|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bob Hinton
Police Constable
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 7:27 am: |       |
This is following on from the 'Witnesses - Caroline Maxwell' thread, where discussion was starting on the real identity of MJK.
It has always struck me as slightly strange in the past that when anyone has been trying to trace MJK they have always seemed to try to trace 'Mary Jane Kelly', my point being that if we can believe the story of her marriage, then surely we must be looking for a 'Mary Jane Davies'. Not only that but she should also be a very young widow!
My favourite is Mary Jane Davies, a 16 year old (1881) widow, living at 56 Upper thomas St (Brunswick Hotel) Merthyr Tydfil. The occupants of this establishment are as follows:
Samuel Lloyd Davies born Carmarthen (another tie in with the MJK legend)
Jane Davies sister, housekeeper
Mary Jane Davies
Elizabeth Thomas visitor age 16 from USA, unmarried ( the American connection) rather young to be travelling so far apparently alone!
Frances C Adlam,boarder, age 22 unmarried.
Mary Ann Jones, servant, age 20, unmarried.
What a lot of umarried young ladies are staying there! If one were of a suspicious mind one could almost wonder what sort of establishment this was!
Now according to the census our young widow Mary Jane Davies is a relative of Samuel Lloyd Davies, which makes her some sort of relative (cousin perhaps) to Jane Davies, the housekeeper. Doesn't the legend say that MJK was led into prostitution by a cousin? Substitute Merthyr Tidfil for Cardiff (its situated just 20 miles up the valley) and don't we now have a very good match for MJK?
Legend: age about 25
this girl: age about 23 or 24.
Legend: Mary Jane Kelly also once married to a Davies
this girl: Mary Jane Davies
Legend: very young widow
this girl: 16 year old widow.
legend: family connection with Carmarthen
this girl: uncle hails from Carmarthen.
legend: introduce to prostitution by cousin
this girl: What exactly was the Brunswick Hotel anyway?
I hope I have given you all something to think about. Don't forget it is not my mission in life to give you facts - merely to get you to start asking questions!
Have fun
Bob Hinton
|
Bob Hinton
Police Constable
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 7:30 am: | |
PS I forgot to mention a 36 year old Mary Jane Davies born in Merthyr Tydfil does not seem to appear on the 1901 census.
There could be a million and one reasons for this of course - its just that it would not tie in with my theory if she did pop up!
Bob |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Police Constable
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 4:56 pm: | |
Whatho Bob,
I think you may be on to something here. It is a shame the 1891 census is not fully indexed or we could look for a 26 year old Mary Jane Davies.
Of course this Mary Jane could have remarried so by 1901 she would have had another surname and so be lost to us amounst all the other Mary Janes who were probably wandering around the country.
Cheers, Mark |
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 5:33 pm: | |
Dear Mark,
You're absolutely correct of course, there are many many reasons why she doesn't appear on the 1901 - and only one of them is that she was MJK!
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 4:02 am: | |
Hi Bob,
Well done, Brillant.
Of course it may lead us up the garden path, however it is a stunning peice of research..
I have always been bemused , why everybody has assumed her name was Kelly , according to her landlord M;carthy he knew her as Mary Jane M;carthy, and all the residents as simply Mary Jane.
No wonder why we have not been able to trace her , and why no relatives came forward.
Mary Jane Davies is well worth researching further into, but I would not discount Mary M,carthy, or even Lizzie Fisher.
once again our Chris Scott and his uncanny way of researching the archives, would be a great asset to our boards , and I hope he joins us in the near future on a full time basis.
Once again well done Bob...
Regards Richard.
|
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 8:51 am: | |
Hi Bob
very good write up of MJD of Merthyr Tyfdil. I have seen this entry in my searches in the 1881 census and I have two reservations against it's being our Mary "Kelly":
1( This Davies family completely negates any Irish connection and apart from the story that Kelly was born in Limerick, she received letters from Ireland.
