| Author |
Message |
    
Nelly
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 2:58 pm: |       |
According to the statement of Barnett MJK had a six or seven year old boy living with her.So what happened to him after she died? Was it her son?It was said that on the night of her murder he had been sent to a neighbour,which one? And where did he go after?
Am I right in thinking that Doctor Banardos was founded in Whitechapel in 1888,if so did he end up there?
Might be records there that will establish a family link.
|
Busy Beaver
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 7:56 am: | |
I wonder if this is the same child that MJK was supposidly "looking after" for Alice & Prince Eddie. Someone knew something about this child and concocted the story which we know as "The Royal Conspiracy". |
Jef leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
Not certain about the royal conspiracy but I've come across this story before.
If kelly did have a child it would explain why it has been difficult to trace her, as Kelly may have been the fathers name.
It also holds a question over Bonds report that she had not had Children. A mistake he also made with Rose Myletts autopsy.
Can't help thinking however that if she had have had a child then it would have come up at the inquest.
Jeff |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
Nelly,
I don't know if she had a child but looking at old Dr Barnados records (if possible) might be a good idea, otherwise I don't know where he may have ended up if he existed at all.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 89
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
Mary had no little boy. The person with a boy that newspapers reported on as if it were Mary lived in an entirely different room and was a completely different person. Slipshod journalism strikes again.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1141
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
Dan,
I'm not doubting you, but isn't that just speculation. I think the boy probably wasn't her son but he may have been. There is no evidence that he wasn't her son.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 91
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
No evidence that he wasn't her son? The people who knew Mary Jane best all say that she had no son. There is no evidence she ever had a son. The newspaper report claiming she had a little boy also said she lived upstairs and got a large number of other details wrong, so was obviously either talking about someone completely different or inventing stuff for the paper.
Put it this way: You might be able to find a book somewhere that has a typo and says that Christopher Columbus traveled to America in 1942. If I say, uh, no, Columbus did that in 1492, like all the other references say, are you going to come back and tell me that that's only speculation and maybe it really was 1942?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 371
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 1:20 pm: | |
Sarah,
I have to agree with Dan here. There is no evidence that Mary had a son. It's possible that she may have been pregnant at some point or even gave birth, but infant mortality was horribly high during that period of time, especially in the lower classes. There is no proof that she ever had a child living with her in Whitechapel or during her supposed tim e in the West End.
Mikey |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 869
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 3:19 pm: | |
Hi.
I do not accept that kelly had not accepted responsibiliy for a child close to her death, reports like ' she could not bear to see her son starving' Begging in the streets , Barnett stating she had a son six or seven staying with her, and her son was taken to a neighbours house.
I have always believed that her son was returned to her , when her incapacity to support him dried up.
The fact is we are not certain of the true identity of kelly, so why are we so dismissive, that such a son existed.
Lets face it, if such a boy existed, the police /authoritys would have protected him to the best of their abilitys, and even if his existence did leak out originaly, it would have been silienced for the boys welfare.
The excuse that the wrong person was the reason for the boys existence, is poppycock, the murder occured in millers court , number 13, the residence of the woman known as Mary jane.
And everyone local knew that.
Regards Richard, |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 738
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Hi all
Right!!! this is the 3rd go to post this!!!!
I dont believe that Mary had a birth child ..but maybe,just maybe she had a lad from certainly not Millers Ct or even Dorset st....who was just a friend who maybe was used to run errands etc...Odd though that Joe didnt mention him....or Mrs Prater et al.....praps he just used to hang around with Mary and others(who was it??!) saw him with her on the odd on and off basis and assumed that he was her child.....just a thought....where did this child thing originate from??!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 739
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hi....
