MJK's Body Identification?

[Elamarna]

Hi All,

Apologies.

Particularly to Pierre, there is a mistake on post #179, I have mucked the "quote facility" up and it says posted by Pierre, actually it is the response to Pierre's post by Packers stems which I was quoting.

steve

[packers stem]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;374732]

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

Hi Steve
Could it be that casual acquaintances is as good as it gets?
The same theorists who claim misidentification will use sightings of non acquaintances as evidential such as Lawende, Elizabeth Long etc
If we are to believe ANY witnesses at all,top of the list have to be Maxwell and Lewis
It's pretty clear that is Lewis confused anything at all it was Barnett for his brother but he stated that he lived with Kelly until 2 weeks previously. Makes it clear he knew them as a couple
As for Maxwell she stated she knew Kelly as Mary Jane....
Thus ruling out Prater,Allbrook/Harvey, Sarah Lewis etc
I see no real reason to dismiss either

[packers stem]

Like you,I don't know why the quote thing has messed up, seems to go back to when Pierre first quoted me :-)

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=packers stem;374739]

Hi Steve
Could it be that casual acquaintances is as good as it gets?
The same theorists who claim misidentification will use sightings of non acquaintances as evidential such as Lawende, Elizabeth Long etc
If we are to believe ANY witnesses at all,top of the list have to be Maxwell and Lewis
It's pretty clear that is Lewis confused anything at all it was Barnett for his brother but he stated that he lived with Kelly until 2 weeks previously. Makes it clear he knew them as a couple
As for Maxwell she stated she knew Kelly as Mary Jane....
Thus ruling out Prater,Allbrook/Harvey, Sarah Lewis etc
I see no real reason to dismiss either

Dear packers Stem


People such as:

"such as Lawende, Elizabeth Long etc "

Did not claim to know the victim, only that they thought it was the victim they saw, that is a big difference.

and when you say:

"If we are to believe ANY witnesses at all,top of the list have to be Maxwell and Lewis "


Sorry I see Absolutely Nothing to support that statement!

You say Lewis knew Kelly and Barnett were a couple, well I see people walking holding hands, and thus know they are a couple, that does not mean I know them.

With Mrs Maxwell you say, she knew her as "Mary Jane"; there are two points to be made here:

1. We do not know this is how she normally referred to Kelly, once the Murder had taken place and people believed they knew who it was, she may well have said that .

2. To refer to someone by first name does not mean you know them, it means you know of them, and probably where they live.
Example Mike lives 8 doors from me, I do not know his surname or anything about him. Other neighbours mention him when talking to me, however am not 100% sure would know him if I saw him in the Pub.



yes the quote certain plays up at times.

regards

Steve

[packers stem]

Hi Steve

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.

Kelly it seems was known to both.
The only evidence we have from either Barnett or McCarthy as identification was a peep through the window and nothing else. No mention of the mortuary during the inquest, no mention of it in Barnett's testimony or that of McCarthy.
It appears likely that the authorities were happy with the window ID
I would suggest looking for eyes or ears in the MJK photos that Barnett is supposed to have identified

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.

Depends totally on the individual involved.
From my own experience I attended my father's funeral in February. My ex wife also attended who unfortunately has been suffering from lung cancer and is undergoing chemo. I'm ashamed to say it took me 10-15 seconds before I even recognised her she'd altered so much.
Thankfully none of us have ever had to recognise a loved one in the state of the body in millers court and we can only guess.
One woman identified Eddowes incorrectly as her sister remember.
We are also presuming that Barnett was being honest in his identification.

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?

It is,however,fairly safe to assume that the fish and potatoes was not bought for breakfast.
If a foodstuff that generally takes 1-3 hours to digest all of a sudden takes 10 hours to suit a theory I think it's stretching things slightly.
You're right in saying we don't know when she last ate but fish supper was supplied by street vendors at pub closing. By 4 the breakfast traders were appearing

[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

Hi,
I don't have a theory to hold on to.

However, a poor person eating whatever is available makes sense to me, and having leftover fish and chips does not stretch anything -- to my way of thinking and as I know people and food choices.

The morning sightings and onset of rigor do influence me in what I suspect the time of death might have been. HOWEVER, there are so many variables that surely the condition of the body must influence rigor onset, etc., that my mind remains wide open.

For my mind, the timing of the meal can not be determined by the content of that meal. You consider it a "probability is that the victim bought, or was bought, a fish supper the night before."

Considering that probable and knowing the condition of Kelly's finances, I see it as extremely probable that if she was fortunate enough for someone to buy her a meal, she would tuck a few bites away for the next day as she probably had no idea where her next meal was coming from.

