McCarthys thoughts

[richardnunweek]

Hi everyone.
Some time ago kellys landlords, great-grandaughter Fiona Kendall posted on Casebook, an intresting insight regarding the events at Millers court.
She claimed that her grandfather, who in 1888, was 14 years of age, remembered Mary Kelly as being pretty ,and described her hair.
She also taked about how her great-grandmother parcelled up kellys personal belongings and sent them to kellys brother, who was in the army, he being concerned that his sister being a prostitute might spoil his chances of promotion.
All fascinating , however the most intresting snippit, was the tale of a man calling at the court demanding that Mary returned some stolen property of his, and Fionas account of McCarthy despatching him in true 'McCarthy style'.
Taking this incident into account, and Fionas insistance, that all her family knew who the killer was, and why he committed the murders, one asks the question 'Was the visitor the whitechapel killer?
Clearly such a man would have had to search intensively to find Mjk, he would hardly just turn up...
I ask the question.
Were the others stepping stones to track Mary down.?
Lets look at what we know.
The court residents knew the victim as Mary Jane.
The name Kelly obviously was an 'alias'of Barnett. to quote McCarthy 'She came to live with a man called kelly, and posed as his wife, therefore became known as Mary jane Kelly.
That quotation appears to suggest that originally McCarthy let the room to one Joseph Kelly, and that person was actually Barnett, mayby using his girlfriends maiden name.
Lets speculate that the killer learned that the women he was after, lived with a man named kelly, and it was by chance that he came across Eddowes, who also lived with a man of the same name, and lets further speculate that he asked her 'Do you know of a woman , that lives with a man named kelly'?
The reply being' Yes me dearie'
Not you,.. a woman younger.
Well when I dossed in Dorset street, there was a woman living in Millers court living with a man of that name.
The above scenerio, might explain how such a visit that McCarthy witnessed might have occured.
I appreciate we are heading in the direction of 'Screaming lord Sutchs ' record which repeatedly asks 'Is your name Mary Kelly'?, but it is a possibility that the killer was so desperate to take revenge on Kelly , that the others were despatched incase MJK became aware of being sought after.
Whatever scenerio one uses, it would have been extremely fascinating to have learnt from Fiona more on this .
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

This is fascinating , Richard..

I take it that you don't believe that JtR killed Kelly, then ? (I can't remember).
I only know that you think that she was the woman Maxwell saw, and her killer was a man seen later outside a pub with *her*.

MJK's Killer would know what MJK had in her tiny room.

[packers stem]

Hi Richard
All a bit bizarre the supposed statement by McCarthy.Must admit i've never come across that one before.
It suggests he doesn't know her real name but how can that be the case if his wife was busy parcelling up her stuff to send to her brother?Now if McCarthy could just tell us her brothers name...

Something a bit contived about this me thinks,along the barnett jackanory lines.

Rubyretro ,I do believe that richard is of the opinion that Kelly was killed about 9.00,you are of the opinion she was killed about 3.00-4.00 ,i'm of the opinion she wasn't killed at all ,but wouldn't this webby be boring if we all agreed.

[claire]

It's a shame Fiona was given such short shrift--particularly given the absolutely random and unfounded theories permitted to proliferate on here! Still, I think the statement about McCarthy seeing off a man demanding the return of property could quite easily stand without the rest of the suppositions you make, Richard, as interesting as they may be.

For example, if Kelly had taken off with someone's property, there is every chance he would know where she lived: particularly if he were a client of hers. Moreover, if she had stolen his property, presumably there is a reasonable chance he would know what she looks like...and not wander around asking much older women if they knew someone called that. What I am saying is that a person who's been robbed by someone is far more likely to have their description than their name.

Rubyretro, Richard states that the man intent on wreaking revenge on MJ dispatched the other women so that MJ wouldn't find out he was looking for her; hence, MJ's killer was likely the killer of the others.

Richard, I'm sorry, but I just find it implausible: I can understand someone being irritated at having had things stolen, but I don't know that this would lead them to hunt down the woman who had taken them, brutally murdering and mutilating a series of women along the way. And, if you were on the lookout for someone--why do it bei Nacht und Nebel? Why not in the daytime?

[tnb]

Remember that we have the tale of Kelly's 'father' coming to London to seek her out some time before her murder, and Kelly in turn 'lying low' to avoid being found. If (big if) there is a link with this alleged incident after her murder, then we have 2 intriguing possibilities (feel free to add more if I have missed any!):

1. The man WAS Kelly's father as he stated on the first instance and on the second instance (to McCarthy) he either was after some property, or on that occasion he was spinning a yarn, for whatever reason.

