|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Williams
Sergeant
Username: Wehrwulf
Post Number: 16
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 4:33 pm: | 
|
Hi Natalie
There is some information on deaths in Welsh coal mines on the Davies disaster thread. |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Hi All;
here are some partial lists from some possible disasters that took the life of Mary's young husband in the general time frame.
Death Roll
Naval Colliery
10th of December 1880
Brooks, Henry - Hendre, Gwillym
Chadwick, James 23 Single
Cooke, Archie Talyfedw,Married, 3 Children
Davies, Charles - Trealaw,Married, 2 Children
Davies, Evan 49 Coedymeibion, Married, 4 Children
Davies, Evan - -
Davies, John 42 Penygraig, Married, 2 Children
Davies, John - -
Davies, John - -
Davies, William - Ffwrdamos, Single
Davies, William R 23 Penygraig, Single
Evans, David 26 Ffwrdamos, Married, 3 Children
Evans, D.
Death Roll
Risca Colliery
16th of July 1880
Name Age Employment
Adams, Henry 45, Labourer,
Adams, William - -
Ashman, William 24, Labourer,
Baker, Frederick 17, Haulier,
Baker, Henry, 24, Haulier,
Ball, Fred 36, Stower,
Benn, William 42, Repairer,
Bowden, Thomas 35, Hitcher
Brake, David, 29, Collier,
Bray, John 57, Lampman,
Breeze, Thomas - -
Brookman, Henry 40, Fireman,
Bush, Stephen 64, Bottom Cutter,
Bush, William 25, Labourer,
Caines, William 68, Ostler,
Carey, Charles 26, Dukey Rider,
Charles, William 45, Labourer,
Chiddy, Thomas 29, Collier,
Cordey, William, 49, Ripper,
Crook, Mark 30, Bottom Cutter,
Dale, Thomas 46, Labourer,
Daley, John 18, Haulier,
Davies, James 18, Assistant Mason,
Davies, William 34, Stower,
Dix, Samuel 51, Timberman,
Dix, Thomas, 26, Timberman,
Hope this helps
Joan |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 782
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 9:04 am: |
|
Just wanted to say that Davies, James 18, Assistant Mason sounds like a good bet. Possibly. |
Paul Williams
Sergeant
Username: Wehrwulf
Post Number: 17
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 2:08 pm: |
|
There is some discussion on James Davies on the Davies collerie thread. I have tried to trace him with no joy so far. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Sarah,
I agree with you on that, I believe James Davies, to have been Kellys dead young husband, he fits in with the age group, also as he was an assistant mason, this might fit in with Joseph Fleming, who was described as a stone,mason in reports, the fact that he had the same job, as her dead husband, may have been a initial attraction, on kellys part.
Regards Richard. |
Avril Ford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 5:32 am: |
|
Why were the Abberline diaries provided by Joseph Sickert thought to be untrue? |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 8:53 pm: |
|
Hi Avril,
These Abberline diaries are contained in the book "The Ripper and the Royals" by Melvyn Fairclough. They support the royal conspiracy theory, which today nobody really believes; also although said to be written by Frederick George Abbelrline, he actually signs them G.F. Abberline.
Some time after the publication of this book the author is on record as saying that he no longer believed them to be genuine.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 12:50 am: |
|
Hi Paul
Re: James Davies
Although Davies is a very common Welsh surname, surprisingly in the 1871 census there are only two James Davies entries of the right age (i.e. 9 years old in 1871 if he was 18 in 1880)
One of these was the son of a fairly well to do farmer, so seems unlikely.
The other is listed as follows:
Address:
White Park, St Issles, Pembrokeshire
Head;
Titus Davies aged 35 - Coalminer
Wife:
Elizabeth Davies aged 33
Children:
Joseph aged 13 - Coalminer
Willi aged 11
James aged 9
Oscar aged 7
Stephen aged 5
John aged 3
Daniel aged 2 months
All family listed as born in Pembroke
Hope this helps
Chris |
Avril Ford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 7:45 am: |
|
John
though lots of people dont really support the royal conspiracy theory, wouldnt it make more sense to judge the diaries separately? Considering the amount that was written in the diaries it seems to me that if they were forged the writer would make a few more mistakes than that, like for instance in the Maybrick diaries. Maybe Melvin Fairclough distanced himself from the book because his was scared off. |
Andrew Gable
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 4:09 pm: |
|
On February 29, Paul Williams wrote:
On February 29, Paul Williams wrote:
Mary Kelly U 15 Ireland Mill hand flax
James Langan 3 Halifax
It is possible that this is the Mary Kelly born 05/09/1866 with a mother Bridget and father John. It is not clear if James Langan is her son or that of the younger Bridget Kelly.