Hope that made some sort of sense......reading it back am not so sure!!! Can imagine Mary having a little sidekick tho....useful!!! just a thought....
cheers
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2436
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 6:10 pm: | |
Hi Suzi
I imagine that children in that area and at that period used to spend a lot of their time on the street. What accommodation, if any, that they had would have been cramped and unpleasant. I can well imagine that such children would have popped in on any of their mothers' friends who showed them any kindness, to pick up a quick crust or get a bit of shelter - maybe a bit like the way cats do the rounds and pick up scraps at various
households.
Robert |
Scott Suttar
Police Constable
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 2
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 11:07 pm: | |
Hi all.
I haven't read all the press reports yet but I see no evidence in Barnett's statement to the Coroner's Inquest that there ever was a child. I also can't find in Dr Bond's autopsy report where he states that MJK had not had children.
Can someone state where these reports come form for a newbie.
Thanks.
Scotty. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2438
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 5:36 am: | |
Hi Scotty
"Manchester Guardian" Nov 10th mentions a child.
Re Bond, I'm not aware that he ever stated that Kelly had not had children.
Robert |
Scott Suttar
Police Constable
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 3
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 6:23 am: | |
Thanks for that Robert.
The article certainly states that Mary Kelly had a child. I have to agree with Dan Norder's earlier posts on this in that it appears as though some journalistic mistakes have been made here. I find it hard to believe having read the inquest testimony that not one of the witnesses mentioned a child and yet one was living with Kelly. Surely the future of the child would have noted some further mention in the press, even if it were only to state that he had been placed in some care or other.
Scotty. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2440
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 6:38 am: | |
Hi Scotty
Yes, I don't believe that Kelly had a child - until she was dead! "Jack the Ripper killed my mum" would have been a lucrative fund-raiser.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 871
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Scott,
The intrest of the child, would have been the chief concern, after the brutal death of his mother, The old saying' No smoke without fire' is applicable here, it is more then conceivable that she mothered a child, and left him with somebody , whilst she was living in whitechapel, and when Barnett lost his lucrative job, she could no longer support the boy, and he was returned to her, at a time she was unable to support him.
The whole lifestyle of kelly is very hard for us to comprehend, the truth is we simply dont know, her plight at the time of her death, she was obviously highly depressed, undeniably scared stiff, and utterly confused to her future on this earth.
We have not even managed to one hundred percent, identify who Kelly was, their are countless suggestions, it has been suggested that she had a son called Michael, who was sent to canada, but no evidence.
I believe that the reason she left home , proberly with child, was shame, her parents disapproved of such behaviour, I am still not convinced that she may not have been Abigail Kelly , who returned from Kansas city USA., and was spotted in Whitechapel By the man called Rees, that would explain , letters being received by her family, as Mr Rees, was her fathers friend.
and would have reported her sighting to him.
Confused as ever .
Regards Richard. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 6:06 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I have never heard of this Abigail Kelly that you speak of. Can you tell me more about her, or where I can find the story for myself?
Best Regards
John Savage |
Scott Suttar
Police Constable
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 10
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 8:01 am: | |
Hi Richard.
Thanks for that reply. I would like to do some more reading first before I comment too much further on this subject. I agree that it is certainly conceivable that she had a child. I noted on one of the other threads regarding Mary that some records were found of a possible family from which she may have come. It stated I think that there was a two year old boy at that address when Mary was (if my memory serves me!!) sixteen. I do however still contend that though the scenario you describe is plausible, it is curious that there is no mention of a child at the inquest by anyone at all.
I'm interested to know where I can find Barnett's statement about Mary having a child. I've checked the A-Z but nothing in my edition.
Thanks.
Scotty. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 873
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
Hi John,
The reports come from the Western mail, dates 12th/13th nov 1888, and on the 15th nov.
Also there is a report in the'llanelly and country guardian on the 15th november.
or more simply read 'Jack The Ripper' The uncensored facts, an excellent publication by Paul Begg.
A complicated story, but intresting to boot.
Regards Richard. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Hi Richard,
Many thanks for your reply.
