MJK's Body Identification?

[John G]

Hi John
I've only spoken to my next door neighbour once in the time she's lived here but when I'm pulling out of the drive if she's outside we wave. I do know it's her.
How many times had Elizabeth Long spoke to Chapman?
Schwartz spoke to stride?
Lawende spoke to Eddowes?
In fact any of the witnesses we discuss?
Remembering the identifications by Maxwell, twice,Maurice Lewis, twice,and another unidentified witness who quite probably saw her talking to Barnett at around 10,were all in broad daylight. No darkness or alcohol affecting the sightings.
If she had been seen after the discovery then I'd agree but she wasn't. If she'd already spoken to Barnett she'd have had no reason to believe the body would be discovered so early. She may have thought a ten o clock disappearance was not an issue.
Hi Gut
We've discussed the late death before and I'm still yet to find any evidence anywhere that suggests fish and chips being available to buy as a breakfast allowing a later death meaning the victim almost certainly died in the early hours

Hi Packers,

But as Maxwell only claimed to have spoken to Kelly twice over a four month period, it's reasonable to postulate that she was mistaken. And, as noted in my earlier post, if Lewis was correct about the Britannia sighting I find it beyond belief that no one else would have remembered seeing her there, including the numerous people who were supposedly drinking with her.

The simple fact is that there's not the slightest evidence that Kelly was being "sought...probably saved possibly even aided and conspired in the death of a substitute." Therefore, taking an occam's razor approach, by far the simplest solution is that the woman who was killed was the woman known as Mary Kelly.

There is certainly no need to resort to unsupported grand conspiracy theories and extreme possibilities.

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,

But as Maxwell only claimed to have spoken to Kelly twice over a four month period, it's reasonable to postulate that she was mistaken. And, as noted in my earlier post, if Lewis was correct about the Britannia sighting I find it beyond belief that no one else would have remembered seeing her there, including the numerous people who were supposedly drinking with her.

The simple fact is that there's not the slightest evidence that Kelly was being "sought...probably saved possibly even aided and conspired in the death of a substitute." Therefore, taking an occam's razor approach, by far the simplest solution is that the woman who was killed was the woman known as Mary Kelly.

There is certainly no need to resort to unsupported grand conspiracy theories and extreme possibilities.

Hi John
Far more reasonable to assume Barnett was more likely to be mistaken than maxwell but I know people find it inconvenient.
Easier to cling to the belief of a lone maniac if we dismiss the most believable witnesses.
If this is the case why bother to read anything as clearly all witnesses and evidence become irrelevant.
You see, the idea of a lone serial killer is far more unbelievable than another motive in this case.
Serial killers who can remove a kidney in complete darkness are pretty much a rarity so there can be no real 'profiling' which is a list of probabilities as there are insufficient comparisons. I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence of any serial killer who has, by chance,hit on his last two victims only to find they were using the same uncommon name. For every Mary Kelly in London there were more than 43,000 people with another name yet jtr's last 40% of victims were using or believed to be using the name on the day of their death
There is, unfortunately, zero evidence of a lone serial killer committing these murders and this is why other theories will continue

[JadenCollins]

Why does everyone try so hard to avoid the topic of MJK not being the girl they found in her room? And don't start with evidence, what evidence? Barnett's statement, I'd rather believe Maxwell over some ex.

[Pierre]

Why does everyone try so hard to avoid the topic of MJK not being the girl they found in her room? And don't start with evidence, what evidence? Barnett's statement, I'd rather believe Maxwell over some ex.

Replacing one rather unknown victim with another unknown victim is not a solution. The principle will be: And what if the woman who was in the room was not that woman, but another woman? And if that other woman was another woman?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

It's that last sentence that, in my mind anyway, sees a theory that she was trying to escape fall apart.

If she wanted to get away from someone or something, why was she hanging around at 10:00 am? It just doesn't add up. Either Maxwell and Lewis were wrong, OR they were right and she was killed much much much later than thought.

Hi,

There is one hypothesis that could be relevant, if one believes that Mary Jane Kelly wanted to get away from Millers Court and that Maxwell and Lewis had a reason to lie.

Here it is:

Mary Jane Kelly was under-aged and kept as a prostitute by someone at Dorset Street / Miller´s Court. So people involved/people knowing about it lied to avoid prison.

Dr Phillips did not mention the age of the victim, nor did Dr Bond.

