MJK's Body Identification?

[c.d.]

What evidence?

Hello John,

You beat me to it. That was going to be my exact question.

c.d.

[John G]

Hello John,

You beat me to it. That was going to be my exact question.

c.d.

Hello c.d.,

Obviously great minds think alike!

[packers stem]

What evidence?

Eyewitnesses
Lack of physical features to identify
The only reported ID was from the window
The hair was matted with blood and gore according to a newspaper interview with Gabe therefore the colouring could well be affected
The eyes clearly can not be seen
There appears to be a presumption that the body is Kelly due to the location of the discovery and other than Barnett and McCarthy peeping through the window we've nothing else.
Let's once again remember the person who positively identified Eddowes as her sister.... Wrongly
It was reported that there was great difficulty in identifying Eddowes due to the mutilations. We need only compare the faces of Eddowes and Kelly to realise the difficulty in a positive ID

[John G]

Eyewitnesses
Lack of physical features to identify
The only reported ID was from the window
The hair was matted with blood and gore according to a newspaper interview with Gabe therefore the colouring could well be affected
The eyes clearly can not be seen
There appears to be a presumption that the body is Kelly due to the location of the discovery and other than Barnett and McCarthy peeping through the window we've nothing else.
Let's once again remember the person who positively identified Eddowes as her sister.... Wrongly
It was reported that there was great difficulty in identifying Eddowes due to the mutilations. We need only compare the faces of Eddowes and Kelly to realise the difficulty in a positive ID

But none of this demonstrates that Barnett's identification was necessarily wrong, or even probably wrong. And if it wasn't the woman whom Barnett had been living with, then what happened to her? How did she manage to apparently disappear into the ether? And who exactly was murdered?

[packers stem]

Hi,
Maurice Lewis sighting around 10am the 9th, would have been very unlikely, albeit just possible..I have always been intrigued by him admitting he was playing an illegal game of Pitch and toss in the court. when he saw MJK.that morning, no need to incriminate himself surely?
Regards Richard.

I think Maurice Lewis is one if the most believable reports we have.
If playing pitch and toss in the court then in all likelihood it was a good location to play it.
It's also likely that it was a regular pastime in the court and he would have probably have been well used to seeing Kelly come and go from her room.
An incorrect identification from him would be far less likely than from most in my opinion

[c.d.]

And yet the police apparently accepted Barnett's identification. I think it is reasonable to assume that there was more to it than simply asking Barnett is that Mary. I think it is reasonable to assume that they asked him on what basis are you making this determination.

But as I stated in a previous post, if you believe that Barnett lied or was simply wrong then who was the woman in the bed if not Mary? Why was a missing persons report not submitted to the police by the deceased woman's relatives? Where did Mary vanish to? How was she able to travel with apparently no money or her clothes or her possessions?

c.d.

[packers stem]

But none of this demonstrates that Barnett's identification was necessarily wrong, or even probably wrong. And if it wasn't the woman whom Barnett had been living with, then what happened to her? How did she manage to apparently disappear into the ether? And who exactly was murdered?

Hi John
For who was murdered there's the possibility that the sighting by the largely ignored Mrs Kennedy could come into play.
As for what happened to her, who knows,easy to disappear in those days, no family came forward anyway but as the last two victims were either using the name, or thought to be Mary Kelly on the day they died then she's hardly going to shout from the rooftops "here I am,you missed me again"
You're also presuming that Barnett and McCarthy were being honest

[packers stem]

And yet the police apparently accepted Barnett's identification. I think it is reasonable to assume that there was more to it than simply asking Barnett is that Mary. I think it is reasonable to assume that they asked him on what basis are you making this determination.

But as I stated in a previous post, if you believe that Barnett lied or was simply wrong then who was the woman in the bed if not Mary? Why was a missing persons report not submitted to the police by the deceased woman's relatives? Where did Mary vanish to? How was she able to travel with apparently no money or her clothes or her possessions?

c.d.

Missing persons report?? Really?
Barnett's ID was accepted due to the room presumably and it may have been felt that was enough.We have absolutely no evidence that either he or McCarthy were forced to view the body at a later date
I would turn it round and ask would you accept an ID from either if Barnett said Kelly had vanished and the body found in the street rather than the room?
Can't be presumed that money,clothes or help weren't forthcoming from somewhere

[c.d.]

By missing persons report I meant that we have no evidence that would have led the police to believe the body in the bed was someone other than Mary. Why is it so hard to believe that the family of the deceased might have expressed some concern over the disappearance of a loved one to the police especially when the Whitechapel murderer was on the loose?

It seems like you are trying to prove a negative. Yes, it is certainly possible that Barnett was wrong or lied or that McCarthy lied as well. It is also possible that the police were incompetent. But for me, I think it is much better to invoke Occam's razor and accept Barnett's identification until such evidence surfaces to refute it. Evidence not speculation.

c.d.