I have Paul Begg's "JTR The Uncensored Facts" on my shelf, but it is some years since I last read it. I shall have another read and refresh my memory.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Jeff leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 7:00 am: | |
Hi afraid I cant help with possible son although I'm sure there was mention that she had been married in wales and the husband died in acident. She then moved to Cardiff tacking up prostitution through a cousin.
However I do know about the Bond Report which simply states 'Uterus placed under head' as far as i am aware it makes no mention of Kelly being not Gravid, as I have heard stated, and makes no mention as to the condition of the uterus.
The posibility that Kelly had never been pregnant given the fact that it was an ocupational hazard, seems unlikely but there seems to be no proof just speculation. I dont beleive that we can state that Kelly wasn't pregnant when murdered any more than she was. Just that she probably was not pregnant and probably didn't have a child.
Hope this helps Jeff |
Andrew Gable
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
Scott:
Yes, I believe that was the Kelly family we found in Yorkshire, wasn't it? Mary Kelly was only 15 at the time of the census (1881), making her 22 in Jack's time. Her elder sister Bridget though was 19 I think, which would give her the canonical age of 26 in 1888. The child (James Langan) was 2, and what's more interesting, he had the same last name as the man arrested in France as a vagrant and possible Jack, John Langan. Also interesting is that (at least as far as I'm aware), Bridget was one of the aliases Kelly used. Can anyone confirm that? Perhaps the murdered one was actually Mary Kelly's sister... |
nelly
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
As pointed out above,there is no mention of a child at the inquest.But why would there be?It was an inquest into a death not a family hearing.
This boy,if he existed,may or may not have been her's but it is conceivable that a boy was staying with her.Orphans in Victorian London had very little options,one was the workhouse the other was to live off the streets.Mary may have been a female 'Fagin',allowing boys to stay with her in return for stolen property.After all she was a woman of ill repute.Any revenue source would have been welcome to her.
Kids in workhouses or living on the streets became a thing of the past with the advent of organisations such as Dr Banardo's.
Co-incidentally founded in Whitechapel in 1888.
Hence the reason for my question.Would he have gone there? |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 8:59 am: | |
Hi nelly
Interesting idea and ties with something someone said to me about 'petty thefts.' If Kelly was involved in other crimes apart from prostitution is it not possible that there might be police records connecting 13 Millers Court and Kelly's name.
I guess its a long shot as she probably used a number of alias's but you might give an address. Has anyone ever scanned police records for 13 Millers Court a year before the murder? Just an idea.
My mind has always thought of the boy and Kelly being linked in a motherly way but of course a young boy would have a certain street value if your in the prostitution business. Bennett said he was fed up with prostitutes staying at 13 Millers Court and I have always assumed he ment other women but child prostitutes could be another explination.
Its easy to romatisise kelly but who knows what she was really like. Jeff |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 766
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hi Richard et al...
Blimey!!!! Quite a story re this Canadian thing.....must look into that!!Still think that if and I stress.. I MJK had a child.. it was probably left with those nuns down the road at Crispin St....maybe....just maybe the poor little chap looked out mum and hung around tho..............unlikely tho I feel
Best
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 767
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 4:36 pm: | |
Whoops that was IF... suzi |
Nina Thomas
Police Constable
Username: Nina
Post Number: 4
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
Hi Scotty,
You can find Barnett's statement in the Nov. 10th Star http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html
Nina |
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 8:12 pm: | |
Inquests did have some family background information of the deceased, Dr Bond did not mention whether Mary Jane had had a child, so perhaps she didn't. Also the other doctors did not mention of the other victims whether they had children or not, as the relatives or friends of the deceased usually filled that information for them. Most prostitutes engaged in sodomy so as to avoid the risk of pregnancy, if they did become pregnant they were usually kept by a common-law husband/boyfriend, as pregnancy whilst on the game was bad business for them, it would cost too much in loss of customers. Also women who were caught up in prostitution if they had children they also used to prostitue their kids too. |