I recall hearing also that another of the aliases MJK used was "Bridget". Anyway, the reference to James Langan is interesting, given the fact that a John Langan was arrested in France during the month between Eddowes and Kelly. It's my pet theory now that John Langan, questioned by Scotland Yard and released, may have actually been the Ripper. In fact, I'm planning to go on a trip to Britain and possibly France to follow up on the Kelly/Langan connection. What if MJK's supposed child was Jack's? If Langan was a man with a carroty mustache, it's all over. ;)
I've long held the idea that if we figure out who MJK was, who Jack was will follow. And as we get closer to the answer, it's seeming more likely. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 7:36 pm: |
|
Hi Avril,
I think it would be difficult to judge the Abberline diaries separately from the royal conspiracy theory, because they originate from Joseph Sickert. All the people named in them, and all other information that I have seen in Melvyn Fairlclough’s book, directly support this conspiracy.
Of the various authors who have mentioned the diaries all are of the opinion that they are forgeries, and I think the following paragraph from Phillip Sugden’s book “The Complete History of Jack The Ripper” pretty well sums the matter up.
“Later Joseph Sickert retracted his confession and supplied further material to Melvyn Fairclough, who used it in his book The Ripper and the Royals. It included three diaries supposedly written by Inspector Frederick George Abberline between 1892 and 1915 and given by him to Walter Sickert in 1928. Abberline is well known to students of the ripper case. In 1888 he co-ordinated the hunt for the murderer in Whitechapel and he died in Bournemouth in 1929. I do not know whether the diaries have been subjected to competent forensic examination. I do know they are not true bill. The diaries, which incriminate a galaxy of public figures. including Lord Randolph Churchill, Sir William Gull and James K. Stephen, Prince Albert Victor’s tutor at Cambridge, conflict with Abberline’s known views on the identity of Jack the Ripper. On one page, reproduced by Fairclough, the detective’s name is incorrectly signed G.F. Abberline. Still more telling, biographical notes on four of the murder victims, set down in the diaries, supposedly by Abberline, appear to have been cribbed, sometimes almost word for word, from the research article published in True Detective in 1989”
However Andy and Sue Parlour have also written about the diaries in their book “The Jack The Ripper Whitechapel Murders” were we are told that “the first mention of them [the diaries] was in the Evening Standard of 21 April 1988”. So there would appear to be a conflict there, and perhaps if Andy & Sue read this they may be able to clarify matters for us.
Also I believe that Jean Overton Fuller has some comments regarding the diaries in the third edition of her book “Sickert and the Ripper Crimes”. Alas, I have not yet been able to get hold of a copy of this book, so am unable to help you there.
Best Regards
John Savage
|
Avril Ford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 10:18 am: |
|
John
i know that the diaries contridict Abberlines later views on the identity of Jack the Ripper, but looking at it logically Abberline was smart enough to know when to keep his mouth shut. Even it there was the slightest suspicion in his mind that the royal family were involved, i doubt he'd go on record as saying so because he didnt want to rock the boat. The same reasoning may applied to Joseph Sickert when he told the newspapers that it was all a hoax. After all he had had numerous visits from the police. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Hi Avril,
What you say is of course possible, but I think that the easiest way to prove if the diaries are genuine or not, would be handwriting analysis. For this you would need someone willing to invest time and cash in the project, and as nobody these days is interested in the royal conspiracy, I feel this is unlikely to happen. Also since the death of Joesph Sickert, I have no idea who now owns the diaries.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 592
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 6:57 am: |
|
Hi All
I have been recently, with the help of the National Library of Ireland Genealogy service, trying to track down Mary through the parish registers for Limerick.
We decided that the logical place to start was the city of Limerick, as we felt that if Mary's father went to Wales to work in an Iron Works then chances are he was an industrial worker in Ireland also, and so they were more likely to be an urban family than a rural one.
I have now completed searching the registers for the city of Limerick, looking for all Mary Kelly's and variations born in the first half of the 1860's. Variations meaning that often in Ireland a Hibernicised name may be used, such as Mairead. Also it must be remembered that Mary may not have had a middle name at this point, the general standard in Catholic areas at that time was that your middle name was given you at confirmation, although this would normally be a saints name and I can't recall a Saint Jane (unless someone knows different).
Anyway, I found two Mary's born in Limerick in the relevant period with the father's name John (as Barnett told the inquest). The details are as follows:
The most likely candidate was born in the parish of St John and baptised on 31st March 1863. The entry is written in latin and in a scrawled hand so is difficult to make out.
It seems to say that she was born in December but this may be a mistake on my part. It would be unusual, with infant mortality rates high and the Catholic church believing that an un-baptized child will spend eternity in purgatory, most children were baptised within a week of birth, some even on the day of birth.
Her father's name was John, which is written in the latin form Johannes, and her mother's name is Catherine. Her maiden name is either Jonson or Jordan. The latter seems likely as it would be the more likely surname to be found in Ireland at the time.
