|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1301
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 1:34 am: |       |
Mary Kelly - A New Perspective?
For various reasons Mary Kelly is often seen as the pivotal victim of the Whitechapel murderer. If the list of five "canonical" victims is correct, then Kelly was the last victim and, if so, the inevitable questions arises - why? This has been addressed in two main ways. If the victims were opportunistic targets then the killer presumably stopped after 9 November 1888 because, by whatever means, he was taken out of circulation in the Whitechapel area. The list of possibilities is well known- that the killer left the country, was imprisoned for some other offence without it being realised who he actually was, that he was committed to an asylum or that he took his own life. The other line of argument posits the idea that Kelly was the last victim because she was the culmination of the killer's design, that is, he was actually looking for her. Many inventive and elaborate scenarios have involved Kelly as a participant in a drama that leads to her demise. For example, in the Dr. Stanley story, Kelly is sought out by the demented medis as the person who infected his beloved son with the syphilis that killed him. In the Royal Conspiracy theory involving Annie and Alice Crook, Kelly is both nursemaid to the child and a witness at the wedding which sets in train the lethal events.
Kelly is a researcher's nightmare. It is deeply frustrating that the most high profile victim, the most discussed and speculated about, entirely eludes any form documentary evidence. The core of the problem is the account we have of Kelly's life leading up to the time she lived with Joseph Barnett. This version of her early life comes principally from Barnett, although minor details are added or repeated by others who knew her. Apart from Joseph Barnett, at least one character who features in Kelly's story can be traced in the documentary evidence - Joseph Flemming, the plasterer with whom Kelly lived for a time and whose relationship with her may yet prove to be of importance.
The details of Barnett's version of Kelly's early life are available elsewhere on the Casebook but the important here is how much, if any, of this account is true? There are only a limited number of possibilities in considering this story:
1) Barnett made the story up in its entirety. Evidence from others which corroborate parts of what Barnett said make this most unlikely. Mrs Carthy came forward and was interviewed and verified that Kelly lodged with her and also supported the account of the relationship that Kelly had with Flemming. Of course, this does not mean that eveything Barnett was true, but it does tend to support the contention that Barnett was repeating with reasonable accuracy what Kelly had told him.
2) The account that Barnett gave was wholly substantially the truth. The lack of any supporting evidence in any source thus far consulted (including BMD records, census data and miltary records) fail to throw any light whatever not only on Kelly herself but on any members of her family.
3) The account of Barnett was accurately repeated but was wholly or substantially invented by Kelly. A possibly telling comparison is the invention by Elizabeth Stride of the story about her husband and children dying in the Princess Alice disaster. The most likely reason for this concocted tale was to elicit sympathy and, via the Swedish Church, financial assistance. The part of Kelly's supposed early life that bears comparison with this is her alleged young marriage and widowhood on account of a tragic accident.
The only part of Kelly's story that is capable of any supporting testimony is the period in her life after she arrived in London (usually assumed to be somewhere about 1884). The elusive Mrs Buki has not been definitely traced but Mrs Carthy came forward and was interviewed and supported some parts of the Kelly story. Certain important characters in this part of the account - Morganstone, the French lady in Knightsbridge, etc. - have yet to be traced but there are grounds for accepting that the account of Kelly after she moved to London may be true in outline, though some features, such as the West End establishment and the trips to France, must be treated with caution. But for the earlier part of her life, there is not one shred of documentary proof.
The question of Kelly's background raises some seemingly small but intriguing questions, such as what accent would she have had. We know that in certain of the screen treatments of the story - the 1988 Lorimar version and From Hell, for example - Kelly is given the lilting, southern Irish accent. But there is at least one contemporary account which makes a point of saying that Kelly was of Irish parentage, not Welsh, the logical implication being that her accent could lead to this confusion. Even if Barnett's version of events were true, the fact that Mary was taken to Wales when "very young" may have meant that her accent had more of the Welsh than the Irish in its make up.