2. The man WAS NOT Kelly's father and this was simply a 'front' - either the stolen property tale to McCarthy was actually the truth, or more likely it was simply another tall tale to try to achieve his aim, whatever that may have been.

The clincher is that if these two men are the same, then he was clearly not just looking for a live MJK (as he would have been in the popular scenario that it was her father simply trying to take her away from her 'new life') but had some reason to be interested in something about her, her life or something in her possesion AFTER her death. To my mind this would seem to lean towards scenario 2 above.

By the way, I have named MJK as Kelly in the above purely for the purpose of clarity, but I do think Richard's theory about the surname is an interesting one.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Just to clarify matters.
My 'B movie' plot is pure speculation, athough it is recorded in print,that both Eddowes, and MJK, lived with men called kelly, at least McCarthy was initially under that impression, one wonders if he only found out the male occupant was infact Barnett after Mjks death..[ the Times report of the 1oth November appears to give that impression] ie'She came to live with a man called Kelly, and because the deseased 'posed' as his wife, became known as Mary jane Kelly',.
The other residents knew her as simply Mary Jane.
I have the impression that the surname Barnett only appeared when he was asked for his name by the police.
I am well aware that any person seeking out Mary would have a description of her appearance, but correct me if I am mistaken, fiona remarked that the visitor knew her from some time past , when she would have been, better attired, younger, and more attractive, especially if her tales of fine dresses were the truth.
To describe kelly as she was would not have rung a bell with anyone in that depraved area., not to mention the vast population of the east end.
He may simply have had only the information[ mayby from Eddowes]
that a woman of that description, may be living with a man called kelly in Dorset street.
Eddowes was alleged to have stayed just a few feet from room 13 at some point, and could well have remembered that name as it was the same as her fellas.
As the next victim was MJK, we cant ignore that possibility, he may well have gone to town on poor Kate as he knew he was getting warmer, in tracing down a woman who he hated with a passion, [ speculation].
Question,
Why not strike her down in the street just like the others?
If the tale of a stolen watch was true[ fiona] it must have had great sentimental value, to have gone to all that trouble, and of course it may have been in her room, not on her person, so he had to carry out his revenge whilst in that room.
He may even have lit the fire, not to give light for his deeds, but to search for something.
All speculation folks and a different approach, but taking everything into account, including Hutchinsons description , it could well be that Astracan was infact the killer all along.
Regards Richard.

[curious]

ie'She came to live with a man called Kelly, and because the deseased 'posed' as his wife, became known as Mary jane Kelly',.
The other residents knew her as simply Mary Jane.
I have the impression that the surname Barnett only appeared when he was asked for his name by the police.

Very interesting, Richard, and that would be a good explanation why Mary Jane remains untraceable.

He would not have struck her down in the street because she had something he wanted and it was more likely to be in her room than on her person.

However, would she really have been friendly to a man she needed to be dodging, as Hutchinson reported she was "Come along, my dear" -- that scenario does not ring true if she had taken something from him.


On the other hand, as has been pointed out on this thread, her stuff could not have been parceled up and sent to her family if her name was unknown (BUT since she was supposedly behind in the rent, anything left in the room McCarthy could rightfully hold on to).

Interesting, all the way around.

I don't really get the killing all the others to get to Mary Jane Kelly. But I realize I can't even imagine someone who feels no empathy or remorse -- my brain just doesn't get that.

Wasn't there some discussion that perhaps Annie Chapman was also being sought, and the person who killed the earlier women stopped after Chapman -- I read that somewhere here also.

IF Eddowes was killed because she was using the alias, then he must have been following her around for as much as 24 hours -- depending on whether she pawned the boots the night before or that morning, when she first used the name of ??Jane Kelly?? In that case, once she left the jail was his first chance to get her alone -- and her things did appear to have been gone through.

Like you, I believe the name coincidence is too great to be a mere coincidence and that these two murders must be tied together someway. I've not totally decided how, just yet.

And apparently like you, I suspect (but remain somewhat undecided) that the killing occurred after the mid-morning sighting -- because of the multiple morning sightings and because of the rigor (but I'm unsure whether rigor would proceed in the known way for a body so badly mutilated, since it's brought on by chemical change in the muscles. Plus, with so few bodies in a similar state, how can anyone be sure?) In the normal course of things, someone killed around 4:30 should have been in full rigor at the time Kelly's body was examined, not just starting.

