|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 707
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 4:28 am: |       |
Hi Everyone,
Questions we all ask , with reference to Kelly, include.
What time was she killed?.
Was she the person found?.
To understand Mary kellys state of mind , at the time of these murders is a relevant place to start.
From statements made by various sources that knew her, she appeared to be in a very nervous state, she appeared petrified, to stay in that room alone, she was reported never to venture out at night alone, and since these murders, it was her strict policy , never to bring any stranger back to her room.
She appeared paranoid, and was more then aware of the danger on the streets.
I would therefore conclude, that she would have been as safety concious as she could, that would involve, never bringing strangers , to millers court, and would also imply that when she retired at night, she would secure the door to her room , by making sure, it was locked.
This was common practise amongst the residents, even placing a table up against the door was the norm.
So the question remains ,why did she bring at least two men back to her room that evening?.
I agree that she was desperate for money, but she had been for some time.
Why did she trust these men?.
The obvious answer is , the person she thought was 'Jack' was in her own mind a ruffian, or a sailor type, but not a well dressed person, she proberly assumed that such a fine gentleman, would never have done such a horrible thing.
Lets face it, If hutchinson was telling the truth, that she was accosted by a well dressed person, clearly kelly was not concerned by it, if she believed that this type represented the killer, she would never have allowed him , to return to her room, in the middle of the night.
I find it hard to accept that a person about to commit murder , would have wore his sunday best, I know a lot of well dressed people, that are immaculate, but when they attend a race meeting in the country, go complete with wellies, and wax jacket, they simply dress appropiately.
So having given my opinion, that he did not kill her, if she was killed between 3am-5am, how did the killer get into a locked room , without invitation, if someone was aware of the trick , with the hand through the window, that would imply that they had been to that place before, so why did they not commit the act at that time?.
The fact that mary kelly was seen in Dorset street, very shortly after Catherine pickett, knocked on her door, would suggest that it was the knock that awoke her, the explanation that she felt unwell, would be a valid excuse for her to get some fresh air, and then vomit.
Then Mrs maxwell saw her, spoke to her, in her hands were items she was about to return[ confirmation that these items were returned on the morning of the 9th was documented]. kelly although normally a quiet lady, was well known in the area, and a mistake in identity , is extremely unlikely.
So if she saw her , there are only two possible explanations, the time of death was inacurate, or she was not the person laying on that bed.
We should remember, that Mrs maxwell if not telling the truth was putting her freedom in jepody, wasting police time, swearing under oath, although warned, that her statement conflicts with what was officilaly known.
The fact that she swore on oath, when she could have easily retracted her statement with a ' I must have been mistaken' suggests to me that she saw Mary kelly in Dorset street twice between the hour of 8am-845am. on the morning of the 9th november,Remembering that she was seen talking to a market porter, i do not believe, that she would have returned to her room , with him, unless she trusted him complicity, for he would have been the sort of person she would have feared.
To sum up.
If the body on the bed was not kelly, the fact that she was seen shortly after pickett , knocked on her door , would suggest that kelly , left that room then, complete with body, this would suggest that she may well have been an accomlice to a murder, even the killer herself,
Surely not a possibility.
If she had discovered the body at any time after the body was laying there , knowing her nervous state , she would have screamed whitechapel down, not think, 'that will get me out of not paying rent,
I Believe that kelly was killed after 9am, by someone either, waiting in her room, that she knew well and trusted, or by someone calling on her shortly after she returned to her room,[ after finishing talking to the market porter.]who she also knew and trusted.
Regards Richard.
|
Chris Michetti
Police Constable
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 9:02 am: | |
Richard,
Clear one thing up for me please! If MJK was indeed not the dead girl on that bed, then why would she not come forward or someone not come forward and explain that she wasn't the one who died? Wouldn't it have been bound to clear up at some point that she was still alive?
Chris 
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 713
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 9:42 am: | |
Chris,
Richard believes that it was Mary on the bed so I should think that he wouldn't give a detailed response to that question.
I personally think that it may not have been Mary.