As far as the usual documentary sources are concerned, as I have said, we draw a blank. The only official record that indubitably refers to Kelly is her death certificate which refers to her as Marie Jeanette Kelly or Davies. Her wedding to Davis or Davies is generally calculated to have occurred, of at all, in or about 1879. However exhaustive searches by researchers including myself have failed to find any trace of any such marriage. According to the Barnett account, her father was John Kelly but it is not clear whether he was supposedly still alive at the time of Kelly's death or not. Tracing dates from both Barnett's police statement of 9th November and his inquest testimony of 12th November (and there are certain differences in detail between the two) we arrive at this set of supposed dates:
Late 1862 or 1863 - Kelly born in Limerick
The date when the family moved to Wales (Carmarthen or Caernarvon) is impossible to date even tentatively. Barnett simpy says this happened when Kelly was "very young." If we interpret this as, say, up to the age of 5, then presumably it occurred between 1863 and 1868.
1879 - She marries Davis or Davies. Barnett specifically says that they were lawfully married and that she was 16 at the time.
1881 - 1882: Davis/Davies is killed in some kind of mining accident, leaving Kelly widowed.
1882 - 1884: Kelly moves to Cardiff. For 8-9 months she was in an infirmary and it was whilst in Cardiff that she began to work as prostitute. Barnett implies she came to this way of life because of her cousin who lived in Cardiff.
Circa 1884 - Kelly moves to London.
Barnett's account mentions the following members of Kelly's:
John Kelly, her father, described as a gauger or foreman in an ironworks in Carmarthen or Caernarvon.
An unnamed sister, who travelled around markets selling materials.
Seven brothers , six "at home" (presumably in Wales) and one named Henry who was in the 2nd Battalion Scots Guards and known to his comrades as "Johnto."
None of this can be verified from available documentary evidence. There are, of course, many records under the name of Mary Kelly but neither the 1871 nor the 1881 census for Wales contains a record that can be in any way squared with Barnett's information. One point is explicable by simple human error. The sounds of Carmarthen and Caernarvon are so similar that it is perfectly feasible for Barnett to be uncertain as to which was intended and both were certainly sites for ironworks. There is certainly no marriage record for a Mary Kelly marrying anyone of the name Davis or Davies. I have searched Welsh records for the period 1876 to 1882 to allow wide latitiude for this but without success. One final point, and one on which Barnett contradicts himself, is how detailed a knowledge he would have had of Kelly's background. In his statement to the police on the day of the murder, Barnett specifically says "The deceased told me on one occasion that her father named John Kelly etc." However, in his inquest testimony he deposed "Deceased has often told me as to her parents etc." His knowledge of dates, family relationships and nicknames etc. would certainly be surprisingly detailed if he has discussed this with Kelly only once.
So, where does that leave us? In my opinion there is only one inescapable conclusion, that the story as it has come down to us is substantially or entirely invented. Of the alleged facts listed the most likely to be true - but this is only likelihood and not certainty - is Kelly's family name, which Barnett says was her maiden name, and the area of Wales with which she had connection - Carmarthen or Caernarvon. So, is there any record of a young woman of the name of Kelly, of approximately the right age, of Irish parentage who married in the Caernarvon or Carmarthen area approximately when Barnett suggested? We know there was no record of such a marriage to man named Davis or Davies but was there one at all? Well, there was, but only one, and the young woman in question was not named Mary Kelly but Margaret Kelly. In the 2nd Quarter (April to June) of 1880 Margaret Kelly was married in Llanelli, Carmarthen to a man named John John (I have checked this from two sources and that was definitely his name.) The record entry reference is Llanelli 11a 983.
Margaret Kelly was born in the last quarter of 1860 (Llanelli 11a 507) so at the time of her marriage she would have been 19 years of age. She was the daughter of Julia Kelly, born in Cork, Ireland (born 1831 or 1841) who was already widowed by the time of the 1871 census. Margaret had two sisters, Abbey (born 1859) and Julia (born 1862 or 1863). All three daughters are listed as born in Llanelli. In the 1871 census the mother and her three daughters are listed as living at Lesendy, Llanelli, Carmarthenshire.
The 1881 census provides us with a conundrum. We would expect Margaret to listed as Margaret John, as she married in 1880. Instead Margaret is still listed as living with her mother and one sister, albeit at a different address. She is indeed described as married but the surname given is not John.