Now the bad news. I tried to search back through the parish register for other children born of the same couple, but the registers for 1850 to 1861 are missing from the National Library, and the only other place to have a copy, the Limerick Heritage Centre, is closed down due to lack of funds. I am trying to track this down now but it may take some time. There were no further children born to this couple after 1863, or at least not registered in this parish or any of the other Limerick parishes.
The other one was born 18th December 1865 so seems probably too young. Her mother's name was Anna Heany or Hearny.
I found another Mary in St John parish, born on 28th October 1863 and baptised on the 30th. Her father was Michael and her mother Bridget Joyce. They had a son, Michael, born in October 1867.
I found a Mary-Ann in the same parish born 14th December 1863 and baptised 20th. Her father's name was Daniel and her mother Maria Anna Cresnan. They had three other children after 1861, Josephine in May 1862, Margaret in September 1867 and John in October 1869.
I found a Marian Kelly born 18th December 1864 and baptised 22nd Jan 1865. Her father was Thomas, her mother Bridget Laughlin. Could find no other children for this couple.
I found a Mary McCarthy baptised 22nd June 1862 (no birth date registered), of John McCarthy and Bridget O'Brien. This was the only Mary McCarthy I found. This was in the parish of St Michaels. I did not go looking for the rest of this family.
These are all the Mary's I discovered in the city in the appropriate period. I have details of all the other Kelly families I found, and if anyone is interested then let me know.
The next stage is that the people at the NLI are looking up towns which had heavy industry at the time and I will look there next and keep the rural parishes for last. There are a lot of parishes so this may be a long process. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 7:12 am: |
|
One thing I'm curious about is, why did the family move to Wales? Maybe the place John was working at closed down. That's just a guess though. If Mary had a large family (as Joe said) then it would have been quite a big thing to move them all to Wales.
Anyway, just something I was interested in.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess 
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 9:41 am: |
|
Just a thought Allan
But while your searching for industrial conections, I was wondering if there were any in France. Mary Jane Kelly may have had conections to Depe, I'm sure I've read that the McCarthies also did and the sugestion that Kelly may have been related to the McCarthy name, which is why she got away with the rent.
There were Irish communities in France, your problem is that we got everywhere. The population of Ireland went from 3 million at the time of the Spanish Amarda to 8 million by the potatoe famine. 2.5 million may have starved and emigration was so constant that by the 1960's the population of Ireland was 4 million. I know a little as my family were from Cork originally.
Dont forget Depe in your thoughts. Still think that finding her brother through army records is your best chance. Good luck. Yours Jeff Leahy |
Neal Shelden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Neal
Post Number: 150
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Hi Alan,
Your research on Mary Jane Kelly in Limerick is invaluable to tracking down a positive identification on the elusive final victim. And I look forward to reading more on the boards about your candidates.
I think it's quite possible her actual age could have been 3 or 4 years older than the 24 or 25 given in records in 1888? But probably less likely to be 3 or 4 years younger. So possibly she could have been born earlier than 1863?
Best of luck with the search.
Neal |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 595
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 5:43 am: |
|
Thanks Neal
I agree that she is likely to be older rather than younger. My approach at the moment is to study all records from 1860-1865 for each parish recording all Kelly families (and any Mary McCarthy's I find because of that possible connection). Then any family which contains a Mary born in the right period I study records from 1850-1875 to look for children born of the same parents to try to build up a family picture. The hope is that this can then be matched up with information in the UK 1881 census. Obviously I am looking with more favour on those with a father named John, and hoping to find one with one sister and seven brothers, one of whom is named Henry!
Unfortunately the search can never be complete as many of the parish registers are badly damaged and entries are missing or illegible. |
Brenda
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 10:03 pm: |
|
I would like to point out that in Victorian times, most women who were widowed or even divorced kept their married names. I can't think of anyone from that time that went back to their maiden name. I feel like looking for a Mary Kelly might be barking up the wrong tree even though that's what everyone knew her as. |
Marie Jeanette Kelly
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 3:52 am: |
|
How about her full name? Marie Jeanette Kelly? |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1227
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Hi all
This is a tortuous but very important question and the lack of any documentary evidence regarding Kelly's life and background has always been a problem.
Her name was variously reported as:
Mary Kelly
Mary Jane Kelly
Mary Janet Kelly
Marie Kelly
Marie Jeanette Kelly
Mary Jane Lawrence
Lizzie Fisher
If Barnett's account is reliable, then we can surmise that during the period of her married life (generally supposed to be circa 1879 to 1881/2) she would have been known as Mary (Jane) Davis or Davies.
According to the standard account she was born in Limerick circa 1863, moved with the family to Wales when "very young" (presumably at some point before 1870), married circa 1879 and after the death of her husband in 1881/2 went to live with her cousin in Cardiff, during which time she spent a lengthy period in the Infirmary there, finally moving to London in or about 1884.