Why on earth would Mary come forward? She wanted to get away form there. What if she somehow did have the means but didn't tell anyone she was saving up in case they tried to stop her leaving. McCarthy would have wanted his money owed to him before she went anywhere, Barnett wouldn't have wanted her leaving, there was also Hutchinson who seemed to be stalking her or pimping her or whatever. There was a lot she wanted to get away from and also many people she wouldn't have wanted to know her plans for leaving. If she found the body first and then left in the actual victims clothes, no-one would be the wiser of her disappearance. I'm not saying she had any part in the murder but maybe she thought that it was the perfect opportunity to leave as she may not get another chance to disappear so easily.
These are just some ideas which quite a few people on here disagree with and won't even contemplate the idea of her surviving.
I know I am not alone at thinking she may have survived though.
Although it may have been her body they found, I just don't know.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 767
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
Sarah,
Ok she survived.
The idea that Kelly was still alive on November 9th, 10th and forever more really does take Barnett out of the equation.
If its not Kelly
Monty
|
Chris Michetti
Police Constable
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
Unless of course, she was involved in the murder plans, and had someone (Barnett?) kill a girl in her room (a girl who no doubt resembled her enough that there wouldn't be too many questions), mutilate her face enough that she couldn't be positively identified; all so that she could get away from Hutchinson/McCarthy... but IMO that sounds even more far fetched of a story. Wouldn't she have turned up in a later census? Could people just change their name that easily and go unnoticed in those days?
Chris
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 720
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
Monty,
Possibly. Unless he didn't know who he was killing. That probably makes no sense to anyone but me but I've often thought that he may have gone into her room whilst it was dark and attacked whoever it was who was in the bed, so it doesn't really take Joe out of the equation. He may have cut her face up first as well and was so enraged that he was looking but not observing, if you know what I mean.
I know people will probably laugh at this idea and that's why I've been trying not to say it but there you go.
Chris,
People were always changing their names. Mary Kelly probably wouldn't have turned up in any future census and either way I believe Mary Kelly did die that night, whether it was the actual person or just the name.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 773
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Sarah,
Nah. It aint happening for me that. Not with candles and a raging fire and a bloke who has been living with her.
I know my Girl in the dark....believe me.
Monty
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:16 am: | |
Sarah.
Are you suggesting that Mary Kelly would have calmly donned the clothing of the poor unfortunate lying mutilated upon her bed,and make her getaway to a better life, rather than run outside and seek the nearest help? That by the way after she had finished vomiting.
Come on, I know fact sometimes can be stranger than fiction, but going on the little we know of her character, do you seriously believe she would have resorted to that line of action?
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1189
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
G'day Sarah,
If I remember rightly, your the one who is writing a fictional story about Mary surviving. If so, go ahead and write it. It should be a good read, I'd buy it and I'm sure so would a lot of us! Or have you already started?
LEANNE |
Birgitte Breemerkamp
Police Constable
Username: Birgittesc
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 4:26 am: | |
Chris wondered:
"Wouldn't she have turned up in a later census? Could people just change their name that easily and go unnoticed in those days?"
IMO the fact that we don't know anything about MJK's past - heck, we don't even now whether Mary Jane Kelly was her real name! - already proves that it was quite easy to change ones identity and remain anonymous in those days. So in that sense it is possible.
Cludy:
"Are you suggesting that Mary Kelly would have calmly donned the clothing of the poor unfortunate lying mutilated upon her bed,and make her getaway to a better life, rather than run outside and seek the nearest help? That by the way after she had finished vomiting.
Come on, I know fact sometimes can be stranger than fiction, but going on the little we know of her character, do you seriously believe she would have resorted to that line of action?"
Well couldn't it have been MJK yelling "Oh murder!" that night upon discovering the mutilated body in her room on her bed?
It is my hypothesis (and thus not based on any facts) that MJK could have come into her room in the middle of the night, discovered the body, paniced and fled to the nearest pub to have a drink and get herself together. Then she realised that this was a chance to get out of there for once and for all and that's what she decided to do. Early in the morning she went back to her room and changed clothes. Perhaps seeing the body even more clearly in the morning light made her sick and she threw up when she got out of her room again (hell, I know I would!). That's when Maurice Lewis saw her and Caroline Maxwell chatted with her. And after that she quietly slipped away to God knows where (my guess would be back to her family in Ireland).