42 Wern Road Llanelli
Head:
Julia Kelly aged 60 born Ireland
Widowed
Daughters
Abbey Kelly aged 22 - unmarried
Margaret Brewer aged 20 - married
Not only is there no mention of her husband but there is no trace of a marriage between a Margaret Kelly (or Margaret John) and a man of the surname Brewer for the period 1876 to 1881 inclusive. The third daughter, Julia, had by 1881 also married to a man named Robert Cox and their details are given as follows for that year:
Dangraig Cottage, Llanelli
Head:
Robert Cox aged 28 born Bristol - Foreman on railway
Wife:
Julia Cox aged 19 born Llanelli.
Of course the crucial year is 1891 as if Margaret Kelly (or John or Brewer) was still alive and well in that year then she is of no possible reference. Her mother, Julia Kelly, was still at 42 Wern Road in 1891 but her married daughter Julia and her family were now in residence there too.
42 Wern Road, Llanelli
Head: Robert Cox aged 38 born Bristol - Foreman coal miner
Wife:
Julia Cox aged 28 born Llanelli
Children:
Charles aged 10
Emma aged 8
Born Llanelli
Mother in law:
Julia Kelly aged 65 born Cork, Ireland - Widowed
But of Margaret herself I cannot find a trace under any of the names mentioned.
Of course I am not saying and cannot say that Margaret Kelly became Mary Jane Kelly of Miller's Court. All I can say is that hers is the only record I can find that fits any of the most basic facts of the purported account of her life - surname, place of residence, age and period of marriage. I will leave folks to make of this what they will but hope it may be food for thought.
Chris
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 994
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 4:50 am: | |
Hi Chris,
A intresting peice of research, my imagination is in full order. According to Barnett , kelly had a brother named Johnto' which would be rather similar to johnjo, this man who kelly said was in the army according to Barnett and had called on kelly.
Pure specualtion could the whole episode that kelly told Barnett about a mining disaster be fabrication, and that although she was married she simply left her husband and fled to London
We could even specualate further and suggest that her husband tracked her down, and all hell broke loose.
Another major factor is the reported sighting of kelly by a Mr john Rees, who also mentions[ western mail] of llanelli and the wern, who claimed that some time previously he had met the dead woman in London, the strange thing here is it has always been believed that Abigail kelly was the one he was refering to, but she imigrated to America, and the trail ended.
But if he saw Margaret then i do believe we could have something, for he would reported her wereabouts on returning home, and as letters started to arrive from that point, and a person kelly describes as Johnto[ johnjo?] called.
question therefore is was this her husband?, was he involved in her death, directly or as a result of his appearence. and have you chris finally traced the elusive Mary Kelly?.
Regards Richard. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 8:50 am: | |
This may help just a little. My husband and I both grew up in the northern part of the United States. We have northern accents. When our children were very young 5 years old and 18 months old, we moved to the South, specifically Texas. Although they grew up here both of our children speak like northerners. They do not have a southern accent. Apparently the speech patterns of the parents were the deciding factor, not the prevailing speech patterns of the environment. Whatever fabrication Mary created, she couldnt hide her way of speaking and she had to know that her story had to include Ireland somehow. The stay in Wales is up for grabs. She would have spoken with an Irish accent whether she spent any time in Wales or not. Her mother's speech would have been the deciding factor.
We have here a young woman who has made her way to London with a phony story about her past. Was she hiding from someone? The name Mary Kelly sounds almost too common. Almost like an Irish version of Jane Doe. What first name is more common than Mary, especially in a Catholic country like Ireland? Perhaps someone with more knowledge of Ireland than myself could tell me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that Kelly in Ireland is the equivalent of Smith or Jones elsewhere. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 200
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
Interesting stuff Chris. This one is plausible.
"John John" though? There's a prostitute joke in there for sure.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1303
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:21 am: | |
Hi Dan
The name "John John" surprised me but there were a huge number listed in 1881 - 499 in Wales alone, of whom 37 were in Llanelli. Of these, only 4 had a spouse called Margaret and, of these 4, only one Margaret John was even remotely near the woman I was looking for in age (she was 24 years old in 1881). But these were superfluous anyway as the Margaret Kelly of 1871 is definitely listed as Margaret Brewer in 1881 and living with her mother. I also checked not only Llanelli but the whole of Carmarthen in 1881 for anyone of the name of Brewer, and the only one is Margaret. So what happened to her spouse is at present unknown. He was presumably still alive as she is listed in 1881 as Married and not Widowed.
Also there in noone at all of the name of Brewer in Carmarthenshire in 1871 or in 1891.