Here is the relevant part in the Criminal Law Amendment Act:

"6. Any person who, being the owner or occupier of any premises, or having, or acting or assisting in, the management or control thereof—

induces or knowingly suffers any girl of such age as is in this section mentioned to resort to or be in or upon such premises for the purpose of being unlawfully and carnally known by any man, whether such carnal knowledge is intended to be with any particular man or generally,

(1) shall, if such girl is under the age of thirteen years, be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life; and

(2) if such girl is of or above the age of thirteen and under the age of sixteen years, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour."

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1...acted/en/print

So are there any indications that Mary Jane Kelly would have been under aged?

1. In order to protect himself, Joe Barnett wanted to let people believe that Mary Jane Kelly was older.
2. Maxwell and Lewis were lying to hide the "fact" that Mary Jane Kelly wanted to get away. Her trying to escape would have been the trigger for killing her, since she would have posed a threat to people, had she succeeded.
3. The body on the bed looks young. The head is rather large compared to the body.
4. Mary Jane Kelly is younger than the other victims already: she could have been even younger.
5. Teenagers like to sing.

If someone would like to try the hypothesis, one should start looking for a Mary Jane Kelly born later.

Regards, Pierre

[JadenCollins]

Replacing one rather unknown victim with another unknown victim is not a solution. The principle will be: And what if the woman who was in the room was not that woman, but another woman? And if that other woman was another woman?

Regards, Pierre

I'm not replacing anyone, I'm just saying. We already know your so called theory Pierre and it doesn't make sense, but we still try to give it a chance, so why don't you?

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I also used to believe that Maxwell saw , and spoke to Mary Kelly, but part of her statement at the inquest suggests that she mistook her for Lizzie Allbrook, who also lived in the court, and what's more, worked at a lodging house in Dorset street.
''I have often seen her about in the lodging house''
One could imply that sums it up...
Regards Richard.

[packers stem]

Hi.
I also used to believe that Maxwell saw , and spoke to Mary Kelly, but part of her statement at the inquest suggests that she mistook her for Lizzie Allbrook, who also lived in the court, and what's more, worked at a lodging house in Dorset street.
''I have often seen her about in the lodging house''
One could imply that sums it up...
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard
The issue for me is that ripperology in general refuses to accept not only Maxwell but Maurice Lewis as well purely because their accounts simply do not fit the idea of a 'kosminsky' type assailant.
Yet the same people will say "but Elizabeth Long saw Chapman at 5.30" or "Cadosh heard her" or they'll talk about Schwartz, Lawende or Hutchinson in the same manner.
There's a lot to be said for knowing someone and a daylight sighting ahead of darkness especially with Victorian street lighting,compared to a sighting of someone you don't know.Had it not been for lewis I'd have more doubt but their timings pretty much match up also.
It's a case of distorting the available evidence to suit a theory and it's been an issue from day one.Accepting what's convenient and ignoring anything that poses a question.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Richard
The issue for me is that ripperology in general refuses to accept not only Maxwell but Maurice Lewis as well purely because their accounts simply do not fit the idea of a 'kosminsky' type assailant.
Yet the same people will say "but Elizabeth Long saw Chapman at 5.30" or "Cadosh heard her" or they'll talk about Schwartz, Lawende or Hutchinson in the same manner.
There's a lot to be said for knowing someone and a daylight sighting ahead of darkness especially with Victorian street lighting,compared to a sighting of someone you don't know.Had it not been for lewis I'd have more doubt but their timings pretty much match up also.
It's a case of distorting the available evidence to suit a theory and it's been an issue from day one.Accepting what's convenient and ignoring anything that poses a question.

and yet you totally fail to address Richards very plausible explanation.

Maxwell admitted she had only spoken to the woman who she thought was mary only a couple of times over the course of several months. that's not a lot.
Mary let friends sleep at her place. many women like mary lived in the court.
Don't you find it plausible, or at least possible, that who she thought was Mary was someone else?
even the coroner cautioned Maxwell.

[Pierre]

Hi.
I also used to believe that Maxwell saw , and spoke to Mary Kelly, but part of her statement at the inquest suggests that she mistook her for Lizzie Allbrook,who also lived in the court, and what's more, worked at a lodging house in Dorset street.
''I have often seen her about in the lodging house''
One could imply that sums it up...
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

That is possible. But why should she not have seen Aldbrook for three weeks? Wasn´t Aldbrook there during the threee weeks before the murder on Kelly?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

So are there any indications that Mary Jane Kelly would have been under aged?

