Mary Kelly or not Mary Kelly?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post Archive through October 11, 2003 CB 25  1  10-11-03  12:35 am Archive through November 20, 2003 Sarah Long 25  1  11-20-03  6:52 am Archive through November 22, 2003 Robert Charles Linfo 25  1  11-22-03  7:50 am Archive through November 28, 2003 Sarah Long 25  1  11-28-03  4:44 am Archive through December 04, 2003 Sarah Long 25  1  12-04-03  9:02 am Archive through December 10, 2003 Sarah Long 25  1  12-10-03  9:07 am Archive through December 15, 2003 Frank van Oploo 25  1  12-15-03  4:22 pm Archive through December 18, 2003 Leanne Perry 25  1  12-18-03  11:54 pm Archive through December 23, 2003 Robert Charles Linfo 25  1  12-23-03  6:06 pm Archive through January 01, 2004 Leanne Perry 25  1  1-01-04  6:10 pm Archive through January 07, 2004 Dan Norder 25  1  1-07-04  8:21 am Archive through January 14, 2004 Robert Charles Linfo 25  1  1-14-04  6:49 pm Archive through January 26, 2004 Sarah Long 25  1  1-26-04  5:16 am Archive through February 02, 2004 Leanne Perry 25  1  2-02-04  5:09 am Archive through February 09, 2004 Richard Brian Nunwee 25  1  2-09-04  1:14 pm Archive through February 12, 2004 Vladimir 25  1  2-12-04  2:29 am Archive through February 16, 2004 Donald Souden 25  1  2-16-04  1:40 pm Archive through February 17, 2004 Natalie Severn 25  1  2-17-04  12:30 pm Archive through February 18, 2004 Robert Charles Linfo 25  1  2-18-04  12:28 am   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Richard Brian Nunweek Chief Inspector Username: Richardn Post Number: 701 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 3:40 am:        Robert, If Barnett was her killer, knowing that he would be questioned , once the body was discovered, he would have been asked to supply a alibi, where he spend the previous evening. I believe it was Barnetts intention to kill Mary in her room, for it was while staying at that address, she had resumed prostitution, also in that bed , she had not long before had a nightmare, that someone was murdering her. also he would have had more time to go to work on her. also as he had a alibi, for the previous evening, by the body being found, in a undressed state, complete with folding of clothes, it would have appeared that she had been killed , in the night ,by a visiting client. we should not overlook, Barnett was proberly a strong man physicaly, he was a fish porter for years, a reported coal porter, and a manual worker, more then a match for the unsuspecting, laying down kelly, who was feeling unwell, and lets not forget, the terrible damage, that ferocious stabbing results in. I believe , he saw kelly , very much to blame for , his previous actions, he had revulsion for her, and in the privacy of that tiny room, he had the time to obliterate her, where as on the streets, time would not have been so freely available. Everybody assumes , that such a man, was so mad , he could not continue to be outwardly sane, but Look at Crippen, a mild gentle man, and Christie, were they people that came across as maniacs, to people they later met, and look at what these sicko's did to their victims[ plural in christies case] Richard.   Richard Brian Nunweek Chief Inspector Username: Richardn Post Number: 702 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 3:51 am:        Hi Robert, One more point, Leanne, could well be right, kelly was proberly intending, to be up earlier, that morning to go to the lord mayors show, I suggest the fact that she was seen in the streets, was the result of Catherine picketts knock, which woke her up, the fact that she got up, and presumely dressed, could suggest that she tried to wake herself up, and not just return to sleep, which she proberly would have prefered to do. The question is, she may have told a friend, she was intending to go the Lord mayors show, but did not mention it to Barnett the previous evening. Richard.   Robert Charles Linford Assistant Commissioner Username: Robert Post Number: 2114 Registered: 3-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 4:47 am:        Hi Richard I still can't see him doing it like that. If she'd got out one good scream, he could have been sunk. Then there's the problem of getting into and out of Miller's Court, where he was well-known, without being recognised - in broad daylight. Then there was the problem of cleaning up in time to face the police. How could he have foreseen the bungle over the bloodhounds? Robert   Sarah Long Chief Inspector Username: Sarah Post Number: 659 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 4:49 am:        Glenn, You said I am not talking about information in a police report here -- I am referring to witness statements from people who knew each of these women with regards to working out what the prostitutes of that era were like so why do you think that Mary might not have been a nice person since all the statements about her from people who knew her say that she was a lovely kind hearted woman. CB, Yes Joe did identify her but he only glanced quickly through the window long enough to look at her eyes and her clothes, no more than 5 - 10 seconds I'd say. The police warned him that it was not going to be a pretty sight and then once he had taken in the mess through the window just looked for familiar things. If it wasn't Mary on the