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1304
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:32 am: | |
I have run a double check for any marriage in Carmarthenshire in the period 1871 (when she is listed as Margaret Kelly) and 1881 (Margaret Brewer) and there is only. In December 1871 a Henry Melvill Brewer married either Clara Evans or Ann Harry. Both on grounds of date and names this can be ruled out.
Chris
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
From what I recall, the reference to a brother named "Johnto" is a possible interpretation or transcription error for "John too", Kelly's father was named John, and her brother was named, "John too".
Has anyone followed up on the suggested maiden name of Kelly's mother, I believe she was a McCarthy. (MacCarthy or Carthy).
Regards, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Hi Jon
Love the idea of John and John Too...God a lot of Johns here! seems to have a certain sort of vernacular sense to it!!!!
It was I beieve IMHO that Mary's ma was a Carthy Mc or not of some description! tantalising eh!...could explain A LOT!
A Lot!......as discussed so often....that could be why she was allowed to run up the rent etc etc
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Have just read this though from the top and hate to say it it sounds wonderfully plausible....
Cheers
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Have just read this though from the top and hate to say it it sounds wonderfully plausible....
Cheers
Suzi
|
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 182
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:12 am: | |
Chris, As usual great work! Ive often thought the mystery of MJK was due to the fact much of her past was a fabrication. You are breaking new ground here. Kudos my friend!
Brad
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 999
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 4:29 am: | |
Hi,
This line of enquiry has been done before, but according to the research made, none of that family were unaccounted for, abbey[ abigail] was in kansas Usa, with her husband William Muir, and her other sisters were alive.
This point is mentioned in the book Leanne and myself are writing, however the fact that margaret is not listed on the 1891 census is a pointer of her not being accounted for, and she not Abbey could have been the person that John Rees saw in london in 1888.
The fact that the family did not attend the funeral is proberly they did everything to hush up any involvement with such a ghastly case.
Richard. |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 640
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 5:47 am: | |
Diana
Doesn't necessarily work. I was brought up in the English westcountry with parents who both spoke with broad Scots accents. I grew up speaking with a thick westcountry brogue, and although it has been tempered by my moving around a lot since, it is still there. Having said that, when I lived in Belgium the Dutch speakers all immediately knew I was Scottish so there must be something there from my parents, but no Englishman would ever recognise it.
Jon
My own research into the baptism records for the county of Limerick threw up a possible mother's maiden name of Catherine Jordan. Maybe that would be another line to follow up on.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 178
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
Chris,
I carried out a little search to try to figure out your Margaret John or Brewer problem, and found an ALEXANDER BREWER also Llanelli marriage June 1880 ref. 11a 983.
More than likely, he married Margaret Kelly and not Mr John John and that would explain the 1881 census entry you found. If you saw it on the BMD website it can catch us all out at times because it isn't complete.
But of course, Alexander Brewer is a bit of a problem because he isn't the retired surgeon born Newport and living in Islington in 1881, but I wondered if he had a son Alexander? In which case what happened to him after the marriage to Margaret Kelly?
Neal
(Message edited by Neal on August 05, 2004) |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1306
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 4:58 pm: | |
Hi Neal
Absolutely right - the Kelly/Brewer marriage of 1881 is the answer to that part of the account, I am sure. many thanks for that.
On his trail now- I'll let you know if I find anything
Chris |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
Chris-
Reading back again.....great stuff going on here but for what it's worth Llanelli is 'famous' for TIN works.....take a look at the delightful museum in Llanelli for indisputable proof....and a nice day out!
Cheers
Suzi |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 179
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 7:05 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
This might be a coincidence, but on bmd I found a marriage for an Alexander Brewer to either Alice Anne Leng or Anne Richards (Dec) 1871 for Neath 11a 869.
Neath is only about 15 miles from Llanelli?
Maybe Margaret Kelly was the 2nd marriage?
Hope you can find more.
Neal |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 2:42 am: | |
Hi Chris,
I think the work you do is of great importance. If there are some answers too be found. I feel they may yet be found in the press clippings and the cencus and your work with both is impressive!
