Was She Wrong?

[Doctored Whatsit]

The "quote" button isn't working for me!

The point I was trying to make earler is that Maxwell's evidence seemed to be that she knew Barnett and Kelly as a couple. If this is so, and that is what the evidence suggests, then she positively knew Kelly, and could not have confused her with someone else.

[scottnapa]

Hi Herlock,

Maxwell's statement was accepted by Abberline, and never varied, unlike other witnesses. I can't see any reason to doubt her. She is supported by other witnesses, some of whom may have been numbered among those who were prepared to testify but were denied by the coroner finishing the inquest prematurely. The milk vendor supported her timeline, and there was no reason that I can discern for her to have lied.

As you may be aware, I number amongst the heretics that consider that the body found in the room was not that of Mary Jane Kelly. Maxwell testified that Mary told her that she (Kelly) had thrown up in the street, and Maxwell testified that she had observed said vomit. Kelly told Maxwell that she was under the effects of excessive drink, so it is reasonable to conclude that to contents of her stomach ended up on the pavement, to be observed by Maxwell. But the autopsy recorded that there were undigested contents in the stomach. How could this be??

The answer is that Kelly was allowing her room to be used by other prostitutes, which is why Barnett left, and why McCarthy allowed her to retain her room, having struck a deal with her to share in the profits of her endeavours. So Kelly returns to her room and discovers that whoever has been allowed to use her room has been murdered. She staggers from the room, after having viewed the body, and throws up in the street just as Maxwell approaches. She returns to her room and, seeing the opportunity to start a new life, changes into the victims clothing, leaving the clothing that Maxwell saw her wearing in the room.

That is my current opinion FWIW.

Cheers, George

George
I appreciate your comments on Maxwell et al., but I can’t get my head around how the switch of bodies can go unnoticed. How could Mary Kelly a broke unfortunate leave town. She had no family to help her. Why hide the fact that she is alive anyway? She would have been famous if it became known that Mary Kelly has tricked fate and Jack The Ripper, too. This unnamed dead prostitute would be looked for by those who knew her. Hutchinson testimony creates a difficult timeline for another prostitute and another punter. Many of my questions are part of the Sugden observations listed above.
i have looked online and on this site for an article that explains the Mary Kelly is alive theory, but have found nothing.

[Darryl Kenyon]

In the JTR sourcebook P406 . Caroline Maxwell says that Mary [ in her inquest testimony ], was wearing a dark dress, black velvet body and a coloured wrapper around her neck.

This is what A1 [ google ] says about a Black Velvet body when I asked the question was black velvet expensive for women to wear in Victorian England -

Yes, black velvet was generally expensive in Victorian England, especially for women's clothing. Velvet, in general, was a luxurious fabric, and black dye, particularly a stable one, was more costly than other colors. This made black velvet garments, like a "body" (bodice or corset cover), a sign of wealth and social status.

Would Mary be able to afford such a piece of clothing . And if she did own such a garment why hadn't she pawned it for , say her rent arrears. And lastly would she wear such apparel first thing in the morning, hmmm

Regards Darryl

[kjab3112]

Daryl, let’s not forget her admittedly self told story, of the fancy west end period. She claimed to have retrieved many items of clothing, could this be one of the items she still had? This was also an area of many second hand market stalls etc and this could have been a fake item to attract a higher paying clientele, lifting her above the run of the mill streetwalker

[Tom_Wescott]

exactly Tom
weird though that she got her physical description wrong yet got the clothes right.

Not if she was shown the clothes that were left on the chair. Like Lawende was shown Kate's boots and bonnet. It would be only natural for her to describe them at the inquest.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[FrankO]

Hi all,

Not that I think it will solve anything, but I thought I’d take a different approach on the thread’s question. I see 3 main possibilities:

1. Maxwell did see Mary Jane, but the woman on the bed wasn’t her; she was killed during the night.
2. Maxwell saw someone whom she thought was Mary Jane Kelly, but Mary Jane was butchered during the night
3. Maxwell did see Mary Jane before she was slain between 9 and 10.30 am

Questions/problems kling to each of these possibilities.

1. Why, as far as we know, didn’t anyone come forward who missed the woman that was actually killed? It had to be a friend or asociate of Kelly’s, and presumably not a complete stranger to Miller’s Court. And it must not have been any friend or asociate, but one who at least had to have had very similar hair length, type, colour and quantity as Kelly did and not be significantly shorter or taller than her. And why did Kelly stick around Dorset Street for at least an hour (or 2)? Why was there nobody at the nearby pubs to confirm the stories of Kelly having bought at least one beer that morning or having gone to buy milk?
2. Why didn’t the woman that Maxwell saw come forward to put things right? It would certainly be odd if that woman was someone who was a familiar face in the neighbourhood.
3. Why did nobody see any man that could have been the Ripper that morning in Dorset Street or Miller’s Court? And why did the Ripper decide to deviate so majorly from his usual MO of killing during the nightly hours of lull? Why take this needless risk this time?