As far as I am aware none of these period have revealed any definite documentary evidence. It is possible that study of some of the minor characters in her story (such as the cousin in Cardiff) may reveal some light on her background.
But we also have to face the possibility that the accounts of Barnett and other friends of Mary Kelly, as they came from Kelly herself, may be substantially or entirely invented.
Stride's fictitious story about her husband and children going down with the Princess Alice must alert us to the fact that stories to elicit sympathy (and financial help) were certainly not unknown and kelly's account of her marriage and young widowhood may be a similar case.
Chris |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2478
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Chris, do we have any info as to the gender of the cousin? Folks seem to assume that the cousin was female, but maybe it was a male cousin, acting as her pimp?
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1228
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Robert
I know of no indication either way as to the gender of the cousin. I agree it is usually assumed that this was a female cousin but no of no evidence for this assumption
Chris
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 769
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Sarah et al
Right!!! I feel that not everyone went to America!!! Cardiff and Swansea were sea ports and a hell of a lot closer!!!if it was you and me I think we'd go for the closest option!!!!! I personally work with two Irish (lovely) girls!!!! Cheers Suzi |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 19
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 7:31 am: |
|
I've been doing a little bit of "Digging" and I found a Fanny Kelly who was on the London Music Hall stage and a Miss Kelly who was also involved with Music Hall- she was around the same time as Arthur Lloyd (see Arthur Lloyds website), but unfortunately not enough detail to tie up with MJK. There was also another act Kelly & Gillette. Has anyone found any information that might shed some light on her relation on the stage? McCarthy's daughter's were also supposed to have been on the stage, but again I'm at a dead end.
Busy Beaver |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 815
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Hi Busy B!!!
Kelly and Gilette eh!!!! bit of a close shave 'eh! As a bit of a Music Hall bore here......cant see any real (unfortunate) 'connection; here!
Still think that the Mc Carthy 'connection' (ooh eh!) may be worth a serious look into!!The daughter of Dorset St!!!!! God if it wasn't for that Kelly/McCarthy woman!
Cheers
Suzixx |
Ken Morris
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Hey All!
This is kind of an out on something mentioned by Debra and Sara on the 7th of novemeber. I know I'm a late bloomer to the JtR casefile but its never too late to start being interested. Anyways, I don't know if it was ever found out where the information put forth from that website was found, one of the threads hypothesized that is was from the diary. While that seems most likely to meet, i was just wondering if anyone had ever found out for sure thats where they got their info from. And if it isn't, then where, because there may be some texts we have all overlooked. If anyone can shed the light for me it would be appreciated, and hopefully help others well.
-Ken |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 33
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:59 pm: |
|
Glenn,
You mentioned that Mary Kelly according to doctor's probably had a cloth or something over her face...You say that this is probably because the killer knew her and didn't want to see her face, you also mentioned before in another thread on another post that the killer mutilated her face because he wanted to try and conceal her identity. But Eddowes had her face mutilated also, sounds to me to be another method, but as Kelly was in a room INSIDE her mutilations were far worse, rather than the killer trying to conceal her identity, or that he didn't want to see her face.Ok, now as for the attack by the killer theory whilst she was still alive, just say the clean clothing was put under the bed by the killer for an excuse to take out a knife hidden on his person, to have it ready in the hand. What if the killer moved behind the bed when Kelly lay down, she was wondering what he was doing, just as he came up behind her and there was a struggle from behind, as the killer had her by the chin to cut her throat? Once the throat is cut and she is dead, he can arrange her body how he liked. The other thing is, a fire was lit so hot why?, if not to actually disguse time of death, how many people would be aware of this..Doctor's, detectives (i wouldn't have thought the general public) ? Ah yes the clothes bit, the killer could have just simply moved them back, but it is perplexing as i would guess..Why?
Shelley
Criminology Student
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 35
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 8:16 pm: |
|
Glenn before i forget again,
What if a cloth was not put over the face of Kelly, but were the killer wiped blood off himself and also just over the body to mop up as much of the blood that he could including the face.
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1961
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 8:44 pm: |
|
Hi Shelley,
"What if a cloth was not put over the face of Kelly, but were the killer wiped blood off himself and also just over the body to mop up as much of the blood that he could including the face."
That is of course a possibility, and this is really the downsides of dealing with a 115 year old case. All we can do is speculate, but we can't check out such details and get them verified to such an extent that we are used to in modern forensics. It is indeed frustrating.
The doctors themselves (I think it was Dr. Bond, but I am not sure -- just shooting from the hip here) suggested that the cloth had been placed over her face and head since it apparently was found close by the head. I have no idea if their assumptions are correct, but IF it is, then I think it may suggest that the killer didn't want to see her face during the actual killing and if this is true -- I say IF -- then that could indicate personal relations.
But as you say, we can't be sure of this. The doctors' assumptions remain assumptions.