Julia Vanturney [Venturney] stated at the inquest that Kelly spoke of another Joe that she was in love. Could this man be Joeseph Flemming? "She said she was fond of another man also named Joe I believe he was a costermonger" I agree with you I think that if Kelly was in love with Flemming she may have been more forth comming about her past then she was with Barnett and her relationshop with him may indeed be of importance.
Keep up the good work, CB |
John Carey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 9:55 am: | |
Interesting discussion but the crucial question is: can Margaret Kelly or Margaret John or whoever be traced down to 13 Miller's Court in 1888 or were they somewhere else? The best way to do this is to see initially if any possible Mary can be eliminated in fact as married, died or found to be living elsewhere than Miller's Counrt by 1888. Most of them can be eliminated in this way. As Richard notes it looks as though Mary or Margaret from 42 Wern Road Llanell can be eliminated. Just to confuse the issue I understand there are two Kansas Cities in the USA.
The aim should be to turn a "could" or "possible" into a "probable" or better still a historical fact. It can be done. After an exhaustive search, my preferred answer to this enduring puzzle is posted under "Mary Kelly's Brother" on this site. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1068
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Hi all
OK... John 2 Johnnto Jonto etc etc
and all this is tantalising.... At the end of the day I am still a tad worried about 'Mary 'assuming the name of Mary Jane Kelly/Marie Jeanette Kelly(!) ...I know this sounds a bit confrontational but ...if I'd wanted to disappear into Whitechapel in 1888 with an Irish accent.. then Mary Jane Kelly would have been a reasonable enough alias to live under I think and following the 'French' visit Marie Jeanette ..ok......also the Davies connection in Wales the Merthyr/Llanelli connection would have sort of padded out the story,dead miners and husbands notwithstanding!..
I cant help but think that whoever 'Mary' was ..she was obviously bright enough to invent a persona that was totally (ish) convincing to Joe (obviously)....
and most of her contemporaries...Maybe George Hutchinson saw through this though....and that may expain the 'hold' he had over her................dont know..just a thought!
XCheers ......Stand back girl!!!!
Suzi
|
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 395
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Chris and everyone,
I know this is a stretch, but has anyone checked into marriage records in areas Mary NEVER mentioned? If indeed she was fabricating her past it was probably for a very good reason. And if she was fabricating a past for herself why would she even make the lies close?
I realize this basically puts you into the "needle in the haystack" frame of mind, but what might a cursory search of records from maybe Glasgow or Newcastle turn up? Somewhere in Great Britain OTHER than where she said?
There might be some record of a Davies there. But then again, if she lied about where she came from . . .
Might be worth a look, anyway.
-K |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 6:18 am: | |
Hi,
The Kelly family from Wern road Llanelli was investigated in my book and dismissed as a later article in the Llanelli Mercury states that the person popularly supposed to be the victim was alive and well and living in Cardiff.
If you want to find MJK in the 1881 census then looking for Mary Kelly won't work as she had been married to Davies and widowed. Try putting in Mary Jane Davies and you will find a 16 year old widow living in a 'hotel' with other young ladies in I believe Merthyr Tydfil, a town situated just above Cardiff.
I would suggest that this Mary is a good bet! |
John Carey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 6:43 am: | |
Bob
I also noticed Mary Jane Davies “, 16, “widow” in the 1881 census. for Merthyr Tydfil. But this raises a number of problems:
Are we sure the Mormon Index to the 1881 census correctly transcribed the original census form? Quite often it does not. “U” for unmarried could have been mis--transcribed as “W” for widow from the census. I see there was also Samuel Lloyd Davies, 46 –year old widower and his sister Jane a 34 year old widow at the same address as Mary Jane, the Brunswick Hotel, Merthyr Tydfil ( RG11 piece 5313, folio 55 page 7).
Have you found the marriage certificate for Mary Jane and the collier Davies or Davis? It depends what Mary meant by “married”. It could merely mean living together without benefits of clergy. Do we know for a fact that she ever changed her surname from Kelly to Davies or Davies?
Although Mary Kelly had a variety of men friends including Morganstone, Fleming and Barnett himself, there is no evidence I know of that she was ever legally married to any of them. Was Davies killed in an explosion or did he just kick her out of the house –which would be understandable if she behaved with him as she did when she went to London. John McCarthy told the newspapers Kelly used to hang around Aldgate High Street, and “her habits were most irregular and she often came home the worse for drink”; True to type, maybe.