1. In order to protect himself, Joe Barnett wanted to let people believe that Mary Jane Kelly was older.
2. Maxwell and Lewis were lying to hide the "fact" that Mary Jane Kelly wanted to get away. Her trying to escape would have been the trigger for killing her, since she would have posed a threat to people, had she succeeded.
3. The body on the bed looks young. The head is rather large compared to the body.
4. Mary Jane Kelly is younger than the other victims already: she could have been even younger.
5. Teenagers like to sing.

Pierre,

Despite listing five points after having asked if there are any indications that MJK was under 16, you have not included a single indication that she was under 16. The closest you have come is in point 3, suggesting that she looks "young" in MJK1 but have not specified under 16, and in point 5 when you suggested that teenagers like to sing but failed to exclude teenagers in the age range of 17-19. The other 3 points are just speculative argument, not indications of anything.

And let me ask you this. Can you refer me to any research that says that teenagers like to sing more than adults?

Also: Do you know of any primary sources that indicate that MJK was under 16?

In the absence of any such sources, and bearing in mind all the evidence at the inquest, I am going to suggest that it is nonsensical to claim that MJK was younger than 16 and that this theory might be best described as "a fairy tale".

[John G]

Hi John
Far more reasonable to assume Barnett was more likely to be mistaken than maxwell but I know people find it inconvenient.
Easier to cling to the belief of a lone maniac if we dismiss the most believable witnesses.
If this is the case why bother to read anything as clearly all witnesses and evidence become irrelevant.
You see, the idea of a lone serial killer is far more unbelievable than another motive in this case.
Serial killers who can remove a kidney in complete darkness are pretty much a rarity so there can be no real 'profiling' which is a list of probabilities as there are insufficient comparisons. I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence of any serial killer who has, by chance,hit on his last two victims only to find they were using the same uncommon name. For every Mary Kelly in London there were more than 43,000 people with another name yet jtr's last 40% of victims were using or believed to be using the name on the day of their death
There is, unfortunately, zero evidence of a lone serial killer committing these murders and this is why other theories will continue

Hi Packers,

Okay, let's look at what Maxwell actually says. According to her inquest testimony she first saw Kelly between 8:00am to 8:30am, and then again, between 8:00am and 9:00am, outside the Britannia, although this was "at some distance". Moreover, on the first occasion Maxwell asked her, "...Why don't you go to Mrs Ringers [The Britannia] and have a pint of beer." Kelly, allegedly, responded, " I have already been there and had it, but I have brought it up again."

So there you have it. Apparently Kelly had been wandering around an intensely overcrowded neighbourhood for at least half an hour, in broad daylight, but we're expected to believe that only Maxwell noticed her during this period, as not a single other witness came forward- including all of the pub-goers who would have been present in the Britannia, and the barman who presumably served her with drink.

I'm sorry but this isn't remotely tenable. Either Maxwell was an attention seeker, or she got the days of the sighting mixed up, or she was confusing Kelly with someone else. It's also worth noting that the first sighting was from "across the street" and the second "at some distance."

I would just add, for completeness, that even if Maxwell was correct in her evidence then it in no way precludes the possibility that the woman murdered in Miller's Court was MJK, i.e. on the basis that the murder occurred after 8:30am.

[John G]

and yet you totally fail to address Richards very plausible explanation.

Maxwell admitted she had only spoken to the woman who she thought was mary only a couple of times over the course of several months. that's not a lot.
Mary let friends sleep at her place. many women like mary lived in the court.
Don't you find it plausible, or at least possible, that who she thought was Mary was someone else?
even the coroner cautioned Maxwell.

Ho Abby,

Exactly. And one of those two occasions was from across the street. And, as the coroner sceptically opined, "And yet you say you had only spoken to her twice previously; you knew her name and she knew yours?"

And even Maxwell conceded, "She was a young woman who never associated with anyone."

[John G]

Correction that should be Hi Abby in previous post! Obviously a major typing malfunction!

[GUT]

Hi.
I also used to believe that Maxwell saw , and spoke to Mary Kelly, but part of her statement at the inquest suggests that she mistook her for Lizzie Allbrook, who also lived in the court, and what's more, worked at a lodging house in Dorset street.
''I have often seen her about in the lodging house''
One could imply that sums it up...
Regards Richard.

If it wasn't Kelly I think that's the mos logical explanation.