|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ditto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |       |
Hi all
I wondered, how reliable is Joseph Barnett's testimony as to Marie Jeanette's age?
He had supposedly only known her since 1887.
This would not be the first case of mistaken age, if it were so.
1)Polly Nichols
The East London Observer guessed her age at 30-35.
Her father at her inquest said "she was nearly 44 years of age but it must be owned that she looked 10 years younger"
2)Elizabeth Stride
Michael Kidney who had known her for three years( twice as long as Barnett knew Kelly)gave her age at the inquest as being 36-38 years.
Sven Ollson gave her date of birth as 1843, giving her an age of about 45 years.
So is it beyond the realms of possibility that Barnett had Kelly's age wrong?
What if she were nine or ten years older than thought?
It's not pleasant to contemplate, but I do believe it is worth thinking about.
Maybe the difficulty in tracking her in the Census is because the age is not correct.
It would have been much easier to accept her age, as given by Barnett, if there were corroborative testimony from a relative.
If there is corroborative evidence somewhere else then I apologise in advance for wasting time.
I don't profess to know why Barnett would have the age incorrect.
I'm just suggesting that maybe he did.
Open to any thoughts
Regards Di
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 779
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:43 pm: | |
Interestingly enough I just posted something along similar lines today before your post got approved..I would have posted here if it had gone through a little earlier. Talk about like minds. My post was under the Back to Basics thread and it basically said that the only reason we are supposing MJK was 25 was because of the ME report and the ME most likely got that info straight from Barnett. And Barnett most likely got that from MJK. MJK wouldn't be the first person to lie about her age now would she?
|
Ditto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 7:10 pm: | |
Hi Ally
Just read your post.
I agree with you!
MJK may have fibbed about her age or maybe it was flattering to Barnett to have MJK so young!
Her "youth" may also have made her services more desireable.
It also calls into question her "history" as described by him.
Maybe that's also why no relatives came forward, they didn't recognise their Mary as this one.
So what do you think can be taken as read, her Irish heritage?
I'll widen the search in the 1881 Census.
I know this is not about her age but I wonder if the references to "the tub" in her room could point to her working in a laundry or taking in laundry.
Could be possible occupation.
Yes, I have seen the entry in the 1881 Census for 28 year old Mary Kelly(married) at the Adelphi Hotel where James Maybrick is also listed but I'm inclined to see this as just a coincidence.
There is also a Mary.A.Kelly(single) age 27 born Ireland listed in the 1880 census for the U.S working as a laundress in Union,Bergen,New Jersey.
Could be same Mary maybe it was the U.S not France she ventured to!
The problem is that there are probably heaps of Mary Kellys none of them the future victim of the Ripper.
No harm in looking though.
You never know!
Regards Di |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
