|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 5:38 am: |       |
Hi Brian,
I think it is quite plausible that Mary Jane, could have disapeared into thin air.
Lets face it even today we do not have a set description of her, we do not even know her real name ...
If I am right and Mary jane did hire her room out to a man , who wanted the privacy for immoral purposes, then when she discovered the body in her room, her shock and revulsion, and the fear of her being in deep trouble with the police ,who she would have believed would have condemed her for being responsible for the murder, would have her rushing out of the area as soon as possible.
Brian, although it does seem far fetched , people do react in strange ways , when in panic, and if Mary Jane did discover the body when she arrived back at her room about 4am [ explanation for the cry oh murder] she may have decided the victim was beyond help, and if she simply switched clothes, her worry over her rent ,and possibly other debts would be over.
One point about her clothes they were found folded in a neat pile, kelly was reported to be a neat person and it was proberly her character to look after her clothes, therefore she left them even under stress in the same manner as her custom.
Finally I do not like using the name of Kelly, I believe evidence points quite conclusively to her real name being Mary M;carthy alias Kelly, davies
Regards Richard. |
Gary Weatherhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 11:03 pm: | |
Jon/Marie
Searching the genealogical records can be a real hit or miss proposition.
Best Regards
Gary |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2659
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 7:18 pm: | |
Please note that discussion relating to Mr. Masters' evidence has been moved to Suspects: McCarthy, Daniel.
Please post all further comments on this subject at:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=65832#POST65832}
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Neil K. MacMillan
Police Constable
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 1:01 pm: | |
I haven't really got into digging deep into Mary Jane Kelly's background etc yet. As I research my views will solidify. If I may make a few points;
ACtresses, writers, and such also use aliases (Not all but some) If M'Carthy was her mother's maiden name, this would not be out of character. A friend of mine who worked as a police investigator told me once that people usually pick their aliases from family history or the area they hail from. In many cases the initials and even names will be similar so as to make it easier to remember. This is also a common practice when intelligence ooperatives are setting up their "Legend" to go undercover.
If Barnett killed Mary Jane, (Or Marie Jeanette as she liked to be called)The I submit that she is not victim of jack the Ripper. If she disappeared then there are avenues that need to be investigated with regards to government collusion or what passed for organized crime in 1888 London. If, as I currently believe, that she was indeed a victim of Jack the Ripper The aliases may simply be an affectation commomn to many who want their real identity separate from their lifestyle for personal reasons. I look forward to reading more on this area and it is a great theory by the way, Bob. Kindest regards, Neil |
Donovan Greyson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 12:53 am: | |
Do any of you know for absolutley sure if it was in fact Mary Kelly's body found at the scene? Or was she alive on Nov 10, 1888? |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 10:45 am: | |
Donovan,
Well, other than the fact that the body was found in Mary Kelly's room, wearing Mary Kelly's clothing, and was identified by Mary Kelly's lover as being Mary Kelly, I don't think anyone can be absolutely sure about anything.
Despite my sarcasm, it is an accepted fact amongst researchers, that Mary Kelly was the victim found in Miller's Court.
Any other claims begin exploring into the strange and scary world of conspiracy theories, complex mathematical improbabilities and kookiery.
B |
Kurt Wagner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 12:04 pm: | |
Kia Ora Everyone
I'd just like to throw something up here for everyone, But with the lack of Knowledge surrounding MJK could it be possible that maybe she was the killer at 13 millers court? not to say that she was the ripper exactly. But if you review certian things such as, her past is totally shrouded in mystery including who her parents were, is it possible that maybe her mother was a midwife and possibly young MJK wished to do the same, that could attribute to an extant of medical knowhow, also look at the savagry in which the face was mutilated, I'm sure that even after they put her parts back on it didn't look like MJK in anyway so perhaps, also there are accounts that she was seen the morning after the murder so couild it possibly be that she was the perpatrator of atleast that one murder?
Just trying to get people to think let me know what you think |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 4:35 am: | |
Hi Kurt.
Good post as I am sure that it will start a good debate, I wrote to a national newspaper in the early seventies on that very same point, I was so convinced that I even wrote to a top crimonologist, and we enjoyed some good correspondence for a period,
John Brookes Barry wrote apon these same lines in his half truth , half fiction book The Michaelmas Girls..
I can understand the possibility of Kelly being at least involved in the Millers court murder, but only as an accomplice.
Mrs Kennendys statement that she saw a woman standing with a man in Dorset street around 3am on the morning of the ninth, the woman was respectably dressed with a bonnet, and in their presence was a woman not so smartly dressed and with no bonnet.
Mrs Kennedy heard the man say Are you coming' whereas the woman turned away to walk in the opposite direction to which the man wanted her to go.
There was other gossip at the time that a smartly dressed woman who was not known in the area accompanied a man to Kellys room in the early hours of the ninth.
My point being was this killing the result of a bungled abortion, and either kelly hired her room to a man for that purpose, and discovered the mess in the morning hence Mrs Maxwells sighting , or was Kelly a assistant in the abortion for some financial gain, and when the abortion failed the abortionist decided to blame her death on the infamous Ripper.and because of the facial disfigurement decided it was best to disapear rather then answer some very awkward questions to say the least.
This murder at millers court which has always fascinated the media may have had nothing to do with the Ripper killings ,just a bungled abortion that went wrong , and a desperate attempt to avoid detection.