Why Eddowes' face was nicked I have no idea (for that we have to look into the Ripper's personal fantasies), but I am well aware of the common notion that the extreme mutilation of Kelly's face might be a result of an evolving trait in the killer's method, combined with the fact that it happened indoors, which allowed him to take things further.
However, seen in the context of other question marks, I don't buy this that easily. If Kelly's murder and mutilation was a copy-cat, then it would be fair to assume that the complete destruction of Kelly's face might be a clumsy attempt to make her harder to identify and as a rather irrational act by the killer (yet another detail that could indicate a rather redundant and desperate desicion by an inexperienced murderer). He could also have read about the cutting in Eddowes' face in the papers and mistakenly have overrated the facial mutilations.
As I see it, there are not that many similarities between the Kelly murder and the other canonical Ripper killings, and there are too many missing pieces in the signature and the MO that makes me question her as a Ripper victim.
I have seen several cases of similar design that's been even worse than Kelly, and they have been a result of covering up the crime. So it's not impossible, and the Ripper's killings -- not to mention the timing -- would make an excellent opportunity to get away with it.
Regarding the fire, I have no idea what that was for and there are numerous theories about this. Was it to see better? Was it to burn something incriminating? (I don't think the killer had enough knowledge regarding manipulating with the warmth and temperature in connection with the blood and timing of death -- heck, even the doctors were rather dusty on these matters in 1888.) Your bet is as good as mine, Shelley.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 37
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:10 am: |
|
Hi, Glenn thanks for your post, the bit about the cloth is good and feasiable, your'e right it is just speculation.
But having said that, i think you may be jumping the Gun in excluding Mary Kelly as a Ripper victim, my assumptions could be that, Mary Kelly could have had a struggle with the killer from behind whilst she lay down on the bed, like i've said before with the killer holding her chin as she struggled, to fend off the knife (mind you.. Kelly could have practicsed self-harm as we know it today and this could be why there is not documentation as victorians didn't understand this as we do)as she struggled , the killer managed to cut her throat causing death as the medical report stated. Perhaps the killer was more enraged and contributed to more mutilation than he had first anticipated (even though he was getting a taste for it and intended further mutilation than Eddowes). The fact is apart from theorising, which has nothing to back it up...And i might add Glenn that it is only theory that you base your assumptions on Kelly not being a ripper victim. Throat cut (causing death) method 1;Mutilation method 2 as i've said before this is enough to contruct a pattern corolating to the other victims. My assumption would be that the killer did take a trophee of Kelly it just wasn't a major organ, just a piece of her which went unnoticed. As to the fire in Kelly's room,temperature senario to hide time of death, doctor's were aware of this, if you look at greek history of over 2,000 ago you'll find that doctor's had the information even then. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1968
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:00 am: |
|
Hi Shelley,
Thanks for an interesting post as usual.
Well, yes of course, my suggestions and notions here are only theories, but as I said; the crime scene evidence and other circumstances forces me to take other alternatives in consideration.
Kelly is considered a Ripper victim because people want her to be, but there really are no concrete evidence that defends her inclusion in the canonical line-up.
Yes, her throat was cut -- yes, she was mutilated, but so what? The question marks remains.
1) Once again, the crucial trophee for the Ripper seemed to be the uterus or the womb. In Kelly's case this was not removed from the scene, but instead the uterus was left behind and placed in connection with other body parts near the body. Instead the heart is missing. For a sexual serial killer of the Ripper's kind (with a clearly defined and consistent signature) -- where the focus seems to be directed towards the abdominal area and the reproductive organs -- why this? To me it doesen't add up.
The fact that the Ripper took the womb with him in the three cases of the most important canonical victims (In Eddowes case he also took half a kidney, but he still took the womb) and NOT in Kelly, can't be disregarded when we're dealing with a killer where the design of the signature seem extremely important. There seemed to be a reason for why he took those organs and the heart does not fit into this pattern.
2. In contrast to the other murders we here for once do have a plausible suspect and a personal connection to a man that had access to the room and who had had a quarrel with the woman and clearly was disappointed in her -- even in his own words. And a man whose alibi is questionable, to say the least.
3. The mutilations of the Ripper are to be considered being done methodically -- even if Eddowes were rather butchered up (but the method is quite visible nevertheless) -- while the mutilations on Kelly doesn't display that much similarity with the others and more display a likeness with a slaughterhouse without any sense of methodology. Some organs seems to be placed in the vicinity of the body deliberately, but not at all in the same fashion as the Ripper did it.
The alleged similarity in the mutilations between Kelly and the others are extremely overrated and as far as I am concerned non-existing. The mutilations are not only extended in kelly's case -- they are different.
4. Judging from the medical accounts and the crime scenes of the other murders, the Ripper seemed to be quite careful not to get too much blood on him or to create to much of a mess. Regardless of it happened indoors or outside, this may be necessary for him in order to leave the crime scene unnoticed.