That's what I feel COULD have happened. I don't say it did, but it's a possibility IMO and no possibility should be ignored.
Don't ask me why she bought milk, though, I honestly wouldn't know what to make of that...
Birgitte |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 5:55 am: | |
G'day,
Caroline Maxwell chatted with her from a distance! And I think the police would have checked out her story with the owners of the public house, as they mention that as a suggestion in the 'Police News'!
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 724
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 7:00 am: | |
I knew I'd get a lot of stick for that, oh well, I'm entitle to my opinion so it doesn't bother me about the others. I don't mean this to sound rude by the way but how does anyone on here expect people to come forward with their theories when everyone seems to snap at them just because it's not what they might think. Just something I've noticed on all threads, not just this one.
Leanne,
Ok, how far away could you have a conversation with someone. I got the impression that she was up close to her. I have started my story but I'm a bit stuck at the mo. Maxwell also recognised Mary even though she wasn't wearing her usual clothes.
Cludgy,
She did vomit after leaving her room. Mrs Maxwell spoke to Mary and Mary told her that she had just been sick and pointed to it.
going on the little we know of her character
Exactly, we know next to nothing about her character so how can we know for certain what she would do in that situation.
That was just my view and it maybe didn't happen. This idea also fits in with all the available evidence, there isn't anything to prove it didn't happen.
I'm not set in my ways, I can change my mind and I'm also not saying that I will think a certain way until it gets proved wrong as that would slow me down.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 7:41 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
Read what the report in the 'Illustrated Police News', 17 November says about Maxwells sighting:
http://casebook.org/press_reports/illustrated_police_news/il881117.html
Find the paragraph starting: 'Although rumours were current...'
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 182
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 7:42 am: | |
Hi Birgitte,
I think Mary would have had to be a very tough and selfish woman if she managed only to panic without saying anything to anybody about what she just found out and to cook up the plan of taking this chance and leaving the area. I can imagine it would have scared the living daylights out of her and even more so when she realized it might have been her on that bed. So, I very much doubt if she would have been able not to say anything about it – I mean, panicking and thinking clearly don’t go hand in hand very well.
Secondly, I don’t think she would have been able to go back into that room to change (5 or more layers of) clothes with that terribly mutilated body lying there. That must have taken at least 5 minutes and 5 minutes seem like a long time to me in such a situation. I know she could have changed clothes facing away from the bed, but still…
What also seems strange to me then is that she’s supposed to be seen by Caroline Maxwell a second time between 9 and 9:30 a.m. and by Maurice Lewis at about 10 o’clock on that morning. I would imagine her to have gotten the hell out of there after having cooked up her plan and leaving her room for the last time, which must have been between 8 and 8:30 a.m.
I’m not saying your hypothesis can’t be what actually happened, but to me it would seem quite an unlikely scenario, unless perhaps she was some sort of accomplice. However, that is something I don’t believe, not even for a moment.
Groetjes,
Frank
|
Chris Michetti
Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
Frank said: Secondly, I don’t think she would have been able to go back into that room to change (5 or more layers of) clothes with that terribly mutilated body lying there. That must have taken at least 5 minutes and 5 minutes seem like a long time to me in such a situation. I know she could have changed clothes facing away from the bed, but still…
I would tend to agree - I don't even like to think about such a view; I don't think I could even stay in the room let alone stay there long enough to change without fainting or becoming sick. Even if she was an accomplice, being in the same room as that horribly mutilated corpse would be more than enough for me! She would have had to be one strong woman to be able to stand next to that corpse for long. But, indeed, it still is possible of course
Chris
|
Birgitte Breemerkamp
Police Constable
Username: Birgittesc
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Okay, maybe Mary didn't go back but changed her clothes straight away when she got home the first time. That's just a detail which you can play around with as we don't know what actually happened and when anyway.
Fact remains it could be possible she survived and I don't see why some people dismiss it as rediculous. That was my point.
Birgitte |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 777
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 8:41 am: | |
Guys...and Sarah,
I agree with Frank and Chris re Mary changing her clothes next to a gutted body.
Also I would like to point out the possibilities of Mary disturbing the crime scene.