Also, Packers Stem, I'm interested in your theory that it was not Mary Jane in the room and would love to hear what you think happened.

I would love to think she escaped, but then some poor woman didn't. Any ideas on who that might have been?
curious

[richardnunweek]

Hello Curious.
Like yourself I too favour a daylight killing with Kelly, although there are still many hurdles to overcome.
Question.
Was both Hutchinson and Maxwell being honest?
Answer Yes....The mentioning of a hanky clinches it for me.
Was Maurice Lewis being honest.?
Answer. Yes, freely admitting that he was taking part in an illegal game, has the hallmarks of truth.
Explain the cry of murder heard around 4am?
Answer.. Mrs prater suggested that it was like 'awakening from a nightmare', which fits in nicely with Lotties version told to kit watkins three years after the murder.
Rigor Mortis...modern medical opinion suggests that T.O.D in the case of Kelly would not be conclusive.
Remains of food...could have been, from many hours before, and given the state of the body pure guesswork.
In my opinion taking the view that both Hutch/Maxwell /M Lewis , are being truthful, and accepting the cry of 'Oh murder' was kelly having a reocurance of a nightmare, especially as the initial dream had the subject of murder, and the words heard were apt to say the least...
I believe the murderer followed Mary back to her room., and that the man Maxwell saw was the killer.
Regards Richard.

[Pontius2000]

I'm not following this thread exactly. where is it documented that MJK lived with a man named Kelly (other than her own family)? everything I've ever read says she married a man named Davies or Davis, that she lived with 2 Josephs- Fleming and Barnett, and possibly a man named Morganstone. From what I've read, Barnett seemed to be pretty well known to everybody in the immediate area by MJK's friends. why would he be using the surname Kelly?


Do you have a link to the original thread by McCarthy's descendant?


I personally don't buy into the whole killing the other women to get to MJK thing. for one, she was younger, better looking, and had her own place. doesn't strike me as the type who would be hanging out with, or known to, the other victims. the killings to me seem to be a pretty steady escalation.

[packers stem]

I would love to think she escaped, but then some poor woman didn't. Any ideas on who that might have been?
curious

Hi Curious
My thinking on this is quite straightforward really.
I don't believe the medical testimony could be so wide of the mark as to make a 9.00 am murder a possibility not to mention the 'fish and potatoes' should have been digested by about 3 hours max(there is an excellent dissertation on annie chapman's potato meal which explains this).As it's rare for us to eat fish'n'chips for our brekkie in the uk we can reasonably presume that was the supper of the victim.This puts TOD at about 4.00am max.
Secondly Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis.Who are we to dismiss Maxwell as an idiot or a drunk yet accept much far less convincing testimony 'cos it fits!!' This woman was persistent and unwavering and quite possibly the most convincing eye witness concerning JTR.
Now if you tell yourself 'I believe the medical evidence AND i believe Maxwell' what then are your conclusions?
I know what mine are,there can be only one.
Kelly,i am convinced,knew of the murder at least 2 weeks in advance.
She then started to move various women in to stay with here ,forcing Barnett out.Barnett himself is unconvincing,the woman who caused him to leave due to the sharing of the room he could not even put a name to-bizarre.
Although Barnett did not give her name ,press reports suggest her name as Julia.Then Julia disappears and Maria Harvey moves herself in for a couple of nights(the monday and tuesday).
On thursday morning Kelly was seen by Julia Venturney at 10.00 eating breakfast in her room with a woman.As Harvey only mentioned seeing Kelly again on thursday afternoon,this could have been someone else who stayed on the wednesday night OR could Julia have returned?
Interestingly Julia returns on the night of the murder seen drinking with Kelly and Danny,Joe's brother possibly?
So we have an unidentified woman having breakfast in Kelly's room on the thursday morning who could possibly have just spent the night and we have Julia drinking with kelly on the night of the murder.
We have a totally unrecognisable body discovered in Kellys room who was apparently identified by Barnett and McCarthy who both appear to talk in riddles at times and may have known that Kelly wanted to disappear and aided her.Kelly told at least two of her friends in the days leading upto the murder that she planned to disappear.
I suggest you read the 'Mary Kelly from Tottenham thread' ,most interesting .
Although i clearly don't agree with Chris's conclusions in his book his research and dedication to finding all about Kelly is clearly top drawer.
All the best

[curious]

So we have an unidentified woman having breakfast in Kelly's room on the thursday morning who could possibly have just spent the night and we have Julia drinking with kelly on the night of the murder.
We have a totally unrecognisable body discovered in Kellys room who was apparently identified by Barnett and McCarthy who both appear to talk in riddles at times and may have known that Kelly wanted to disappear and aided her.Kelly told at least two of her friends in the days leading upto the murder that she planned to disappear.