What became of your 16 year old Mary Jane? Trying to trace a young woman from Wales named Mary Jane Davies is a researcher’s nightmare. Like looking for a needle in a haystack or one apple in an orchard.
Regards
John
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 6:56 pm: | |
Hello Mr. Scott,
Ater reading your August 4, 1:34 am post, I asked myself....Why would a census indicate that a women's name had changed via marriage, but not indicate the presents of her husband at the same residence? Well, there are a number of good reasons, death, imprisonment, separation or divorce. But, there are two others that I don't often see investigated: 1) Military service abroad, and 2) Working abroad.
In 1878-9, the Crown was involved in a war with the Zulu nation in South Africa. You may recall the names Islandawanna, and Rourk's Drift from your highschool history classes. I'm not positive about the exact details, but I think, that a Welsh infintry regiment (inter alia) was part of Lord Chelmsford's Expeditionary force, which, I believe left the UK sometime in late 1877 or the early months of 1878. It is possible that Alexander Brewer was a serviceman, and left home with his regiment. Bear in mind that most of the British forces stationed at Islandawanna (approx. 3200 soldiers) were wiped out by 11,000 Zulus. Brewer may have been among the honored dead, or part of the Army of Occupation that remained behind to enforce the terms of the peace treaty.
You may also want to check into any large scale construction projects on the continent, or other parts of the UK that required large labor forces.
It may be possible that Alexander Brewer worked as a laborer or had a construction related trade, and occaisionally migrated to long term work projects when things were slow in Wales.
One last thing...have you looked for Ms. Kelly's name under Mary Margaret Kelly, or Margaret Mary Kelly?
Excellent job of investigation, Mr. Scott. I wish you continued success.
Best regards
Mephisto
|
John Carey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 8:14 am: | |
Bob
I also noticed Mary Jane Davies, 16, “widow” in the 1881 census. for Merthyr Tydfil. But this raises a number of problems:
Are we sure the Mormon Index to the 1881 census correctly transcribed the original census form? Quite often it does not. “U” for unmarried could have been mis--transcribed as “W” for widow from the census. I see there was also Samuel Lloyd Davies, 46 –year old widower and his sister Jane a 34 year old widow at the same address as Mary Jane, the Brunswick Hotel, Merthyr Tydfil ( RG11 piece 5313, folio 55 page 7).
Have you found the marriage certificate for Mary Jane and the collier Davies or Davis? It depends what Mary meant by “married”. It could merely mean living together without benefits of clergy. Do we know for a fact that she ever changed her surname from Kelly to Davies or Davies?
Although Mary Kelly had a variety of men friends including Morganstone, Fleming and Barnett himself, there is no evidence I know of that she was ever legally married to any of them. Was Davies killed in an explosion or did he just kick her out of the house –which would be understandable if she behaved with him as she did when she went to London. John McCarthy told the newspapers Kelly used to hang around Aldgate High Street, and “her habits were most irregular and she often came home the worse for drink”; True to type, maybe.
What became of your 16 year old Mary Jane? Trying to trace a young woman from Wales named Mary Jane Davies is a researcher’s nightmare. Like looking for a needle in a haystack or one apple in an orchard.
Regards
John
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
Fascinating stuff Chris.
You may have something
Now you and I know, that any marriage taking place after 1837, had by law to be registered with the appropriate authorities, hence we now have the benefit of the St Catherines Index, of Births Deaths and Marriages.
But didn't South Wales in those times(Kelly's Marriage)have some weird and wonderfull branches of the Christian movement.
I'm just wondering if Davies, could have belonged to one of these churches,(who were decidedly unorthadox) and married Kelly in one of them, and neglected to register the marriage, on the grounds of his belief, i.e. his unorthadoxy.
It would be interesting to know if any records existed, for these churches.
This is a long, long shot I know, but it was just a thought.
Another reason for not registering the marriage could have been the possible short time between the marriage and Davies death. For all we know he might have left Kelly a widow after a few days of marriage.
Regards Cludgy |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 7:06 am: | |
I can assure you South Wales still has many weird and wonderful religious movements (where did that turtle go!)
Of course John is absolutely right when he says there is no direct evidence that Kelly was ever known as Davies, but its always struck me that if we are looking for MJK, and we halfway accept MJK's story that she was once married then it would make more sense to look for a young widow called Mary Jane Davies rather than Mary Jane Kelly.