bed then Joe wouldn't have lied as it was her clothes in the room and the colour of the eyes were the same although it would have been pretty hard to see their colour in the faded light in that room. All, No-one has discussed the fact that when Caroline Maxwell saw Mary that morning (presuming she did) she was wearing clothes that were not her own or at least that Caroline didn't recognise. Since Mary was a prostitute and spent most of her money on booze she wouldn't have had many clothes and so her friends and acquaintances would easily notice if she was wearing different clothes as Caroline Maxwell did that morning. It's a shame that they didn't ask Caroline to identify the clothes seen folded up in Mary's room as it would have been interesting to see if they were the same. This is a con for her being killed in the morning after she was seen by Caroline Maxwell if you think about it like this:- Caroline Maxwell sees Mary at 8.30 in clothes she doesn't recognise and yet when Joe identifies her body, one of the things he uses is her pile of clothes. So either she had recently bought new clothes that Joe knew about or Caroline Maxwell didn't see Mary that morning or Joe killed her. I can't see many other options. Sarah   Glenn L Andersson Assistant Commissioner Username: Glenna Post Number: 1163 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 5:22 am:        Hi Richard, "Everybody assumes , that such a man, was so mad , he could not continue to be outwardly sane, but Look at Crippen, a mild gentle man, and Christie, were they people that came across as maniacs, to people they later met, and look at what these sicko's did to their victims[ plural in christies case]" You may think what you like and you can bring up how many comparisons you like, but I am judging from what I see. Christie was a sicko alright, but he killed a number of individuals and buried them in his beloved garden. He didn't slaughter his victims in the same fashion as Mary Kelly. You want me to believe that a) he kills his (former) girl-friend, which he obviously (according to yourself and Leanne) has very strong feelings for b) he then mutilates her all the way down to the bones and turns their old room into a slaughter-house and c) then remains so calm and cunning that he -- in spite of the emotional strain from doing this to his old girlfriend -- fools the police, gives a trustworthy witness statement and never gets suspected at all after that. These kinds of extreme slayings usually hits victims who has no strong personal relationship to the perpetrator. Furthermore, we have no evidence at all pointing at that Barnett should be a cunning, manipulating psychopath (which I don't believe the murderer was anyway). To be nervous is one thing, but that could just as well be a result from 1) the emotional strain of finding out that the girl he loved had died in such a terrible manner 2) he just didn't like talking to the police (that is more common than you think) Barnett doesen't appear as a suspect in any way in contemporary police records, just as a witness. Hello Peter "but Glenn, if the Ripper was cool and collective like Bond had described, then he could have easily communicated with the police. I'm sure there have been and are serial killers who get in interviews with the police and are all calm without drawing suspicion." Oh yes. But I don't think the Ripper belonged to those guys, although I don't think he initially was a raving lunatic either. All the best Glenn L Andersson Crime historian, Sweden   Leanne Perry Assistant Commissioner Username: Leanne Post Number: 1171 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 6:00 am:        G'day, GLENN: I know we've been over the speech impediment thing before, but you didn't convince me that Joe was acting normally. What about the lovers of the other victims? How mad was he?: How mad was John Gacy the 'Killer Clown', when he entertained children as 'Pogo The Clown'? I don't believe Mary's murder was planned! All her killer had to do to limit her scratching was kneel on her arms. Maria Harvey left the clothes for Mary to sell at the 'Lord Mayor's Show'. ROBERT: How well do you know Joe's personality?.....at all times! Don't you believe that the Ripper was pchysophrenic, and able to elude suspicion? LEANNE   Glenn L Andersson Assistant Commissioner Username: Glenna Post Number: 1165 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 6:19 am:        G'day Leanne! "I know we've been over the speech impediment thing before, but you didn't convince me that Joe was acting normally." I never said he did, just that his behaviour doesen't necessarily had to imply that he just had ripped his old girlfriend to pieces, but that there could be other reasons for him being in a distressed state. "What about the lovers of the other victims?" Yes, what about them? "How mad was he?" I put forward a legitimate question. I really want to know. I am still curious about the phsychological picture you want to create of Barnett and on what grounds. All the best Glenn L Andersson Crime historian, Sweden   Robert Charles Linford Assistant Commissioner Username: Robert Post Number: 2117 Registered: 3-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 10:05 am:        Hi Leanne I keep an open mind asbout how organised/disorganised Jack was. Now as regards