Very interesting. I had read that Barnett said MJ was afraid. I don't recall reading somewhere that she was planning to disappear.

However, we're in complete agreement that if Mary did escape, then Barnett had to have assisted her by identifying the body as hers. Perhaps McCarthy, too. And he could simply have packed her things and posted them to "her relatives" when it was actually going to her.

So, are you saying that you believe MJK helped set some other woman up to be murdered just so she herself could escape?

OR, did she know she was a target? Why would she be? And so, she had someone in place.

Gosh, very cold and calculating.

I've suspected that Mary may have come home and found her friend, which would explain her being sick and throwing up.

Then, once she talked to Barnett to get him to identify the corpse as hers, MJK then vanished because someone was after her personally and it was not some crazy, knife-wielding fiend who took whomever he stumbled across. So, who would have been after MJK?

But are you supposing that MJK deliberately set someone up to be killed?

curious

[curious]

Was both Hutchinson and Maxwell being honest?
Answer Yes....The mentioning of a hanky clinches it for me.

Thanks, Richard,

would you please explain why a hanky cinches it for you?

Thanks,

curious

[jason_c]

Very interesting. I had read that Barnett said MJ was afraid. I don't recall reading somewhere that she was planning to disappear.

However, we're in complete agreement that if Mary did escape, then Barnett had to have assisted her by identifying the body as hers. Perhaps McCarthy, too. And he could simply have packed her things and posted them to "her relatives" when it was actually going to her.

So, are you saying that you believe MJK helped set some other woman up to be murdered just so she herself could escape?

OR, did she know she was a target? Why would she be? And so, she had someone in place.

Gosh, very cold and calculating.

I've suspected that Mary may have come home and found her friend, which would explain her being sick and throwing up.

Then, once she talked to Barnett to get him to identify the corpse as hers, MJK then vanished because someone was after her personally and it was not some crazy, knife-wielding fiend who took whomever he stumbled across. So, who would have been after MJK?

But are you supposing that MJK deliberately set someone up to be killed?

curious

It also relies on Kelly persuading everyone who will potentially view her body to lie for her. Two of the people who would lie for her had troublesome relationships with Kelly. Barnett had been dumped, McCarthy was owed money.
Also, for no other prostitute friends of hers being reported missing.

[packers stem]

[QUOTE=curious;150084]Very interesting. I had read that Barnett said MJ was afraid. I don't recall reading somewhere that she was planning to disappear.

I think Lizzie Allbrook said that Kelly had been repeatedly telling her that she wished to go back to her family in Ireland.Others had also mentioned that Kelly had said she 'would make away with herself' which take as meaning to disappear as opposed to 'do away with herself' which is more associated with suicide.I stand to be corrected.


So, are you saying that you believe MJK helped set some other woman up to be murdered just so she herself could escape?

I suspect that to be the case

OR, did she know she was a target? Why would she be? And so, she had someone in place.

Informants would have been at work on many sides during these times.Read my second paragraph at the bottom of this page

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=636&page=8

I've suspected that Mary may have come home and found her friend, which would explain her being sick and throwing up.

Yes and it's also possible she had to go into the room to collect something of value.The sight would be enough to make anone throw up.

[packers stem]

[QUOTE=curious;150084]Very interesting. I had read that Barnett said MJ was afraid. I don't recall reading somewhere that she was planning to disappear.

I think Lizzie Allbrook said that Kelly had been repeatedly telling her that she wished to go back to her family in Ireland.Others had also mentioned that Kelly had said she 'would make away with herself' which take as meaning to disappear as opposed to 'do away with herself' which is more associated with suicide.I stand to be corrected.

Informants would have been at work on many sides during these times.Read my second paragraph at the bottom of this page

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=636&page=8

It's also possible she had to go into the room to collect something of value.The sight would be enough to make anone throw up.

Sorry about the messy post above but struggling to get to grips with this 'quotes' business