Regards Richard. |
Bruce Tonnermann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 2:57 am: | |
There's nothing like solidified views! |
Gary Weatherhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 5:57 pm: | |
This thread ran out a long time ago but I would like to add an update of the woman who identified herself as MJK's Great Great Great Niece.
Ain't no way could this be the case based on what I know at present.
Best Regards
Gary |
nadine mitchell
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 9:11 am: | |
i've been thinking on the fact that MJK could have commited the murder at millers court,it would explain the brutality of the murder and the fact that it was a totally different type of killing.i believe that jack the ripper killed his victims in a way that mutilated them but made shure that they could be identified. anyone get where im coming from?!
|
pmdci
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 1:56 pm: | |
I personally do not believe that the victim might have been anyone other than MJK.
People have heard her singing that night, and she even told Mary Ann Cox "I am going to sing myself a song".
How could MJK exchange clothes with another murdered, and make her clothes look all saturated in blood. As well to move the body in a way that wouldn't be detected by the police that a third person was there?
Of course that the forensic wasn't good as it is today, but come on. The police files says that there where blood all around the walls and under the bed. Clearly she would have left footprints in the blood or marks of the body being handed by another person other than the killer. They don't even knew what fingerprints was all about that time, but clearly they could tell differences about footprints and handprints.
Also, to undress the cadaver and dress it with clean clothes, and try to make it seen that such clothes was worn at the time of death -- that would be clearly detected by the police at that time.
This is, of course, my personal opinion 
What is clearly a shame is that it seems that there is no information about MJK or her family available whatsoever anywhere in the UK or in Ireland... I personaly believe that MJ was an alias. Don't know about ther surname, though -- as Kelly is a very common one?
Maybe it would be easier to trace her by the surname of her deceased husband, "Davies". If he was in the scotts regiment, wouldn't suhch regiment hold such records (if they weren't lost in one of the big wars as many pulic records have been  ) |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:36 am: | |
Hi Brian,
"Well, other than the fact that the body was found in Mary Kelly's room, wearing Mary Kelly's clothing, and was identified by Mary Kelly's lover as being Mary Kelly, I don't think anyone can be absolutely sure about anything".
Well, Mary Kelly used to rent out her room to other women, that explains the woman's presence in MJK's room, she wasn't wearing any clothes and MJK's clothes were folded up at the end of the bed, again doesn't prove that the body was MJK and lastly she was identified as MJK by Joseph Barnett who only "glimpsed" through the window at the bloody mess on the bed. Also it is said that MJK was mutilated beyond recognition.
So were is your proof that it was MJK?
Just wanted to point these things out. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 855
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi Sarah
MJK was identified not only by Barnett but by McCarthy too. Don't ask me how they managed it, but they did.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 320
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 4:23 pm: | |
They didn't care about an upset stomach, that's for sure...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 705
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 5:11 pm: | |
G'day,
Barnett's identification of Mary Kelly's body worried me for a long time. Then I read that her body was carefully pieced together and cleaned up at the mortuary before they put her in her coffin. So I figured that Barnett may have formally identified her at the mortuary.
LEANNE |
Maryanne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 2:46 pm: | |
I've read that she had a very fine head of hair that reached almost to her waist and it was this hair and eyes which made her identifiable. But like you point out or state Leanne, possibly it was from the mortuary that she was identified - must've taken something to piece her back together again! |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 5:04 am: | |
Hi all,
Well you may all be right but I have never read of any formal identification being made. The only form of identifying her was mentioned by looking through the window and of course they are going to only look as quickly as they can. All they looked at were her clothes, her eyes and hair and and very quickly. |
Julie Hawkes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 4:34 am: | |
HI,
Interesting idea about Mary discovery the body at Miller's Court. It would explain why Mrs Maxwell says she saw her on the morning of the 9th, and why she had just been sick!
Julie |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 9:32 am: | |
I was looking for a Mary Kelly in records, as you do, and I came across I really promising one until I realised she couldn't be our one. The details that got me excited were:-
Name: Mary Ann (Ellen) Kelly
Date of Birth: 15th August 1863
Place of Birth: Roscommon, Ireland
Parents: John Kelly & Helen Cunningham
Place of Marriage: Aberystwyth, Wales
However, it says that this one died on 2nd August 1953, married someone called John (Henry) Jones and had 10 children with the last one being born in 1906. Shame....
Just wanted to share. It's so frustrating, but will keep looking. |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 611
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:53 pm: | |
Found this statement from an unnamed City missionary who claims that the letters Kelly received were from her mother who still lived in Ireland and said he knew of their contents. From a longer article I will be posting shortly
 |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 276
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 2:20 pm: | |
Hi chris,
you really are a asset to these boards the imformation you get access to is a real credit.
it is a pity you were not attached to the Whitechapel force in 88 , Jack would not have been elusive for long.
Steven.
If there is such a rank in your ratings as Commisionaire, look no further then Chris.
Regards Richard. |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 612
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 2:54 pm: | |
Richard
Glad as ever that the findings are of interest - the whole article is very interesting and I will be posting soon
Thanks again for the encouranging words
Regards
Chris
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 388
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 5:45 pm: | |
Chris,
I must compliment you on your astonishing research skills and tireless efforts. How do find all this interesting stuff?
I agree with what's been said above. With people like you, among some others here, on the force, ol' Jacky would have been dead meat long before the double event, if not earlier.
Looking forward to the full-length article.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 8:54 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
A very interesting, ( I might even say tantalizing) newspaper snippet. I await your posting of the full article with interest.
Regards,
John Savage |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