In Miller's Court we see that this no longer applies but instead we are faced with a complete mess with large pools of blood and gore, which directly contradicts those other carfeul attempts to keep clean.
Those facts indicate a possibility to me, that she may have been killed by someone else than the Ripper, by someone she knew personally, who had a rough knowledge of the crimes but exaggerated the wounds and got details wrong when he tried to masque it as a Ripper murder.
I can't say this is what happened, but there are circumstances that suggest that it may be an alternative possibility that can't be ruled out beyond doubt.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 01, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 41
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Thankyou for an interesting post, but i thought that the heart of Mary Kelly had been placed between her legs in one account, thus none of the major organs had been taken. But as in the case of a serial sex killer, the killer doesn't have to take a whole organ for a satisfying trophee, or an organ for that matter, he need only take a piece, as in the case of the sex killer an number of anatomy can be a trophee to the killer, such as :
Anus (piece of)
Rectum (piece of)
Liver
Womb/ ovaries/piece of fallopian tube
Kidney
Heart
Breast or breasts/piece of/nipple
Lung
stomach
spleen
Pancreas
Intestine/pieceof/small intestine.
These organs / anatomy are all in the area where a sex killer will target, note that the heart does come in this catagory (think about it..how close is the heart to the breast) Now if the killer had taken a piece of the vagina or anus/rectum, the mess Kelly had been left in wouldn't have been noticed at first or if at all.
I would think that Kelly falls well within the catagory of the canonical murders. As for Barnett if there was any shred of reasonable suspicion about the guy the police would have picked up on it, Barnett would have been in the top 3 of suspects perhaps at number 1 in the top 3, why would he have admitted that he had an arguement with Kelly if this could have incriminated him, he said that he had been unhappy with Kelly rather than a hatred, he acted on his unhappiness and simply left her 3 months prior to her death. This is not enough to convince that he had motive to kill her, also if her killing had been attributed to some one other than the ripper, they couldn't have possibly withstood the type of mutilation Kelly had, this was someone hardend and had a taste for that type of murder.
All the Best
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1971
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Hi Shelley,
No, the heart wasn't found on Kelly. It was considered lost. If the murderer took it with him, though, is another question.
Well, I think it's important that the womb especially was taken in the case of the three canonical victims where there were mutilations involved. That sure tells me something and that there is a pattern to consider.
And I stand by my claim that there are no similarities in which Kelly was mutilated and the others. There are no evidence or reason to assume that it is the same man, apart from the fact it happened within a reasonable suitable timing and geographical area of the Ripper murders.
"...why would he have admitted that he had an arguement with Kelly if this could have incriminated him, he said that he had been unhappy with Kelly rather than a hatred, he acted on his unhappiness and simply left her 3 months prior to her death."
Probably because it could have been corroborated by others anyway. This was known to other people.
"...this was someone hardend and had a taste for that type of murder."
Shelley, I can give you a whole bunch of case examples throughout crime history where husbands and boyfriends without a prior criminal record have killed mutilated their women beyond recognition -- some cases even worse than Mary Kelly. It happens and is not uncommon.
I used to think this was uncredible as well, but after having seen enough cases, I understood that I was wrong. This is probably one of the more important misunderstandings as far as the Kelly murder is concerned.
I am not trying to convince you of anything -- I can't even myself say that this is the truth -- but I am just asking you to keep an open mind about it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 01, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1972
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 2:19 pm: |
|
An addition regarding Barnett:
"As for Barnett if there was any shred of reasonable suspicion about the guy the police would have picked up on it, Barnett would have been in the top 3 of suspects perhaps at number 1 in the top 3..."
And he probably was -- at first.
It is, as you probably know, normal procedure and common sense to interrogate first-hand those who stands in direct close relationship with the deceased (and in cases of domestic murders, those are usually the main suspects and the perpetrators).
Then, the fact that the police believed in him (this is confirmed by internal police communication) and let him go, means nothing.
It is not especially surprising when a ripping lunatic was at large and uncaptured.
Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a prime suspect had fooled the police and hardly the last.
And even if they didn't but his testimony... on what grounds could they hold him? They had no physical evidence linking him or anyone else to the murder. Taking the means and development of the police at the time, they would have to capture him or the Ripper red handed or get a confession in order to hold or charge him.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 01, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 44
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Sorry i've taken so long to respond but i have a 23month old daughter (as well as a teenage son), they do tend to take up time...Also i'm off to Italy on wednesday, we've just heard that there are some terrorist attack threats! Anyway enough of that for the mo.
I doubt that Barnett could be guilty of Kelly's murder, but that's me.
