?

It's not as though they hopped into cars and drove everywhere. They walked.

Hi curious .She would recognise her,it really is that simple
As would Lewis who would almost certainly have used the quiet courtyard on a regular basis to play the illegal game of pitch and toss .
I'm sure he saw Kelly leave and enter her room regularly
The dismissal of this evidence is a nonsense really

[John G]

Evening John



Not totally sure where Schwartz mentioned cachous but I'll leave that one.
Witnesses I doubt? Of course
Elizabeth Long clearly had to be mistaken.
After changing her name it if I remember she went from not being able to identify Chapman to a positive ID
Hopeless witness and the idea that jtr carried out the mutilations in broad daylight I'm the backyard of where dozens of people readying themselves for work would be able to watch is rediculous in my opinion yet many researchers believe it because of Mrs long/Darrell

Sarah Lewis,George Hutchinson and a few in Berner Street plus Lawende who could just have seen any couple.



David's research does indeed show that the press association put out partial reports varying but nothing conflicts. What is clear is the connection between 'dan' and Mary Jane drinking at 10 and it's quite clear from very early on that Lewis knew who he was talking about.

Ah poor Packer eh?
He told White initially that he'd seen nothing suspicious.
Of course he did....is a fruiterer selling fruit suspicious?
Only when he was approached about the grapes would he remember the couple, just common sense really.

I agree it is inconceivable that Lewis wasn't interviewed so where is the report? This goes also for Kennedy and there at least 2 press reports that positively state she had been interviewed . Presumably they landed in the same bin as the Kelly mortuary photos?



Nope. Maxwell, Lewis and the unidentified young woman corroborate each other though and that's the difference



Oh dear.... Again?
Ok John. Find me another random serial killer who has, by absolute fluke, found that his last 2 victims both used the same name or were believed to be that person on the day they were killed
In the 1891 census there were 104 Mary Kellys in London County between the ages of 25 and 45...
104 only.... Out of a population of about 4.5 million
It wasn't the common name in the South of England that some make it out to be.
If, you find another random killer who fits that pattern then we can discuss theories on another thread possibly.
Just one will do....
The final 40% of victims having the same uncommon name....I'll leave that with you rrob



Could you point this out to me please John.
It's not in the inquest report,nor in the IPN of the 17th or the Times of the 12th
Not that it's particularly relevant but interesting as I seem to remember someone once spotting something about protruding teeth so may back up Maxwell's claim if true

Hello Packers,

Well there are many reasons to doubt both Schwartz and Packers, but that's for another thread. Interesting that you dismiss Hutchinson's evidence, but accept Lewis'. I mean, at least Hutchinson was interviewed by an experienced detective and was, initially at least, believed. There's no record of Lewis's evidence being tested by anyone. All we have are a series of inconsistent press reports, which may, or may not, be accurate, an issue that you seem to conveniently ignore. That doesn't amount to significant evidence. It really doesn't.

As to what happened to Lewis' police report: disposed of in the nearest wastepaper bin would be my guess!

Not sure why you say Maxwell, Lewis and the mysterious "witness" corroborate each other. Could you please supply evidence of this?

Interesting last bit, though, concerning the "Kelly" coincidence. Of course, there are many apparent coincidences in this enquiry, such as Annie Chapman was one of the victims, and George Chapman is a major suspect. I mean how spooky is that? And then another major suspect happens to be James Kelly! Wow! Surely that can't be just a coincidence? And what about the fact that Liz Stride's boyfriend, who some suspect of her murder, lived at 38 Dorset Street and his name just happened to be Michael Kidney! I mean, can it really be just a coincidence that the next victim had a "kidney" removed, and the subsequent victim resided in Dorest Street? There's surely only so many coincidences one can accept without becoming really suspicious, right?

Anyway, I think we've finally determined the basis of your conspiracy theory. Now, I'm probably going out on a limb here, but am I right in thinking that Stephen Knight is one of your favourite Ripperologists?

[curious]

Well it could be due to the fact that, over a 4 month period, Maxwell may have had literally hundreds of "neighbours", or even encountered individuals visiting residents, or staying on a temporary basis. And many of these people would have enjoyed a drink-the fact that Maxwell suggested to "Kelly" that she should go to the Britannia, after being told, "I have the horrors of drink upon me", indicates she may have been one of them! Maybe you thought Dorset Street was a quite, sleepy cul de sac. Er, no! And this is further emphasized by the fact that even Maxwell only claims to have encountered Kelly twice in 4 months, despite her being an "obnoxious drunk living directly across" from her.

By the way, one of the encounters with "Kelly" was from "across the street", so that individual may not have even been a local resident.

Apart from the above reservations, your post makes perfect sense!

How funny you are, John.

Me thinks you doth protest too much.

[packers stem]

Hello Packers,

Well there are many reasons to doubt both Schwartz and Packers, but that's for another thread. Interesting that you dismiss Hutchinson's evidence, but accept Lewis'. I mean, at least Hutchinson was interviewed by an experienced detective and was, initially at least, believed. There's no record of Lewis's evidence being tested by anyone. All we have are a series of inconsistent press reports, which may, or may not, be accurate, an issue that you seem to conveniently ignore. That doesn't amount to significant evidence. It really doesn't.

As to what happened to Lewis' police report: disposed of in the nearest wastepaper bin would be my guess!

Not sure why you say Maxwell, Lewis and the mysterious "witness" corroborate each other. Could you please supply evidence of this?

Interesting last bit, though, concerning the "Kelly" coincidence. Of course, there are many apparent coincidences in this enquiry, such as Annie Chapman was one of the victims, and George Chapman is a major suspect. I mean how spooky is that? And then another major suspect happens to be James Kelly! Wow! Surely that can't be just a coincidence? And what about the fact that Liz Stride's boyfriend, who some suspect of her murder, lived at 38 Dorset Street and his name just happened to be Michael Kidney! I mean, can it really be just a coincidence that the next victim had a "kidney" removed, and the subsequent victim resided in Dorest Street? There's surely only so many coincidences one can accept without becoming really suspicious, right?

Anyway, I think we've finally determined the basis of your conspiracy theory. Now, I'm probably going out on a limb here, but am I right in thinking that Stephen Knight is one of your favourite Ripperologists?

Hi John
Don't remember Knight suggesting it wasn't Kelly in the room,may be mistaken though.
Forget about your minor coincidences John,come back when you've found said random serial killer lol
I'll wait...... A long time I suspect :-)

[curious]

Hi curious .She would recognise her,it really is that simple
As would Lewis who would almost certainly have used the quiet courtyard on a regular basis to play the illegal game of pitch and toss .
I'm sure he saw Kelly leave and enter her room regularly
The dismissal of this evidence is a nonsense really

Exactly.

But it is really is interesting that some posters must resort to being condescending and belittling when, at the end of the day:

A. None of this matters a whit and will change nothing and

B. Each poster here will have his/her own opinion about what really happened and no one will ever know whether he/she is right or not.

But ain't human nature fun to watch?