The first and perhaps major problem I see with situation number 1 would be that the woman on the bed would just have to have had a very similar head of hair and be about the same height as Kelly and, preferably, the same eye colour or a very similar one.

The obvious problem witn number 3 would be why would the Ripper have deviated from a succesful MO, why he would want to take the risk of being seen in daylight, when, undoubtedly, there were many possible witnesses out & about? Furthermore, it would also raise the question of how common it would have been for Kelly, or any other woman for that matter, to prostitute herself during the morning?

Feel free to shoot.

The best,
Frank

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi all,

Not that I think it will solve anything, but I thought I’d take a different approach on the thread’s question. I see 3 main possibilities:

1. Maxwell did see Mary Jane, but the woman on the bed wasn’t her; she was killed during the night.
2. Maxwell saw someone whom she thought was Mary Jane Kelly, but Mary Jane was butchered during the night
3. Maxwell did see Mary Jane before she was slain between 9 and 10.30 am

Questions/problems kling to each of these possibilities.

1. Why, as far as we know, didn’t anyone come forward who missed the woman that was actually killed? It had to be a friend or asociate of Kelly’s, and presumably not a complete stranger to Miller’s Court. And it must not have been any friend or asociate, but one who at least had to have had very similar hair length, type, colour and quantity as Kelly did and not be significantly shorter or taller than her. And why did Kelly stick around Dorset Street for at least an hour (or 2)? Why was there nobody at the nearby pubs to confirm the stories of Kelly having bought at least one beer that morning or having gone to buy milk?
2. Why didn’t the woman that Maxwell saw come forward to put things right? It would certainly be odd if that woman was someone who was a familiar face in the neighbourhood.
3. Why did nobody see any man that could have been the Ripper that morning in Dorset Street or Miller’s Court? And why did the Ripper decide to deviate so majorly from his usual MO of killing during the nightly hours of lull? Why take this needless risk this time?

The first and perhaps major problem I see with situation number 1 would be that the woman on the bed would just have to have had a very similar head of hair and be about the same height as Kelly and, preferably, the same eye colour or a very similar one.

The obvious problem witn number 3 would be why would the Ripper have deviated from a succesful MO, why he would want to take the risk of being seen in daylight, when, undoubtedly, there were many possible witnesses out & about? Furthermore, it would also raise the question of how common it would have been for Kelly, or any other woman for that matter, to prostitute herself during the morning?

Feel free to shoot.

The best,
Frank

Very reasonable considerations. Some would add that Maxwell was lying to protect someone. I think, if we try, we can find issues with almost any conclusion!

I personally opt for a murder during the night. The fire used to burn the clothes would not have been observed at night, but there would have been a lot of smoke considering what was burned, and the smoke would have been obvious in daylight. Beyond that I am undecided.

[FrankO]

Some would add that Maxwell was lying to protect someone.

Others may even add that the whole thing was orchestrated by Kelly in order for her to escape and start anew somewhere else. I prefer to look for simpler and more straight-forward explanations before considering anything else.

I think, if we try, we can find issues with almost any conclusion!

Seeing that there are so many little oddities, contradictions and holes in all of the evidence, I have no trouble at all agreeing with that, DW.

I personally opt for a murder during the night. The fire used to burn the clothes would not have been observed at night, but there would have been a lot of smoke considering what was burned, and the smoke would have been obvious in daylight. Beyond that I am undecided.

Good point. I'd opt for the victim being Kelly and, a bit less sure, that she was killed during the night.

[Wickerman]

. . .
i have looked online and on this site for an article that explains the Mary Kelly is alive theory, but have found nothing.

Do you remember what Barnet, and others, said about Mary Kelly's family details?

We were told Mary Kelly was in her early 20's, was born in Ireland, her family moved to Wales when she was young.
Mary had one sister, and seven brothers, 6 of which lived in London, one in the army.
Mary had been married to a collier, who died.

Given that any of the above could be erroneous, the witnesses were only recalling from memory, so some things may not be exactly as recounted, so keep that in mind.

Now, hypothetically, lets suppose we cannot find the real Mary Kelly in the genealogical records, who died in 1888, because the real Mary Kelly, did not die.
The real Mary Kelly was alive and well so, when she was found in census records, we naturally dismissed her.

This Mary Kelly, was born in Ireland in 1864, she turned up in the 1881 UK census at 17 years of age, the family living in Wales.
She had one younger sister named Elizabeth.
She had seven brothers.
We have a marriage certificate dated 1886.

So, if the real Mary Kelly was found alive, then who was found mutilated in room 13?

Barnet told us Mary had a cousin who lived in Cardiff, whom she visited and apparently led Mary into bad ways (prostitution), from Cardiff she moved to London.

As the real Mary was alive and well in the 1891 UK census, then my suspicion is, it was the cousin who moved to London, but used Mary's family details to avoid recognition.
Who would know Mary's family details better than her own cousin?
If you are going to adopt a false identity, use the identity of someone you know, the names of your family will be readily available when questioned.

Like I said, this is hypothetical, but it is based on what we know, and what has been uncovered.