[packers stem]

By missing persons report I meant that we have no evidence that would have led the police to believe the body in the bed was someone other than Mary. Why is it so hard to believe that the family of the deceased might have expressed some concern over the disappearance of a loved one to the police especially when the Whitechapel murderer was on the loose?

It seems like you are trying to prove a negative. Yes, it is certainly possible that Barnett was wrong or lied or that McCarthy lied as well. It is also possible that the police were incompetent. But for me, I think it is much better to invoke Occam's razor and accept Barnett's identification until such evidence surfaces to refute it. Evidence not speculation.

c.d.

No Kelly family were forthcoming though CD so the argument about the missing persons family not coming forward clearly doesn't stand up.People disappeared all the time in these areas, the East end was full of destitute people who had long since lost contact with families
You're choosing to believe the identification I suspect because it fits whereas I'm more inclined to believe Maxwell and Lewis who saw her on more than one occasion.... When she was supposed to have already died some hours previously
I see no reason to place Barnett or McCarthy above maxwell or Lewis in terms of reliability or trust

[c.d.]

I meant the deceased's family (i.e., the woman in the bed) not Kelly's family coming forward to inquire about their missing loved one.

I believe the identification for the simple reason that I see no reason not to. Providing reasons for casting doubt on the identification is not the same as disproving it.

But another major problem arises if you choose to disbelieve Barnett. Who was the woman in Mary's bed and how did she get there? That is certainly no small problem.

c.d.

[John G]

No Kelly family were forthcoming though CD so the argument about the missing persons family not coming forward clearly doesn't stand up.People disappeared all the time in these areas, the East end was full of destitute people who had long since lost contact with families
You're choosing to believe the identification I suspect because it fits whereas I'm more inclined to believe Maxwell and Lewis who saw her on more than one occasion.... When she was supposed to have already died some hours previously
I see no reason to place Barnett or McCarthy above maxwell or Lewis in terms of reliability or trust

Hi Packers,

But Maxwell, by her own evidence, had only spoken to the woman she believed to be Kelly on two occasions over a four month period, and one of those instances was from "across the street."

As for Maurice Lewis, his evidence makes even less sense. Thus, he claimed to have seen the deceased, after 10:00am, drinking in the Britannia pub with several people. However, not one of these individuals came forward, and no one else claimed to have seen her around that time, and there surely must have been other pub- goers who would have seen her. Moreover, if her intention was to disappear, why was she still wandering around in public as late as 10:00am?

[GUT]

Hi Packers,

But Maxwell, by her own evidence, had only spoken to the woman she believed to be Kelly on two occasions over a four month period, and one of those instances was from "across the street."

As for Maurice Lewis, his evidence makes even less sense. Thus, he claimed to have seen the deceased, after 10:00am, drinking in the Britannia pub with several people. However, not one of these individuals came forward, and no one else claimed to have seen around that time. Moreover, if her intention was to disappear, why was she still wandering around in public as late as 10:00am?

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.

[packers stem]

I meant the deceased's family (i.e., the woman in the bed) not Kelly's family coming forward to inquire about their missing loved one.

I believe the identification for the simple reason that I see no reason not to. Providing reasons for casting doubt on the identification is not the same as disproving it.

But another major problem arises if you choose to disbelieve Barnett. Who was the woman in Mary's bed and how did she get there? That is certainly no small problem.

c.d.

I know you meant the family of the deceased and I used the non appearance of the Kelly family to prove that it wouldn't necessarily have been the case that a family would come forward.
There is no need to prove who it was at all in terms of the mystery,only in terms of sympathy for the poor victim.There was no shortage of destitute women in the area. The only thing of importance is whether or not it was Kelly. If it wasn't Kelly then you've got a case where the last two victims had both been thought to be 'mary kelly' on the day they died but were not her, therefore adding considerable weight to the theory that Mary Kelly was being sought......and probably saved,possibly even aided and conspired in the death of a substitute.
How she got in Kelly's bed isn't important but Kennedy's sighting could be important on that score
Clearly I can not prove the false identification without finding where Kelly disappeared to if it wasn't her but neither can anyone prove that either Maxwell or Maurice Lewis were mistaken

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,

But Maxwell, by her own evidence, had only spoken to the woman she believed to be Kelly on two occasions over a four month period, and one of those instances was from "across the street."

As for Maurice Lewis, his evidence makes even less sense. Thus, he claimed to have seen the deceased, after 10:00am, drinking in the Britannia pub with several people. However, not one of these individuals came forward, and no one else claimed to have seen her around that time, and there surely must have been other pub- goers who would have seen her. Moreover, if her intention was to disappear, why was she still wandering around in public as late as 10:00am?

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