Barnett, you're saying that he didn't kill Kelly in a premeditated way, whereas Richard says he did. If I HAD to believe Joe did it, then I would opt for the night time, unpremeditated scenario. Of course, we've been through all this before, but I'll just make a point that I haven't made for a while : nobody heard a row. Robert   Sarah Long Chief Inspector Username: Sarah Post Number: 662 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 11:50 am:        Robert, Do you really think people would have paid it much attention though if they had heard a row take place? They apparently used to row quite a bit when drunk so people would have paid it no heed and especially since the area they lived in was always quite noisy I should imagine and many people rowed or yelled in the middle of the night so even if they had rowed I doubt it would even have registered in many people's heads. If Joe was her killer then my personal idea is that it was not premeditated and that Mary and Joe had argued prior to him going round to her house. In my scenaro I believe that Joe and Mary may have been out drinking together or had bumped into each other and Joe had pleaded with her once more about giving up prostitution and she lost her temper with him as she was a little drunk and didn't want to listen to him. He then got upset and angry at her and stormed off back to his lodging house where he played whist until her decided to go to bed. He lay there for a while not being able to sleep as he starts to feel that he killed others for no reason as it looks like she won't listen. He gets up and goes over to Mary's place and that's where I can't decide what happened. I think that he possibly either just let himself in as she was asleep then whilst sitting there getting all worked up he just pounces on her or she is awake and she tells him to leave but he gets more annoyed and attacks her then. I don't know, none of that may have happened at all. Sorry this is off topic. I also believe that it may not have been Mary at all in which case it couldn't have been Joe unless in some strange turn of events he kills another woman by mistake if the first scenaro happened when he got there but I doubt it. Sarah   Vladimir Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 5:31 am:        Richard, Ok, so we are to assume that the events went like this: 08:00 Catherine pickett wakes Mary when she knocks on her door in a effort to borrow her shawl. 08:30 She is seen by Mrs. Maxwell outside. 10:00 AM: Mary is seen by Maurice Lewis on the street. But was never asked to testify. (I believe you have stated in the "Fire in Mary's room" thread that she was carrying milk ) Somewhere between 10:00 and 10:44, she comes home and seeing JB there, is led to undress (Which I do not think a woman would do in front of a man that she did not want around) start a fire and get in bed. Then she was murdered and mutilated. 10:45 she is seen by Thomas Bowyer through the window. I know you think that she was killed about 09:00, but then Maurice Lewis could not have seen her at 10:00. So lets say that the 10:00 time is correct, that leaves only 45 minutes for Mary to come in and find Barnett there (I do not think she would have been happy to see him waiting inside her room, as she did not want him in her life. I know I would be upset if I came home and my ex was inside my house waiting for me, plus I would think it would be worse for a woman to find her ex) he then calms her down, starts a fire, gets her to undress, lay down, kills her and finally mutilates her. All within 45 or so minutes. I do not think that all that could be done in such a short period of time. Also he would have to clean himself up in some way. Now if the 10:00 time is incorrect, then why should we believe that Lewis saw MJK outside carrying milk at all? I just do not see this as plausible. Just some more late night rambling, Vlad   Robert Charles Linford Assistant Commissioner Username: Robert Post Number: 2119 Registered: 3-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:14 pm:        Hi Sarah Well, it's possible that someone may have heard Mary and Joe arguing but didn't tell anyone after Mary was discovered - it either didn't register or they got confused about the day. But surely a row would have been heard by several people? After all, Mary's singing was. Robert   Sarah Long Chief Inspector Username: Sarah Post Number: 666 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:23 pm:        Robert, Yes but personally as I said, I don't think that by the time Joe arrived they had a massive slanging match, that could have happened earlier in a more public place with everyone else being just as noisy so no-one would have really paid the much attention. Sarah   Janus Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 3:40 pm:        What about Walter Sickert? I keep hearing/reading about him, and I suppose it makes some sense, but why was MJK soooooooo terribly mutilated? It's a terribly personal circumstance... the killer would have been with her body for quite some time, and that's a very intimate situation.   