[packers stem]

Hi Steve

Dear packers Stem


People such as:

"such as Lawende, Elizabeth Long etc "

Did not claim to know the victim, only that they thought it was the victim they saw, that is a big difference.

I agree completely
Pointless referring to them really as of any importance. When theorists say things like 'we know Chapman was seen by Long ' it makes me cringe

and when you say:

"If we are to believe ANY witnesses at all,top of the list have to be Maxwell and Lewis "


Sorry I see Absolutely Nothing to support that statement!

I'll go with daylight,sticking with one name and not changing it from one statement to the next and providing enough in the statements to suggest that they did know the person

You say Lewis knew Kelly and Barnett were a couple, well I see people walking holding hands, and thus know they are a couple, that does not mean I know them.

He said she lived with 'dan' till a couple of weeks prior. That's a pretty good indicator that he just mixed up the Barnett's in my view but knew who he was really meaning.

With Mrs Maxwell you say, she knew her as "Mary Jane"; there are two points to be made here:

1. We do not know this is how she normally referred to Kelly, once the Murder had taken place and people believed they knew who it was, she may well have said that .

2. To refer to someone by first name does not mean you know them, it means you know of them, and probably where they live.
Example Mike lives 8 doors from me, I do not know his surname or anything about him. Other neighbours mention him when talking to me, however am not 100% sure would know him if I saw him in the Pub.

But there's a very good chance you may recognise Mike and even be able to place him as your neighbour
With recognition, some people are considerably better than others, there's no doubt about that.We have no reason to presume that Maxwell and Lewis come into the weaker category and that Barnett or McCarthy are blessed as super recognisers

[packers stem]

Hi,
I don't have a theory to hold on to.

However, a poor person eating whatever is available makes sense to me, and having leftover fish and chips does not stretch anything -- to my way of thinking and as I know people and food choices.

The morning sightings and onset of rigor do influence me in what I suspect the time of death might have been. HOWEVER, there are so many variables that surely the condition of the body must influence rigor onset, etc., that my mind remains wide open.

For my mind, the timing of the meal can not be determined by the content of that meal. You consider it a "probability is that the victim bought, or was bought, a fish supper the night before."

Considering that probable and knowing the condition of Kelly's finances, I see it as extremely probable that if she was fortunate enough for someone to buy her a meal, she would tuck a few bites away for the next day as she probably had no idea where her next meal was coming from.

Hi curious
I've only ever gone with the evidence in front of me
As I believe the TOD is considerably earlier than breakfast time and I believe the morning sightings as I find no reason not to what option do you think remains?

[curious]

He said she lived with 'dan' till a couple of weeks prior. That's a pretty good indicator that he just mixed up the Barnett's in my view but knew who he was really meaning.



But there's a very good chance you may recognise Mike and even be able to place him as your neighbour
With recognition, some people are considerably better than others, there's no doubt about that.We have no reason to presume that Maxwell and Lewis come into the weaker category and that Barnett or McCarthy are blessed as super recognisers

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.

[curious]

Hi curious
I've only ever gone with the evidence in front of me
As I believe the TOD is considerably earlier than breakfast time and I believe the morning sightings as I find no reason not to what option do you think remains?

Interesting. I've examined that option myself.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=packers stem;374742]Hi Steve



"Kelly it seems was known to both.
The only evidence we have from either Barnett or McCarthy as identification was a peep through the window and nothing else. No mention of the mortuary during the inquest, no mention of it in Barnett's testimony or that of McCarthy.
It appears likely that the authorities were happy with the window ID
I would suggest looking for eyes or ears in the MJK photos that Barnett is supposed to have identified"


The important word here is "seems" that is not a certainty. has many have debated.

The evidence of an id you refer to is a newspaper report.
Given that we do not have all the reports of the inquest, again we are relying on newspaper reports, by the time of the inquest it had generally been accepted who the victim was, thus they may not have reported such, the reports are certainly not verbatim!

Lack of an official id report DOES NOT mean one did not take place. So much documentation as been lost, or destroyed in WWII.
It seems probably that a more formal Id did take place, if only because this was the normal accepted practice. Unfortunately without the full inquest papers we will never know.


"Depends totally on the individual involved.
From my own experience I attended my father's funeral in February. My ex wife also attended who unfortunately has been suffering from lung cancer and is undergoing chemo. I'm ashamed to say it took me 10-15 seconds before I even recognised her she'd altered so much.
Thankfully none of us have ever had to recognise a loved one in the state of the body in millers court and we can only guess.
One woman identified Eddowes incorrectly as her sister remember.
We are also presuming that Barnett was being honest in his identification. "



I am sorry for that lose, however we are talking about someone seen the day before by Barnett.
Yes Eddowes was misidentified as the sister of someone else.
However and this is a genuine question, do we know when the woman had last seen her sister? this will make a difference.