2) If we think about the family connection, if this Mary davies was a widow, what was her married name. If it was Davies then the Samuel Lloyd who was head of household must be a relation of her ex husband and not a blood relative of hers. Otherwise she may have been the blood niece of Samuel Lloyd and reverted to her maiden name when widowed. Also, sadly, we cannot dismiss the possibility of a transcription error in which the W for widowed in is in fact a U for unmarried.
But I'm very glad you've put these details forward as she ws always a character that intrigued me
All the best
Chris |
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 11:44 pm: | |
Hi All,
Mary Jane Kelly: She is as much a mystery as Jack The Ripper himself. Maybe we need to start thinking laterally.
As of 2003, nobody as still found out who she truly was. Maybe we are looking in the wrong places. Maybe the story of her life, as told to Joe Barnett, was part fabrication, part truth.
Isn't it true that when we practise to deceive we engrain some truth into the "little white lie".
As an example of this, I would direct your attention to the statements of Catharine Eddowes upon being released from the police cells on the night of 30th Sept. 1888. Asked her name, she stated: Mary Ann Kelly. Her address: 6 Fashion Street. Now, we all this was false, and some authors have used this to promote the idea of some conspiracy/cover-up solution, but upon closer examination, we can see where this "little white lie" originated.
Name: Mary Ann Kelly - This is the name of John Kelly's ex-wife, Eddowes defacto.
Address: 6 Fashion Street - The No.6 comes from 6 Thrawl Street, the address of Eddowes sister. Fashion Street, possibily used by Eddowes instead of Flower & Dean Street, which was the next street.
With this in consideration, maybe the same can be applied to the early life of Mary Jane Kelly.
Her name: Maybe she was born Mary Jane Davies, and switched surnames upon arriving in London. Why Kelly? Maybe this was her mothers maiden name?
Married a man named Davies, who died in a pit explosion within a couple of years: Maybe this part of the story is borrowed from a close associate of Kelly's. It could be true that one of Kelly's friends husband was killed in a pit explosion.
Maybe it did happen to her, but she was not married to him, only co-habiting as a defacto.
These are just two avenues that could be researched, and why not. Like I said, even after 115 years, Mary Jane Kelly is still an enigma.
Cheers,
Michael |
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
Dear Michael,
You could very well be right. I tend to think that often people when talking about their lives are selective, they use bits of their own life when it suits them, and often 'borrow' bits of other peoples lives as well.
A similar technique is used by people who work covertly. A lot of the time the details of their 'false lives' are real enough - they just don't belong to the person relating the story. For example I could tell you that I was born in Gloucester, 25 July 1950, had a brother Henry and used to drink at the Fox and Elm. Now all those details are correct, so I would never forget them, but they belong to a person I served with - not me!
Bob Hinton |
Caroline_Maxwell
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 5:51 pm: | |
Good evening,
I find this thread fascinating.
What would be even more interesting is, if we could find a connection between Mary and D'onston's suspect:Surgeon-Morgan(Morganstone?) Davies!
Carrie |
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 1:03 am: | |
Hi,
Carrying on from my last post, but deviating slightly, though still touching upon MJK.
What was the real reason behind the six week gap between the murder of Eddowes and the murder of Kelly?
I find it quite interesting that Kelly was murdered on only the second night that she had slept alone.
In covering aspects of phsycological profiling many people forget about the victim and concentrate upon the killer, but surely deviations in the victims routines prior to their murder should send up warning lights.
Could it really be possible that the reason for the six week gap was because Kelly was never alone at night until the 8th of November. This would throw up suggestions of Kelly being the intended last victim. Was she?
The fact that we know next-to-nothing about her life opens up plenty of scenario's which could fit certain theories.
How about this:
Kelly was not her real name but was one she was given under a government protection scheme. Why? Possibily she had given vital info about a political murder and in return was given protection. Now, years later someone comes looking for her, and in the process dispatches a few of her friends/aquaintenances. Having eventually found the info he needs the killer then as to wait until a time presents itself, ie; November 9th.
Evidence? to support this scenario:
1) MJK is still an enigma to us after 115 years.We still do not know anything of her life prior to 1884?
2) Why the sudden downgrade from the West to the East End in a matter of a few years?