However, i've gone through some records and found that 'Nichols didn't have her womb removed, but that Chapman did. Mary Jane Kelly's heart was in the room, it was placed on the pillow (which brings me to ask are you getting murder cases confused? or the information you have on the victims they are doctor's reports aren't they and not newspaper reports?) In the doctor's reports two of them have agreed that the killer must have had some anatomical Knowledge. Also i found that, Mary Jane Kelly's fists were clenched due to strangulation, as were the fists clenched of Annie Chapman and Elizabeth Stride. Facial bruising occurred on three of the victims, Nichols Chapman & stride. On Catherine Eddowes only the kidney was removed (not the womb), the post mortem of Catherine Eddowes was observed by Dr's Sequerra, Sedgewick Saunders and Bagster Philips.
Anyway been interesting posts, but i still think and rightly so that Kelly is a ripper victim. Oh by the way i found in my notes that the witness who saw Chapman with a foreign looking man 'Deerstalker hat' fellow say "will you?" to Annie were she replied "yes" was called Elizabeth Darrel.
Cheers
Happy posting
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Hi Shelley
As to Mary's heart Dr Bond reported that the heart was 'absent' I like to assume just from the body not from the room and into the ether!
I too am off soon , going to Canada for two weeks next Monday but will try to post from there so you know I havent been sold into some sort of moose slavery!
Cheers!
Hi Glenn!!!
Suzi x
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1978
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 7:50 pm: |
|
Hi Shelley,
No, I don't care that much for newspaper reports as sources.
1.
Elisabeth Darrell was also called Elisabeth Long. Don't ask me why, but one of the names were probably her married name. But she goes under both names, depending on which source you use. But "Long" is the name she is most often referred to.
2.
I can't find anything in Dr Bond's post mortem report saying that Mary Kelly's "fists" were clenched due to strangulation, only that the fingers on the right hand were clenched. If this is enough to conclude that she was strangled (since the face and the tongue couldn't be closer examined), I have no idea -- the medical stuff is not my thing, I admit that -- but I can't find any other evidence in the reports confirming beyond doubt that she was strangled. And if she was, OK why not? That is probably the most common way to kill someone -- also prior to mutilation -- and surely not something the Ripper had monopoly on.
So OK.; it is very possible that Mary Kelly was strangled as well.
3.
I have no idea which "records" you've been consulting, but in the case of Kelly, the heart WAS abscent, as I see it, from the room (the disappearing ofn the heart is one of the more intriguing discussion subjects). This is Dr. Bond's last passage in his post mortem document:
"The Pericardium was open below & the Heart abscent."
Also read what this website says in the dissertation "A closer look at the victims' wounds", where it says about Kelly: "The heart was abscent from the room."
Nowhere does any document I've seen (unless it's a paper article) say that the heart was found on the pillow. I have no idea where you've read that, but you are welcome to clear that up for me.
4.
Unless I completely have misunderstood the medial reports (which is possible), it is neither true nor correct that it only was half a kidney that was taken from Eddowes; but also "The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments." (Dr. F. Gordon Brown)
In Chapman's case the womb was taken, together with part of the bladder and (as I recall) the abdominal wall.
You are completely right, though, that there was nothing missing from Nichol's body. The general idea (which I support), is that the murderer here was interrupted (this was also suggested at the time).
In neither of the victims the heart was taken.
But in Kelly's case it was and very important sexually charged organs like the uterus (found under her head or parts from the abdominal area was not -- although he could have easily taken them.
Sorry to hear about those terrorist attack threats. I hope that Italy trip goes well; I've never been there myself.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 01, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 192
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
"1) Once again, the crucial trophee for the Ripper seemed to be the uterus or the womb."
Based upon what? Two killings? That's hardly enough to base a solid conclusion off of that allows you to rule another case out that otherwise matches so extremely well.
"The fact that the Ripper took the womb with him in the three cases of the most important canonical victims"
Three? Chapman, Eddowes and...?
"And a man whose alibi is questionable, to say the least."
Don't really see anything questionable about his alibi, at least with the facts as we have them. Some people assume that he could have got up and walked out unnoticed at any time, but then we have don't know how that lodging establishment was run. Many of them had people up front watching who came and went. The police apparently didn't find the alibi questionable, and they knew a lot more about the circumstances than we do today.
"Some organs seems to be placed in the vicinity of the body deliberately, but not at all in the same fashion as the Ripper did it."
And here I was planning on making the argument that it was the specific placement of parts in the Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly killings that makes it all but certain to be by the same hand. Other than that he had more bits to rearrange with Kelly than he did with previous ones, the locations line up well. The Ripper cut them open at the groin, removed the skin/belly/covering, placed them above the victim's left shoulder, and removed inner bits and spread them around the body. The only body parts that match between Chapman and Eddowes also match with Kelly. How is this "not at all the same fashion"?
