| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 10:16 pm: | 
|
Some theorists have made great mileage out of the fact that Eddowes used the alias 'Mary [Ann] Kelly.' A perhaps more interesting coincidence is that early press reports of the Miller's Court victim identified her as 'Lizzie Fisher'...which happens to be the name of Eddowes' sister. Not that I'm inclined toward conspiracy, mind you. Yet the coincidence goes a step further in that the September 1889 Pinchin Street victim, who was never identified, had the name "L.E. Fisher" written on her undergarments.
|
Gary Weatherhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 6:21 pm: |
|
R.J.
One small correction; Elizabeth Jackson not the
Pinchin st. victim had the name L.E. Fisher printed in ink on her undergarments. (see The
Torso Murders of Victorian London,by Gordon)
Why was Elizabeth Jackson wearing L.E. Fisher's
drawers? she apparantly purchased them at a second hand clothing store.
Best Regards
Gary |
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 10:57 pm: |
|
Gary--Thanks. My feeble mind seems to be slipping evermore often. Yes, you're right of course, not Pinchin Street, but Elizabeth Jackson, the victim of the so-called "Thames Mystery" of June 1889, three months earlier.
Here's something that I dug out of the files from the inquest coverage:
"With regard to the drawers bearing the name "L.E. Fisher" on the band, and which the man Faircloth had stated had been bought at a lodging-house at Ipswich, it had been found that they belonged originally to a domestic servant at Kirkley, near Lowestoft, and had been sold as old rags by her mother while staying near her daughter in November last."
The Times, 26 July, 1889.
Why the New York papers originally referred to Kelly as Lizzie Fisher is a mystery, unless, perhaps it was a bastardization akin to "Annie Siffy/Sievey" (?) or merely mistaken identity. Cheers, RP |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 9:16 pm: |
|
I realise this thread has been quiet for some time, but I just noticed that the articles in question were sold as rags "November last", which would be November 1888, corresponding to the time of Mary Kelly's murder. I wonder if there's a connection between all of this?
- Jeff
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 6:36 am: |
|
Hi Jeff
Just dredged up this thread again too........As to the rags being sold on I think its very possible that the were the articles in question...might tie in neatly with my what became of the bed obssession too.....anybody got a copy of that thing about the rags etc being sold?
Cheers
Suzi |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1205
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 9:40 am: |
|
Jeff,
As I was reading the above posts I also couldn't help thinking about the "November last" statement.
Err, by the way, where is Kirkley?
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess 
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah
Great closing line eh!
hmmmmmm... Right! KIRKLEY is just a tad down from Lowestoft on the East Coast!!! Have got the map out to check so it must be right!oooooooooooooooooh **** just read back and ok Kirkley is near Lowestoft!!!!!aaaaaaaaagh
Cheers
Suzi
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1213
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:40 am: |
|
Thanks Suzi.
Just wondering. I'm sure that had nothing to do with Mary's murder. Just another coincidence I imagine, but quite a strange one.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Police Constable
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 2
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Hello everybody,
I was just wondering...Lizzie Fisher was Eddowes sister, is it therefore possible that Mary Kelly and Catherine Eddowes knew one another, and that perhaps Kelly resembled Fisher in someway so as either woman could be mistaken one for the other? |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 7:13 pm: |
|
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh no no no shurely not!
Sarah- Good to hear from you and thats still MY line lol!
Shelley- Come on!..
Facial mutilation is one thing but...............I feel it was not without the bounds of possibility that the girls ALL knew eachother in one way or seven.........
But at the risk of boring everyone daft here ..still think that maybe it wasn't our Mary on that bed!..GOD knows who it was mind you but...........