Reading heavily between the lines I wonder if the hotel was in fact a brothel? I find it strange that the other occupants are young ladies and the establishment seems to be run by a brother and sister.
I know only too well the problems of searching for a common name like Davies. One of the cases I visit in my crime tour neccesitated me finding a Martha Davies born 1844. Thats all I had as the information about her place of birth was incorrect.
It took many months but in the end I found her!
Bob |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 302
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 8:31 am: | |
Hi Bob
I just check the 1891 census and the Mary Jane Davies you mention was still alive in 1891. She was living at 2 Church Street, just around the corner from the Brunswick Hotel. I knew it was the same Mary Jane as Samuel Lloyd Davies and Jane Davies were there also.
All the best
Rob |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 5:15 am: | |
Dear Robert,
I was aksed on a radio interview yesterday if I thought if the JTR murders would ever be solved, and I said I thought there was a chance they would.
The reason I gave that answer is that more research has been done into this in the last twenty years than ever before.
Your posting is exactly the sort of factual based primary research I was talking about.
I ( and others I'm sure) find a person who could be MJK. Lets face it everything fits. But your check of the 1891 census shows this not to be likely. This isn't a dead end its simply shutting a door that leads nowhere. Congratulations because one day you might open the door that leads to the truth.
May I ask how you managed to check the 1891 census? Is it on line? Also could you confirm that the 1891 has her listed as a widow?
Looking forward to your reply.
Bob |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1332
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 6:48 am: | |
Hi guys
the Mary Jane Davies listed at 2 Church Street in 1891 is listed as single (see below)
Hope this helps
Chris
 |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 6:56 am: | |
Hi all-
Fantastic stuff Chris!
Despite Mary Jane Davies is listed as single this may not of course prove or disprove anything,having been widowed (if this was of course the case) some considerable time earlier I reason that Mary may well have described herself as 'single',it would also tie in with what we know about Mary and her character I feel.
Of course the fact that we're talking 1891 here opens the old 'was it or was it not Mary' can of worms big time!
Cheers
Suzi |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1333
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 7:24 am: | |
I still think that one of the most interesting Kelly families in Wales in 1881 is that from Flint. This family features the following items of interest in the search for MJK.
- The father and head was called John Kelly
- Both parents were of Irish birth
- The daughter Mary was born in Ireland in 1865
- Her younger brother's place of birth shows that by 1867 (when Mary was 2) the family had moved to Caernarvon
- The family had moved to Flint by 1870, the date of birth of the other brother.
John KELLY Head M Male 43 Ireland General Labouer Ellen KELLY Wife M Female 40 Ireland
Elizabeth KELLY Daur U Female 18 Ireland Domestic Sert
Mary Ann KELLY Daur Female 16 - , Ireland ((Gen Labourer))
Patrick KELLY Son Male 14 Caernarvon, Wales Genl labourer
John KELLY Son Male 11 Flint, Wales Scholar
Source Information:
Dwelling Church St
Census Place Flint, Flint, Wales
Family History Library Film 1342323
Public Records Office Reference RG11
Piece / Folio 5505 / 141
Page Number 15
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1334
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 7:28 am: | |
The main problem I can see with the Mary Jane Davies of Church Street is her relationship with the head of household, Samuel Davies. She is listed as his unmarried niece, which makes it almost certain she was a blood relative and Davies was her maiden name. Presumably Samuel Davies was her father's brother.
Chris |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 305
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
Hi Bob
The whole of the 1891 census is available at www.ancestry.co.uk
The 1871 and 1901 census is slowly being added to the site. It is a pay site about £35 per quarter, and you can view the original census sheets. You just need to be wary of transcription errors, and some of the sheets can be a bit hard to read.
One way of looking for Mary might be looking for her husband Davies. I found a list of Welsh Mining disasters (but I don't think it is a complete list)and cross checking with the 1881 to see if that Davies was married to a Mary Jane. But I haven't had any luck so far.
All the best
Rob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1105
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 4:51 pm: | |
Gosh chaps
I think whe're closing in... but of course with the Davies's in Wales.. its a bit like keeping up with the Joneses!!!! Hard work!
Seriously tho.....
keep sniffing 'em out!
Cheers
suzi
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