[Killer took steps to not get blood on himself]
"In Miller's Court we see that this no longer applies"
Not seeing how that makes any sense either. Chapman and Eddowes were opened up pretty far and Jack definitely would have his arms covered in gore. That's not any different than the Kelly murder except by degree. Kelly's cut artery spurted on a wall, which goes along with the aiming it away from him strategy. You don't know what other steps the killer may have taken in that room (change of clothing, stripping down, and so forth are some suggestions that have been offered). Saying that he took no steps to avoid getting messy while he did takes steps in the other killings seems to be an unsupported conclusion.
I've never seen any reason to believe this was a different killer at work, other than focusing narrowly on specific details to an extent that would also make all the other killings by completely different hands as well.
I just don't see how anyone can look at Eddowes and Kelly and not see that those two were the ones most obviously by the same person. Obviously there's a number of people who don't see it that way, but their arguments strike me as a whole lot less convincing than some of the arguments people routinely criticize as ridiculous. I'm not sure why our mindsets are so completely different on this one topic, especially when it's people I routinely agree with on other matters.
(Not that I routinely agree with Glenn, but other people use similar arguments to support the same conclusion.)
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1979
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 8:29 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
I know how you feel about a lot of those points, and then you also know that I don't agree with you on some of them. That is quite OK, we just read the crime scene differently.
Those ideas are hardly my invention and I am not the only one that has put forward them.
But as I said, I am absolutely leaving the door open for the Ripper in the Kelly murder as well (I have never deifinitely closed it), so I am not "mindset" on anything -- I just suspect there could be other explanations as well in this case. You may think it's pointless, I don't.
We can't all think alike, Mr. Norder.
P.S. Yes yes, I know that part of the "three wombs" was wrong. I was too fast there. Unless you failed to notice, that has already been pointed out to me, and I admit I blew that one.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
CRC
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Anyone seen this drawing before? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3088
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 7:24 am: |
|
I found a reference to a brothel in Pennington St in the "Times" Apr 13th 1888 :
There is a reference to a Jeremiah McCarthy of Pennington St in "Times" Nov 8th 1887 :
There's another reference to Jeremiah McCarthy for Mar 15th 1878 :
Robert |
Gaelcelt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Interesting drawing... but pretty creepy... |
John Casey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 8:43 am: |
|
Searching the 1871 there is a Mary Ann Kelly from Limerick, living with her mother Margaret, and sister, also Margaret, at Chambers St., Whitechapel....could this be our girl?
|
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 5:27 am: |
|
Hi,
Regarding the title of the thread, has any researcher followed up the clue in the Star of 11th November 1888: -
It appears from inquiries made at Carmarthen and Swansea, that after leaving the former place for the latter, Kelly, who was then only 17 years of age, entered the service of a Mrs. Rees, who stands committed to the next assizes on a charge of procuring abortion, and who is the daughter of a medical man formerly resident at Carmarthen.
It strikes me that Mrs Rees should be easy enough to identify, but I don't recall reading that anyone has done so.
David |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1778
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
"It appears from inquiries made at Carmarthen and Swansea, that after leaving the former place for the latter, Kelly, who was then only 17 years of age, entered the service of a Mrs. Rees, who stands committed to the next assizes on a charge of procuring abortion, and who is the daughter of a medical man formerly resident at Carmarthen."
This would indeed be a useful lead to follow, but sadly this rumour was quashed the very same day in a press account in the Cambria Daily Leader, which reads as follows:
“It is stated in the 'Western Mail' that the murdered woman Kelly was at one
time a servant with Mrs. Rees (daughter of the late Dr. Hopkins), in
Trafalgar Terrace, Swansea. We are asked to say that this is not true.”
|
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Thanks Chris - I won't bother going down that route then! |
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 70
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 9:23 am: |
|
Has anyone done any research on John McCartney? Because If he had a sister or even a cousin who had a daughter called Mary-Jane the mystery could be solved! (And it would prove or disprove whether MKJ was a relation).
Busy Beaver |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Hello Busy Beaver,
Sue and I have covered the relationships within the McCarthy 'clan' in our book published in 1997. Our researches are recognised as the best possible evidence of a Kelly/McCarthy link.
A&S |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:59 am: |
|
I have just been looking through some old census entries on Kellys in 1871 that I kept just in case.
I was wondering if any further research had been done by anyone on the Kelly family living at Broughton Colliery cottages in Denbigh(Brymbo)Wales in 1881, they were mentioned by a poster last year, they were neighbours of a Davies family who were colliers.
I found the family in 1871 indexed under the name Helly,at the same colliery cottages, and although they have a daughter Mary, the older daughter Bridget b c 1859 interested me, she is not with the family in 1881.
Bridgets parents were Hubert( a colliery labourer in 1871) and Bridget Kelly both born in Ireland, and all but two of the children were born in Galway Ireland, the mother of the family appeared to return to Ireland at some point in the late 1870's to have a child.
The family had at least 7 sons and 3 daughters.
I didnt at the time check if the Davies family were also neighbours in 1871, so if anyone has that information I wouldn't mind seeing it.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