Sarah Long Chief Inspector Username: Sarah Post Number: 668 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 4:28 am:        Janus, What do you mean when asking about Walter Sickert? I can't speak for everybody on here but I certainly don't think Walter Sickert was the Ripper. There is a whole file on him under the Suspects thread which you should have a look at. It was a very intimate situation with Mary though you are right but it depends how long the killer was with her for. The mutilations were terrible but how long would it have honestly taken. This may sound horrible but, things are generally easier to take apart than to put together. Sarah   Glenn L Andersson Assistant Commissioner Username: Glenna Post Number: 1169 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 10:36 am:        Hi Sarah, "This may sound horrible but, things are generally easier to take apart than to put together." That is unfortunately true. Well, I am not an expert on this physical stuff, but considering that Eddowes' murderer couldn't have that much time on his hands (also note that the corner on Mitre Square was a dark one) -- merely some five minutes or so -- I would say the "activity" in Miller's Court wasn't that time consuming. Of course the mutilations on Mary Kelly were far more extensive, but the opinion that has been put forward on occasion, suggesting approximately two hours, I think is highly questionable. It would have taken much shorter time than that. That is the best I can do. All the best (Message edited by Glenna on February 26, 2004) Glenn L Andersson Crime historian, Sweden   Avril Ford Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 2:56 am:        Mary Jane Kelly may have been mutilated so that no one would be able to identify her. It strikes me as VERY strange that Caterine Eddowes And Mary Jane Kelly were the only ones mutilated, because they both went by the name Mary Kelly.   John Porter Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 2:43 pm:        Hello Avril, I'm on this thread because of all the victims, MK is the most interesting and most likely to hold the vital clue. Judging by the number of postings on her, most would seem to agree, so I think she requires careful study. Now, forgive me, but your supposition that MK was mutilated because JTR wanted to hide her identity doesn't make sense. The only way to identify her in the absence of forensics, prints, dental records etc. would have been by her face and face alone. So why waste precious time mutilating the rest of the body (or even the face, for that matter) when all he had to do was chop off her head, put it in a sack, throw it over his shoulder and off he goes into the night. It could have been done in a minute flat, no noise, minimal blood, minimal risk and impossible to positively identify. You are assuming that his sole purpose was just to kill her and leave her as a nameless corpse. But he left her in her own bed in her own room! Who else could you expect to find there, even without a face? Even if she had disappeared altogether she would have been quickly missed, her absence reported and all including the police would have assumed (correctly) that she had fallen foul of JTR. He did not need to hide her identity, couldn't anyway and did not try to. What he did to her by way of mutilation was something far more personal. He could have killed her in the street like the others, but he chose to do it in her bed, in her home, took his time and went to the trouble of mutilating her entire body, even taking out her heart! No one is identified by their heart, that was something very personal indeed! Is it really that strange that two of the victims went by the same very common name, Eddowes only using it as an alias? I'm sure they weren't selected by name, otherwise, owing to the popularity of the names, the victims would have numbered many more. Going back to the title of this thread, 'Mary Kelly or not Mary Kelly? Yes, it was most definitely Mary Kelly! The fanciful theory of her escaping the squalour of her life and living happily ever after in Ireland is too complex a plot for a simple, poor, destitute prostitute to weave, and only serves as an unnecessary side-track to discovering the truth. Best wishes to you Avril, JP   Avril Ford Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 9:57 am:        John I agree it would have been easier for the murderer to chop off Marys head to avoid her identity being discoverd, but it would have looked very suspicious a blood soaked man running through Whitechapel with a sack on his shoulder. A reason for the mutilation of Marys body could be to hide any distinguishing marks. For example moles or birthmarks that would have been easily identified by her lover Barnett. As for the theory that the murder of Mary was very personal because the killer CHOSE to kill her in her house and bed unlike all the other victims, all i can say is you dont need much common sense to work out that Mary was the only victim with perminant lodgings. Mary unlike the other victims didnt entertain on the streets, instead she took her clients back to her house. So the killer didnt really choose to kill her in her house, he had no choice.   