Sarah,
No one is snapping at you. If it seems that I do then I apologise. Its they way I post. People feel strongly about there opinions and I have no problem about them disagreeing with me. Its when they take their theory as fact and accept that there is no alternative. Correct me if Im wrong but NO ONE has stated that you are wrong. You could be right, its just that we think its an unlikely scenario.....but so what? Stuff us. Stop worrying what others think, no one is 100 % right in this case. They may be close but until evidence arrives which totally vindicates their theories then we can speculate and disagree away.
Relax dear...its only a commercial !
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 725
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 9:00 am: | |
Monty
I wasn't saying you snapped at me. You barely said anything about it at all so I don't know what makes you think I meant you snapped at me. I didn't really mean anyone snapped at me, it's just in general and something I've noticed on the threads over the time I've been on here and it's not particular people, we've all been guilty of it at some point.
I have, in the past, posted my views about her possibly surviving and in one case I was basically told that my idea is stupid and should be disregarded completely but I'm not going to mention any names.
I just don't see how some people can deem it unlikely. No-one here knew her personally and so cannot possibly say what would have been odd behaviour for her and what wouldn't. People were very desperate back then and would probably do all sorts or things that we wouldn't do today.
Leanne,
I read it but I don't see your point.
Sarah |
Vladimir
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 2:01 am: | |
Personally, I think that Barnette and Mary planned all the murders, so that Mary could could escape her prison of the east end. They then placed a look-alike in Mary's bed and Mary ran away. Barnet spit on the grave of Mary (would be Mary) because Mary did not meet him where they were supposed to meet. And last but not least, The nun that said all of the murders were because of MJK, was in fact MJK herself.
(all of this is tounge-in-cheek, and not meant to offend anyone)
I think Mary was killed on that bed in Miller's court. I just have not decided by whom.
Vlad |
Camila Mattos
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 9:27 pm: | |
Hello!
I personally don't think it was possible for her to have survived. I know that the body was mutilated, but Barnett really knew her! He would've noticed it wasn't her (at least I would, even if I had my boyfriend cut in pieces in front of me).
Besides, I believe that Barnett killed Mary, and if anybody else thinks so too, then they must agree that he had strong reasons. Therefore, would he just go home and relax knowing that the woman he tried to kill escaped alive??
I believe that Barnett had reasons to kill Mary, as he felt humiliated watching his unfortunate girlfriend and not being able to do anything. Of course, I also believe that he was a troubled man, or else he wouldn't have gone so far.
Concerning her reasons to run away, of course she had lots - after all, being a prostitute is not a condition someone is happy with. However, would Mary really be able to think about the great opportunity to escape she was having while staring at the gruesome body? For me, the minute she saw the body, she would've screamed so loud the whole street would've waken up!
Finally, IF Mary had planned it all, and everything just happened the way Chris described. Would Barnett - after killing the girl just to pretend Mary was dead - go home and forget about everything?? Let her leave and never go after her?!?! If he loved her so much, if he could kill someone just because she asked him to, then I can't believe he'd watch her leave like this.
This really works in movies and novels, but not in real life!
Camila |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
Sarah.
According to mrs Maxwell, Kelly did give an explination of why she had vommited.
And the explination had nothing to do with the fact that she had just seen the mutilated body of a woman lying on her bed.
She apparently informed Mrs Maxwell that the reason she had vommited was because she had the "horrors", upon her.
This I interpret as meaning a hangover.
She also apparently informed Mrs Maxwell that she had just had a glass of beer ( the hair of the dog) but had brought it up.
Poor Mary Kelly in reality of course had not vommited either in the street or as she was being murdered. Fish and potatoes were found in her stomach, at the post mortem.
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but fish and potatoes, had she I wonder visited a fish and chip shop, or stall, shortly before her murder?
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 8:18 am: | |
Reinventing onself it seems, is not an exclusively Victorian trait.
Looking at the above debate, and indeed other threads on this messageboard, suggests to me that certain members of this Forum are guilty of just such an action.
By the way shouldn't Birgette, be spelt Brigette? |
Birgitte Breemerkamp
Police Constable
Username: Birgittesc
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
"According to mrs Maxwell, Kelly did give an explination of why she had vommited.
And the explination had nothing to do with the fact that she had just seen the mutilated body of a woman lying on her bed.