Cheers
Suzi
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Police Constable
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 4
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:13 am: |
|
Hi Suzi, thanks for your post....Just one thing would bother me about Mary Kelly not being Mary Kelly, that is her one time live in lover Joe Barnett identified her body to the police, so there is no doubt that it was Mary Kelly! Although Barnett did say she was called Marie Jeanette Kelly, so why are we all calling her Mary Kelly anyway (including me!) ? You may be right Suzi that they all may have known one another, but to what extent i don't know, i did come across a political and social study that someone took in the 1800's, all our girls had been in the same workhouse/infirmary and it was definately all the victims not just a coincidental happened to have the same name type of thing, also i found a wealthy doctor that worked at the London Royal Hospital in the list, a Doctor Boyle, he was in there as a habitual slummer (perhaps he felt that he needed to help out in some way, some may see him as a suspect). One thing i'd like to say though...'Simplicity'.....(if it looks like an elephant & smells like an elephant...it's an elephant) Cheers, shelley. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1023
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Hi Shelley
Hmmmmmm OK Joe 'Identified' a body cut to pieces with lets be honest hardly a recognisable feature despite the ears eyes etc etc ...As to the Marie Jeanette naming....Mary put this upon herself...no one else did and she obviously 'liked' Joe to refer to her by this name..perhaps it made her feel a tad more exotic and shall we say a cut above the other poor souls in Whitechapel at the time,although how this was viewed by her contemporaries is open to debate I'd imagine.Barnett and his 'testimony' is I feel IMHO odd to say the least..ok sure he knew Mary for a fairly long time and they lived together etc etc but the poor soul on the bed lets face it! could have been anyone ears and eyes notwithstanding
Cheers
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1955
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Hi all,
There are no indications whatsoever on that the women knew each other and there were probably hundreds if not thousands of prostitute and homeless women in the lodging houses in a small area. They could have, of course, but all those names were rather common,
Furthermore, as far as it may not be Kelly's mutilated body on the bed -- it is of course technically possible, but I can't see any evident reason for why such a scenario should be suspected. That's fiction to me, and I still to this day haven't heard or read a credible explanation to why this should be the case.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Oooooooooooooooh Glenn
Of course they knew eachother.....well I say of course.. I have no proof.. as do none of us ..BUT I think its pretty likely they did bearing in mind the proximity of their 'dwellings' over the years and the use of common lodgings,sheds/infirmaries etc etc
Best
Suzi |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 29
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
Thanks for the post....Even though Kelly's body was badly mutilated, ever stop to think that Barnett could tell her colour of eyes? I've looked at the picture of Kelly and in that photo i reckon if i had lived with her (as a lodger of course...hey now don't get any funny ideas!), i could give something to identify the person i knew, also what about clothing? Catherine Eddowes was identified by a stranger by only her clothing, i do hope you won't be saying next that Lawende was wrong and that the body wasn't Eddowes? Anyway keep posting.
Best Wishes
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 30
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Oh Suzi, by the way i reckon Barnett could identify Kelly by her hair 2......and loads of other tit bits too.
Regards
shells |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1029
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Hi Shelley
I'm sure that in that horror that passed for Mary's head/face the eyes let alone the colour would have been shall we say less than evident!
As to Marys clothing.....there's not a great deal of evidence of anything constructive left in tht room and the only 'facts' re clothes ...crossover shawl etc etc come from 'witness' statements all which as previously discussed may be a tad spurious
As to Kate...will not hear a word against her in any shape or form!Must have been that 'shawl' that did it 'eh!!!!!..Lawende I feel is the only true witness.....Mrs M notwithstading!
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1958
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:38 pm: |
|
Shelley!
"Oh Suzi, by the way i reckon Barnett could identify Kelly by her hair 2......and loads of other tit bits too."
AAaaah exactly. I just came to think of it, and you beat me to it. I agree.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:42 pm: |
|
Think we may have lost the Lizzie thread here a bit! Wasnt it all to do with Kate using the alias of Mary Ann(!) Kelly and the cadaver in Millers Ct being 'identified' as 'Lizzie Fisher'?
cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:44 pm: |
|
Cheers Glenn!
Ha ha the tit bits bit made me laugh tho!
Suzi |
chapmandidit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
There is a very plausible explanation of the body not being Mary Kelly. Mary was known to sublet the quarters. She is reportedly seen after her supposed murder by several witnesses who knew her well. Her attempt to escape her past, her debts, and her fears may have prompted her to exchange clothes with the corpse who had previously rented her room, and walk away. |