3) Barnett states Kelly was frightened about something and asks him to read the newspapers about the murders to her.
3) When Barnett is kicked out, Kelly still as other prostitutes stay with her. Okay, she may be feeling charitable, but she may have had ulterior motives
4) After Kelly's murder there is a almost complete news blackout.
5) The rushed inquest, of which research shows was illegal.
6) The police manpower withdrawal within weeks of Kelly's murder
7) Monro's statement in later years about the Ripper case being "..a hot potato".
Another aspect of the murder of Kelly is the removal of her heart. Why? Most of the other victims had sexual organs removed.
Does the removal of the heart signify some previous association between Kelly and the killer?
Extensive facial mutilations are accounted for in psychological profiling as evidence of prior associations between the killer and his victim. The face is mutilated to dehumanise the victim in the eyes of the killer, thereby making the victim a unemotional object to the killer rather than someone he/she has had relations with.
To conclude, all I can say is that Mary Kelly must have really pi--ed someone off at some point in her life, and this person extracted his revenge in the most extreme measures possible.
Cheers,
Michael |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 5:59 pm: | |
Hello to all,
I'm new to these boards, and have made a couple of posts, so far. I used to read the old boards here, and enjoyed them very much. I love this site, and I hope my eager (if less than expert!) posts don't annoy my more learned fellow posters too much. 
Michael, I have enjoyed reading your posts on this thread very much. I do agree with most of them, but there are some I'd like to answer with opinons of my own, if I may.
1) MJK could be an enigma to us, because we simply haven't been looking in the right places for her. I do believe that much of the information she gave to close friends, and acquaintances alike, was false.
I don't personally believe that this necessarily indicates that she had a big secret to hide. Many people are dishonest about certain aspects of their lives, for various different reasons. Perhaps her past was painful for her to relate, or even recall, so she made up a different one. Or maybe it wasn't interesting enough- there are so many reasons that people lie about their pasts (I don't believe we can discount the fact that she may have had psychological problems, either).
2) I personally believe that the downgrade in her circumstances from west end prostitute, to east end prostitute, was related to her drinking. I have read that Mary was quarrelsome, or difficult when she was drunk, so perhaps that didn't suit the owner of the west end brothel, where she was working. It is possible that her drinking started spiralling out of control while she was working there. Her 'employer' may have found her difficult when drunk, and perhaps she became unpopular with clients because of this.
3)I'm sure many of the prostitutes in the area were very afraid of the ripper, and were eager for any information they could get. hence, I don't think it's too strange that she should ask Barnett to read the newspaper stories to her.
And I honestly believe that she was letting other prostitutes use her room for their clients, as well as taking her own clients back there. So it's not so very strange that she would also frequently let them spend the night in her room.
Points 4, 5, 6, and 7 are very interesting. I'm not sure I can answer them adequately, even with my own conjectures.
The points you make about Mary's heart being removed, and the extensive facial mutilations are extremely interesting, and I do believe that they may well point to a prior association between Mary, and her killer.
However, I must admit to some confusion as to this statement in your post: "I find it quite interesting that Kelly was murdered on only the second night that she had slept alone"
I was under the impression that Joe Barnett had moved out of Millers court ten days previously, on Oct 30th? Please correct me if I am wrong! |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 6:51 pm: | |
Whatho Michael,
Perhaps Mary Kelly was killed on only the second night she slept alone because the person who normally slept with her killed her. I have a gut feeling about Mr Barnet but, of course, no proof.
And as for Mary being an enigma. I wonder of the many other people up and down Dorset Street could the same be said. Quite a few I'd wager.
Cheers, Mark |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 4:03 am: | |
Hi everyone,
It is my belief that when Barnet moved out on the 30th oct,Kelly used the space to rent out her room to any person willing to pay.
She had various streetwalkers stop with her during this period.
It is also my belief that on the night of her supposed death, she was approached by a gent, who offered her a decent price for the services of her room for the early hours of the 9th, but she was not the person he took there, instead he took another woman who according to reports was not known in the neighbourhood, and this person was the victim found the following morning...