Some details do not fit, Barnet said her father's name was John, maybe he remembered wrong or, perhaps the cousin's father was actually called John.
He also said one brother was called Henry, none of the living Mary's brothers were named Henry, we don't know if the cousin had any brothers.
Barnet said Mary married a collier named Davis or Davies, who died in an explosion, neither of which is true for the real Mary (who married a man named Jones), but we do not know if the cousin had been married.

Prater did say they all use false names, and the fact decades of research has not turned up one genuine Mary Kelly, who fit even most of the family details, and who died in 1888, strongly suggests to me, that Mary Jane Kelly was not the victims real name.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Do you remember what Barnet, and others, said about Mary Kelly's family details?

We were told Mary Kelly was in her early 20's, was born in Ireland, her family moved to Wales when she was young.
Mary had one sister, and seven brothers, 6 of which lived in London, one in the army.
Mary had been married to a collier, who died.

Given that any of the above could be erroneous, the witnesses were only recalling from memory, so some things may not be exactly as recounted, so keep that in mind.

Now, hypothetically, lets suppose we cannot find the real Mary Kelly in the genealogical records, who died in 1888, because the real Mary Kelly, did not die.
The real Mary Kelly was alive and well so, when she was found in census records, we naturally dismissed her.

This Mary Kelly, was born in Ireland in 1864, she turned up in the 1881 UK census at 17 years of age, the family living in Wales.
She had one younger sister named Elizabeth.
She had seven brothers.
We have a marriage certificate dated 1886.

So, if the real Mary Kelly was found alive, then who was found mutilated in room 13?

Barnet told us Mary had a cousin who lived in Cardiff, whom she visited and apparently led Mary into bad ways (prostitution), from Cardiff she moved to London.

As the real Mary was alive and well in the 1891 UK census, then my suspicion is, it was the cousin who moved to London, but used Mary's family details to avoid recognition.
Who would know Mary's family details better than her own cousin?
If you are going to adopt a false identity, use the identity of someone you know, the names of your family will be readily available when questioned.

Like I said, this is hypothetical, but it is based on what we know, and what has been uncovered.

Some details do not fit, Barnet said her father's name was John, maybe he remembered wrong or, perhaps the cousin's father was actually called John.
He also said one brother was called Henry, none of the living Mary's brothers were named Henry, we don't know if the cousin had any brothers.
Barnet said Mary married a collier named Davis or Davies, who died in an explosion, neither of which is true for the real Mary (who married a man named Jones), but we do not know if the cousin had been married.

Prater did say they all use false names, and the fact decades of research has not turned up one genuine Mary Kelly, who fit even most of the family details, and who died in 1888, strongly suggests to me, that Mary Jane Kelly was not the victims real name.

Hi Jon,

I think we all realise that "Mary Jane Kelly" who was murdered, was not really Mary Jane Kelly, but I was unaware that another Mary Jane Kelly with fairly similar major identity details had been identified. Jones and Davies are both very common names, so maybe easily misremembered. Do you have any further details?

[scottnapa]

Do you remember what Barnet, and others, said about Mary Kelly's family details?

We were told Mary Kelly was in her early 20's, was born in Ireland, her family moved to Wales when she was young.
Mary had one sister, and seven brothers, 6 of which lived in London, one in the army.
Mary had been married to a collier, who died.

Given that any of the above could be erroneous, the witnesses were only recalling from memory, so some things may not be exactly as recounted, so keep that in mind.

Now, hypothetically, lets suppose we cannot find the real Mary Kelly in the genealogical records, who died in 1888, because the real Mary Kelly, did not die.
The real Mary Kelly was alive and well so, when she was found in census records, we naturally dismissed her.

This Mary Kelly, was born in Ireland in 1864, she turned up in the 1881 UK census at 17 years of age, the family living in Wales.
She had one younger sister named Elizabeth.
She had seven brothers.
We have a marriage certificate dated 1886.

So, if the real Mary Kelly was found alive, then who was found mutilated in room 13?

Barnet told us Mary had a cousin who lived in Cardiff, whom she visited and apparently led Mary into bad ways (prostitution), from Cardiff she moved to London.

As the real Mary was alive and well in the 1891 UK census, then my suspicion is, it was the cousin who moved to London, but used Mary's family details to avoid recognition.
Who would know Mary's family details better than her own cousin?
If you are going to adopt a false identity, use the identity of someone you know, the names of your family will be readily available when questioned.

Like I said, this is hypothetical, but it is based on what we know, and what has been uncovered.

Some details do not fit, Barnet said her father's name was John, maybe he remembered wrong or, perhaps the cousin's father was actually called John.
He also said one brother was called Henry, none of the living Mary's brothers were named Henry, we don't know if the cousin had any brothers.
Barnet said Mary married a collier named Davis or Davies, who died in an explosion, neither of which is true for the real Mary (who married a man named Jones), but we do not know if the cousin had been married.

Prater did say they all use false names, and the fact decades of research has not turned up one genuine Mary Kelly, who fit even most of the family details, and who died in 1888, strongly suggests to me, that Mary Jane Kelly was not the victims real name.

Thank you for the overview. Very curious and compelling story.