Can't get past Maxwell

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Aethelwulf

You make a good case but it does not account for Maxwell as you were open about stating. And therein lies the essence of this thread. It is highly unlikely that Maxwell could have seen MJK. Is there an alternative explanation for Maxwell's evidence (Yes - she was lying. Suggesting it was some kind of mistaken identity or mistake about the day is not at all convincing)? We have no reason to believe Maxwell was lying - she gains nothing from lying (as far as we know) and the police thought her honest and reliable. So it is highly unlikely she was lying.

So we are left with two equally unlikely situations, one of which must be true. In the absence of further data, I am inclined to believe that MJK was murdered later (9.00am ish) but as you say, that will spook those who believe Hutch was involved/the murderer and i am sure many will believe Maxwell lying is the more likely of the two scenarios.

very true. even if the id of JTR was somehow proven beyond all doubt, the kelly tod mystery and maxwell would remain, I am sure. If people have a suspect and he could fit, so be it (as long as it isn't totally ridiculous, as we have seen a lot of on here with it wasn't kelly' and conspiracy nonsense). as you know, I think bury is the best bet. as well as what i said before, he did also burn some of his wife's clothing in their fire and committed the crime in the early hours. with his day 'tweed suit' he also wore a soft felt hat, as described by hutch - perhaps he thought the white button boots and a tall silk hat was just a bit too much ha ha.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Leaving all conspiracies behind, If one takes the sighing as a mistaken identity such as Lizzie Albrook , it starts to make sense., She said she had seen the deceased in the Lodging houses, , Lizzie worked in them, , she stated that she [ Kelly] was wearing a shawl she had not seen her wearing for some time, maybe she had given/lent that to her friend Lizzie.? The only problem she surely would have realised her mistake once she had seen Lizzie at the inquest,?
Regards Richard,

[Robert St Devil]

The t.o.d. evidence and the Maxwell/Lewis sightings can be simply explained by MJK not being the Miller's Court victim.

Then m. I’d be interested in your rationalization why different inquest witnesses viewed her body in the mortuary, and all professed that the murdered woman was indeed Mary Kelly.

[mpriestnall]

Q: How much of Barnett's account of MJK's Irish and Welsh backstory has been corroborated to date?

A: Square root of bugger all!

Because?

[DJA]

She was a local girl.

[Aethelwulf]

Then m. I’d be interested in your rationalization why different inquest witnesses viewed her body in the mortuary, and all professed that the murdered woman was indeed Mary Kelly.

don't go there St, or if you do, be prepared to be listening to Out of Space by The Prodigy - I'm thinking in particular of the lyrics: 'I'll take your brain to another dimension, pay close attention' ha ha.

[Robert St Devil]

don't go there St, or if you do, be prepared to be listening to Out of Space by The Prodigy - I'm thinking in particular of the lyrics: 'I'll take your brain to another dimension, pay close attention' ha ha.

I’m certain a California dispensary doesn’t have anything than can compare with some of the smoke being blown in this thread. You may be right, wulf, i may need to step away from posing my cynical question to mpriest of:

why would a boyfriend or a landlord or a roommate or a neighbor or an acquaintance need to know her backstory in order to identify her body in the mortuary?

[mpriestnall]

I’m certain a California dispensary doesn’t have anything than can compare with some of the smoke being blown in this thread. You may be right, wulf, i may need to step away from posing my cynical question to mpriest of:

why would a boyfriend or a landlord or a roommate or a neighbor or an acquaintance need to know her backstory in order to identify her body in the mortuary?

She woudn't. Barnett said they lived together for about 18 months.

Please tell me how much of her Irish/Welsh backstory has been corroborated? Anyone? We all know the answer, don't we?

[mpriestnall]

Then m. I’d be interested in your rationalization why different inquest witnesses viewed her body in the mortuary, and all professed that the murdered woman was indeed Mary Kelly.

1. They expected it to be MJK.
2. The identification was by eyes and ears (or possibly hair). Not the most reliable means to identify someone.

The hands and feet would have been more reliable for Barnett to make the Id as they are more unique and have more details than say the eyes.

Like Wicks has suggested before, the corpse would have been wrapped in a shroud (or whatever the correct term
should be). Surely, if the identification was honest and genuine, they would have provided Barnett with the
best chance of making the most reliable means of identification ie the hands and feet. How unique are
eyes and ears compared to peoples hands and feet?

Appreciate your thoughts.

Also your efforts on JTR's handedness btw.

[Aethelwulf]

The hands and feet would have been more reliable for Barnett to make the Id as they, I would assert, or more unique and have more
details than say the eyes.

Also your efforts on JTR's handedness btw.

I've seen you bring this up many times before - hands and feet: who identifies someone by their hands and feet. were they webbed or something?

[mpriestnall]

I've seen you bring this up many times before - hands and feet: who identifies someone by their hands and feet. were they webbed or something?

Why identify a corpse by the lesser available optimal way?

Are you saying the eyes are a better and surer way for Barnett to identify MJK than her hands, feet?

Are you saying during the 18 months intimate relationship Barnett had MJK, he didn't take any notice of her hands or feet?

[Aethelwulf]

Why identify a corpse by the lesser available optimal way?

Are you saying the eyes are a better and surer way for Barnett to identify MJK than her hands, feet?

Are you saying during the 18 months intimate relationship Barnett had MJK, he didn't take any notice of her hands or feet?

i can only assume you have some weird fetish...

[Ms Diddles]

Why identify a corpse by the lesser available optimal way?

Are you saying the eyes are a better and surer way for Barnett to identify MJK than her hands, feet?

Are you saying during the 18 months intimate relationship Barnett had MJK, he didn't take any notice of her hands or feet?

Hi Martyn,

I've been giving this some consideration.

I've been with my partner for around fifteen years.

I'm sure that I would know his hair, eyes or hands anywhere.

His feet? Highly unlikely.

(Unless of course I had recently become bored, and amused myself by painting his toenails whilst he dozed in front of the telly, oblivious to my pedicure!!)

[mpriestnall]

i can only assume you have some weird fetish...

Called logic.

[Parisi North Humber]

I believe very little of MJK's back story as told by Barnett or any of the people who gave details regarding what she (mjk) had told them either at the inquest or to the press.
I don't wish to infer any witness was deliberately lieing but more that what they were told should be taken with a grain of salt.
One of my bones of contention is that as far as I am aware nobody stated that MJK spoke with any sort of accent.

Helen x