Certainly glad I have never been in that position.

As for your last sentence, can I please ask where does this idea come from?
Is there ANY EVIDENCE to suggest he was not honest about the ID.


"It is,however,fairly safe to assume that the fish and potatoes was not bought for breakfast.
If a foodstuff that generally takes 1-3 hours to digest all of a sudden takes 10 hours to suit a theory I think it's stretching things slightly.
You're right in saying we don't know when she last ate but fish supper was supplied by street vendors at pub closing. By 4 the breakfast traders were appearing"

Sorry this is a misunderstanding when you sleep digestion slows, and even more so when you die. digestion requires energy!

Frozen mammoths have been found with stomachs of partially digested food.

If she ate at say 12, slept a little, TOD estimate could be about 3am-4am, a little earlier if she did not sleep.
It is suggested in the Mackenzie murder that such food was still being served well after midnight. pubs often closed at 2 or so.

At the end of the day TOD by stomach remains is only An Estimate and should be treated as such.

Given that I see no reason not to accept the Victim as the person known as MJK, a death at between 2am-5am fits the evidence of stomach contents, especially if she ate after midnight

Packers I fear we will not agree on this subject, you are obviously very committed to the view you hold.

yours

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Packers Stem

just going to make a couple of comments:

"I'll go with daylight,sticking with one name and not changing it from one statement to the next and providing enough in the statements to suggest that they did know the person"

Going with "daylight" as opposed to what?
Barnett ? that I am afraid proves nothing to me.
Are you comparing her to witnesses at other murders, if so that is pointless, we are after all discussing if her ID is correct.

Yes she knew the victims name, but we do not know if she knew the full name before the murder!
What else did she provide to suggest she "knew" , rather than "knew of" Kelly.

It is highly likely that she believed what she said.
If so why should she change her story, indeed if she had changed it at the inquest, would it not be extremely embarrassing to say the least, and something she would refrain from doing if at all possible.



"He said she lived with 'dan' till a couple of weeks prior. That's a pretty good indicator that he just mixed up the Barnett's in my view but knew who he was really meaning."


Actually what that suggests to me is that he knew Dan, knew his surname, and knew that someone of that name had recently split for someone called Mary who lived in Millers Court. That interpretation is also valid I think.

We are not going to agree on this

All the best

Steve

[Pierre]

Hi Packers Stem

just going to make a couple of comments:

"I'll go with daylight,sticking with one name and not changing it from one statement to the next and providing enough in the statements to suggest that they did know the person"

Going with "daylight" as opposed to what?
Barnett ? that I am afraid proves nothing to me.
Are you comparing her to witnesses at other murders, if so that is pointless, we are after all discussing if her ID is correct.

Yes she knew the victims name, but we do not know if she knew the full name before the murder!
What else did she provide to suggest she "knew" , rather than "knew of" Kelly.

It is highly likely that she believed what she said.
If so why should she change her story, indeed if she had changed it at the inquest, would it not be extremely embarrassing to say the least, and something she would refrain from doing if at all possible.



"He said she lived with 'dan' till a couple of weeks prior. That's a pretty good indicator that he just mixed up the Barnett's in my view but knew who he was really meaning."


Actually what that suggests to me is that he knew Dan, knew his surname, and knew that someone of that name had recently split for someone called Mary who lived in Millers Court. That interpretation is also valid I think.

We are not going to agree on this

All the best

Steve

Hi Steve,

I think Packers Stem should read this: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9540

Regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

Hi Steve,

I think Packers Stem should read this: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9540

Regards, Pierre

Just finished laughing Pierre
Thank you, you can add it to your secret door stuff
It's utter drivel in my view and means nothing at all

[packers stem]

Hi Steve

Going with "daylight" as opposed to what?
Barnett ? that I am afraid proves nothing to me.
Are you comparing her to witnesses at other murders, if so that is pointless, we are after all discussing if her ID is correct.

It does though add more strength than had the sighting been at night. Even I would doubt it at night, I would also doubt it without Lewis plus one another but because of that I can not shake it

Yes she knew the victims name, but we do not know if she knew the full name before the murder!
What else did she provide to suggest she "knew" , rather than "knew of" Kelly.

She knew her as 'mary jane' same as Lewis
I see no issue with that

It is highly likely that she believed what she said.
If so why should she change her story, indeed if she had changed it at the inquest, would it not be extremely embarrassing to say the least, and something she would refrain from doing if at all possible.

I don't believe she did change her story. She was pretty solid throughout. Sometimes newspaper reporters alter wording slightly but very little changed of any note

I think you are right Steve, sometimes have to agree to disagree ;-)