This would explain the events of the following morning, and I firmly believe that Maxwell and Lewis, and the woman [ not named] statements were true.
This murder is a mystery,and points need to be answered.
1] where did Kelly disappear to?.
2] did Barnet make a mistake when he identified the body, or did he do his former lover one last favour ,in saying it was her , in order for her to escape her situation?.
Of course if the above scenerio is accurate, it would mean either Kelly or somebody assisting her changed clothes with the real victim, which is by no means an impossibility..
Regards Richard. |
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 11:54 pm: | |
Hi,
Marie.
Thank you for your post. I was not offering the scenario I wrote about Kelly as being true, but as an example of the various ways in which likely scenario's can be created. Personally, I do not endorse this theory and has you pointed out there are possible arguments to be counted.
As to your last comment, ie, only second night slept alone: From the time Barnett left, and according to Barnett's own sworn testimony, there were prostitutes sharing Kelly's room. This is the reason Barnett left. Following on from this we know that through various other testimony another prostitute shared the room with Kelly on the Monday & Tuesday night. Therefore: Wednesday night - alone or sharing??
Thursday night (8/11/88) Alone?? Sharing??
She was drinking throughout most of the night. Last heard/seen at 2.15am by Hutchinson (if he is to be believed), entering her room with a "punter".
How long he stayed is anyone's guess. A hour? Until the dawn, at 5.30?
Maybe he heard Julia, in the room above, get up and go to the pub?
If so, was he the killer, or just a client?
If the killer, how do we explain the statements of Mrs Maxwell, Maurice Lewis??
If a client, then Mary possibily did not sleep alone that night either, and if true, this now brings into play the statements of Mrs Maxwell et al.
Three persons relate information about seeing MJK between 8 & 9 o'clock that morning.
So was she murdered between 9 & 10 o'clock? This would account for the sightings of Kelly that morning. Was the killer at his wits end, and grasped at the only opportunity that presented itself that morning? Who knows? All we do know is that her body, most horribly mutilated, was discovered at 10.45 later that morning.
Mark:
As to Barnett, I applaud Bruce Paley's book about Barnett being the killer and the reason why, but, unfortunately Mr Paley is very selective in his psychological credentials for Barnett. The biggest one is post-murderous activity. He does not show any prior criminal attributes for Barnett prior to the Ripper murders, which I believe is the most vital attribute for the killer. No serial killer, to my knowledge, has started out with full-blown murder & mutilation. There has always been a "development" stage through adolescent crimes of arson, theft/robbery, criminal assault before the "killer" advances through experience and maturity into a fully-fledged serial murderer. All this is lacking in Barnett's pyschological profile.
Maybe it was is his brother, Dan!!
Maybe Dan saw the way his "weak" brother was manipulated and ridiculed by Kelly and her co-horts and decided HE would teach them a lesson. (Any criminal activity in his early life???)
On a final note. Whoever was the killer of MJK, I adhere to the strong belief that "HE" was known to her, and quite possibily to Kate Eddowes.
Cheers,
Michael |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 2:34 pm: | |
Whatho Michael,
If Barnet killed anyone I think it was Mary but no one else. The motive, I feel, would have been jealously. I consider Barnet was an unstable character and may have been suspicious of Mary's motives in having other ladies to stay or did not like the fact Mary was selling her body to others. He flipped, killed Mary and then set about her body either in a mad rage or to pretend she was killed by the Ripper.
That is my feeling but I have nothing to hang it upon. Poor old Joseph may have been totally inocent and I have done a wrong to his memory.
Cheers, Mark |
Diana
Police Constable
Username: Diana
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 9:20 pm: | |
Could Maxwell have been lying because she felt she had to cover up for someone? Maybe someone wouldn't have an alibi if Mary was already dead by morning? |
Geeper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 6:19 pm: | |
I'm sure it NEVER would have been suggested in Victorian times but couldn't the lady that moved in with Mary have been her "lover"?
It would explain Barnet leaving her and give him a revenge motive against the other woman. (Lizzie Fisher?)