Paul Jackson Inspector Username: Paulj Post Number: 212 Registered: 2-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 8:09 pm:        Thank you Avril, I've been saying that all along. I think sometimes, people make the MJK thing a lot more complex than it probably is. I'm glad someone finally shares my views on it. Peace. Paul   Ken Morris Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 9:13 pm:        Everyone - I'm new to the JtR and have begun looking through everything posted on these boards. To go along with the last few posts on here I also do have some feelings about the facial mutilation and MJK being a key victim either to unlocking JtR or to completely ruling her out as a victim. I have only been able to drop a few posts thus far but I am currently leaning towards a Barnett/Kelly double theory. Now while I have read everything involving the two closest i saw was someone on the board throwing this away as a conspiracy theory, which it more than likely is, but I still wondered what people thought of it. Anyone care to share on it? Barnett/Kelly in as a team. Final victim isnt actually Kelly, just a way for her to escape something, so on and so forth. Any ideas? Here's looking at you kids- Ken   Rodney Gillis Sergeant Username: Srod Post Number: 34 Registered: 3-2003 Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 9:28 pm:        Hi All! I have a tough time believing the victim was not Kelly. I am trying to figure out exactly how many people identified the body. So far, I have come up with the following: Joe Barnett Thomas Boyer John McCarthy ("no doubt to identity") George Hutchinson Who am I missing? None of the previously mentioned seem to be on the fence. They make a positive ID. Rod   Phil Hill Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 10:19 am:        In my humble and very falliable opinion, it is dangerous to contrive complex theories of sightings and actions on the basis of timings given by East End witnesses in 1888. Unless a church clock struck as the action happened, or they were looking at (say) the clock on a church such as Christchurch, how would they have known. Did any of those concerned have watches (and if they did how accurate were they). My own view is that any timing given can only be an approximation (or even a guess) and could be wrong by as much as an hour (depending on whether a church clock/bell chimes the quarters and strikes the hours). Living part of my like in a cathedral city, I know that you do register, even if subliminally, the time of the last chime, if within hearing. As someone said above, probably long ago, the body was identified as MJK by her lover; lay in her bed; in her flat. No one could have guaranteed that another person would not be seen as such because of obvious differences of height, hair colour, shape of face etc. The mutilations were dreadful, but not THAT destructive. Much more likely (Occam's razor) that Mrs Maxwell etc were mistaken, than that Kelly survived. We know that witnesses were mistaken and contradicted themselves in regard to that murder. So we cannot take any unsuported testimony as reliable. The conclusion that MJK did not die, is based on summise and inference, NOT on evidence. Unless (or until) some evidence to support it emerges, I believe that it can be no more than a contention, something we keep at the back of our minds. Much more likely that MJK was a hapless girl who found herself the relatively random victim of the Whitechapel murderer, who killed her indoors because she had a room and innocently invited him back. Phil   Steve Swift Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 11:25 am:        I have seen the body.I identify her by the ears and eyes.I am positive it is the same woman. I'm sorry to dredge this up again but I'm really not buying this at all. From the statement of Mary Ann Cox on seeing Kelly at 11.45pm on the 8th Mary Jane was dressed I think,last night when I saw her, in a linsey frock,red knitted crossover around her shoulders,had no hat or bonnet on. From the statement of Caroline Maxwell on seeing Kelly between 8 & 8:30am on the 9th Mary Jane had a dark skirt - velvet body - maroon shawl & no hat At 9am Maxwell see's Kelly again outside the Brittania talking to a man 'dressed as a market porter' Now..Maxwells statement is verified by inquiries at the milk shop to which she was going to get milk for her husbands breakfast. She admits at the inquest that she does not know Kelly very well, but they know each other well enough to be on first name terms even though they have only spoken twice. It would seem to me that an awful lot of people dismiss Caroline Maxwell almost out of hand BUT at the same time they accept as gospel the fact that Barnett identifies Kelly by her ears and eyes! The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed. Something else strikes me as odd.Barnett is the only one that refers to her as Marie....to everyone else she is either Mary or Mary Jane. The conclusion that MJK did not die, is based on summise and inference, NOT on evidence. Unless (or until) some evidence to support it emerges, I believe that it can be no more than a contention, something we keep at the back of our minds. I'm sorry but this just is not true,it is based on the sworn statement of a woman who was questioned quite thoroughly at the inquest and who's testimony WOULD have been admisible as evidence if the case had ever gone to court. Time of death is between 1 & 2am meaning we need a massive leap of faith to believe the woman was killed AFTER Mrs Maxwell saw Kelly at 8am. I think a lot of people assumed the body was Mary Kelly,Joe Barnett included, based on little more than the fact that it was in Kellys room.