She apparently informed Mrs Maxwell that the reason she had vommited was because she had the "horrors", upon her.
This I interpret as meaning a hangover."
Has it ever occurred to you that MJK might not have told her the whole truth? Just imagine:
Caroline Maxwell: "Gee Mary, you look pale!"
MJK: "Yeah I just saw a mutilated corpse on my bed and lost my breakfast. Look it's right over there! But I'm fine now, thanks for asking, dear."
There goes your chance of slipping away without raising suspicion... 
"Poor Mary Kelly in reality of course had not vommited either in the street or as she was being murdered. Fish and potatoes were found in her stomach, at the post mortem."
How do you know it happened just like that. Were you there? I didn't say the way I described it is how it went, but I stated it was a possibility, not a fact. You, on the otherhand, seem to presume too much. I don't say you're wrong, but trying to keep an open mind can prove to be quite crucial in these kind of things.
"I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but fish and potatoes, had she I wonder visited a fish and chip shop, or stall, shortly before her murder?"
Either that or the body wasn't Mary's. Really, the food argument isn't a very firm one.
"By the way shouldn't Birgette, be spelt Brigette?"
In English it's Bridget(te), in German it's Birgit or Brigitte, in French it's Brigitte.
I know how to spell my own name and my name is Birgitte. Blame it on the Scandinavians for getting it wrong. 
Birgitte
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 465
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 10:06 am: | |
I know my Girl in the dark....believe me.
Have to go with Monty on this one. If it was The Witch in the bed, no matter how dark it was I would know whether it was her or not. And I have known her less time than Joe knew Mary and we have never lived together as they did.
As to recognition after she had been skeletonized, a lot of people have said that when Barnett said he recognised her by her ears it must have been misquoted and he actually said hair. I'm not so sure. If I was asked to recognise The Witch in that state I would look for the small tattoo of a fairy she has on her lower back. Maybe there was something distinctive in the way Mary's ears were pierced or something similar which Joe knew about from their intimate relationship even though it doesn't seem to make sense to others. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 183
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 10:11 am: | |
Hi all,
Under http://casebook.org/timeline.kelly.html we can find the following.
What description we have of Kelly comes from several sources: Mrs Phoenix stated Kelly was "5 feet 7 inches in height, and of rather stout build with blue eyes and a very fine head of hair which reached nearly to her waste;" Mrs Prater described her as tall, pretty, "fair as a lilly," and "on good terms with everybody;"...
The 'Illustrated Police News' of 17 November reads that “Maurice Lewis, a tailor, living in Dorset-street, stated that he had known the deceased woman for the last five years. Her name was Mary Jane Kelly. She was short, stout, and dark; and stood about five feet three inches.” And according to Caroline Maxwell, “Mary Jane was a pleasant little woman, rather stout, fair complexion, and rather pale.”
Catherine Pickett, who went to Kelly's room in order to borrow something on the morning of 9 November, claims "She was a good, quiet, pleasant girl, and was well liked by all of us." Mary Jane Kelly seems to have had some friends, like Maria Harvey, Julia Van Turney and Lizzie Allbrook. She was also known on sight to Inspector Dew, who said she paraded around Whitechapel usually with 2-3 friends.
At the inquest Caroline Maxwell was interviewed:
[Coroner] Did you speak to her ? - Yes; it was an unusual thing to see her up. She was a young woman who never associated with any one. I spoke across the street, "What, Mary, brings you up so early ?" She said, "Oh, Carrie, I do feel so bad."
[Coroner] And yet you say you had only spoken to her twice previously; you knew her name and she knew yours ? - Oh, yes; by being about in the lodging-house.
The first that strikes me as odd is that Maxwell claims Mary was a woman who never associated with anyone, which was undoubtedly not true. The second is that she had only spoken to her twice previously and only knew Mary by being about in the lodging house, all of which in combination with the description she gave of Mary being a little woman makes it questionable if she really did see Mary (and not someone else) twice on the morning of 9 November. The two things in Maurice Lewis’ newspaper account that don’t add up are the claim that he had known Mary for the last five years, while Mary probably only came to London in 1884 and didn’t move into the Whitechapel area until later, and also his description of Mary as a short woman, which she most probably wasn’t.
All the best,
Frank
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