I've met a few prostitues that were lesbians and just used prostitution to make the money to make ends meet. |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 4:36 pm: | |
Michael, thank you for clearing up that point in your post, I'm afraid I misinterpreted it a little.
I'm really not sure what to make of Hutchinson's testimony- there seems so much in it that is unlikely, or perhaps exaggerated.
I'm also not sure what to make of Mrs Maxwell's, or Mr Lewis' statements. Certainly they both encountered someone they thought was Mary Jane, that morning.
Richard makes some convincing arguements that it may have been another prostitute who was murdered in that room. although perfectly plausible, I'm not entirely swayed by the idea.
And what of the key? If it was lost, and Mary was in the habit of reaching through the window to unlock it- why did the door have to be broken down?
I believe that Barnett would still have been able to identify Mary from her hair, or her eyes. We can't completely discount his testimony that it was Mary laying murdered on the bed.
If that is taken as truth, then either Maxwell and Lewis were mistaken, and saw/spoke with someone other than Mary, or Mary was murdered much later in the morning than originally estimated.
I'm starting to lean towards Barnett as my favourite suspect (after abandoning hope on the Maybrick diary), but I've not yet read Mr Paley's book 'The Simple Truth'. I actually have it on order, and hope to pick it up at the bookstore tomorrow.
|
Kydon
Police Constable
Username: Kydon
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 12:00 pm: | |
On the matter of the key and the broken window. Why not just reach in and open the door? It was previously brought up on the old boards and the point was made that if you looked into that room and saw what was in there, would YOU want to stick your arm in there? I know I wouldn't!
Ky |
Jon Smyth
Police Constable
Username: Jon
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 12:34 pm: | |
Michael
If I could get to my books I would give you a quote, verbatim, but.......
Mary Kelly's mother's maiden name was reported to be McCarthy.
Read into that what you will. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 1:49 pm: | |
Richard,
For your theory to be true, Mary Jane Kelly would have been alive after the "other woman" was killed. How would she have gone unnoticed for the next sixty years? How would her friends and Barnett not have realized it?
Granted, being that in debt would make it attractive to pretend to be dead and start over, but really - is that idea even remotely plausible?
Like I've said before, everybody, we need to take all of the witness testimony with a fist-sized hunk of salt. The forensic evidence is pretty clear - the woman was laying in Mary Kelly's bed, wearing Mary Kelly's clothes, and was identified by Mary Kelly's lover as being Mary Kelly. I would like to think that despite the mutilations, that the hair color and styling, as well as the portions of her body not disfigured (what little there are of them) and her build would be more than enough for a man who knew her intimately to use to identify her correctly.
There really is no credible evidence that points to the victim at Dorset Street to be anyone but Mary Kelly.
B |
Gary Weatherhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 9:37 am: | |
I have been fortunate enough to locate a GGG- niece Of MJK. Her ancestry points to the fact that this is our Mary Jane. I hope to pick up some details about her true background and answer some of the questions about her true identity and life circumstances.
Wish me luck
Best Regards
Gary |
Jon Smyth
Police Constable
Username: Jon
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 7:29 pm: | |
Gary.
Just to pacify those annoyingly inquisitive types (like myself), would you mind listing for us the 'facts' which indicate this GGG is truely the niece of Mary McCarthy Davies Kelly.
Thanks, Jon |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 5:36 pm: | |
Ky, you posted: "if you looked into that room and saw what was in there, would YOU want to stick your arm in there? I know I wouldn't!"
Ghastly as it is- absolutely, I would stick my arm in there! After all, the door has got to be opened somehow, and I can't honestly see how breaking it down is any less repulsive than reaching in, and unlocking it.
The door puzzle intrigues me.
Gary: that's fascinating! I'm certainly eager to hear more about that.... |
Gary Weatherhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 8:03 pm: | |
Jon
The names, birthdates, birthplaces and some census rcords indicate this is our MJK. But like you I want absolute confirmation before I comment further.
I have gotten my hopes up before only to be disapointed so I should say I am guardedly optimistic rather than make a bold declaration as I did in my post.
Best Regards
Gary |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
