|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Catherine's alias: "Mary Ann Kelly"
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Catherine Eddowes:
Catherine's alias: "Mary Ann Kelly"
Author: Jeff D
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 12:29 pm |        | Hello All !
I have no problem accepting that there were several killers in Whitechapel in 1888, where there were apparently none in even 1887 (Fairy Fay?). There are many good points discussed above and I just thought I might interject some of my understanding for what it's worth.
Victims: -
Annie Millwood - Feb '88
Ada Wilson - Mar '88
Emma Smith - Apr '88
Martha Tabram - Aug. '88
---
Then: -
Polly Nichols - Aug '88
Annie Chapmen - Sept'88
Elizabeth Stride - Sept'88
Catherine Eddowes - Sept'88
Mary Kelly - Nov '88
Annie Farmer - Nov '88
Rose Mylett - Dec '88
Then there is the Torso killings besides other similar murders that carry on into 1889. Considering each of the murders on there own merits can bring but only one conclusion... that there were at least 5 killers on loose in the area that year.
All told we have Annie Milwoods Killer, Ada Wilsons killer, Emma Smiths killer, Martha Tabrams killer? (if not at the hands of the Ripper) Annie Farmers killer, Rose Myletts killer, those who are considered victims of the Ripper, of which maybe Elizabeth Stride is questionable, the Torso murderer and so on. So there had to have been at least 7 possible murderers. If one considers that there were 11 victims that were the Whitechapel murders, and if Jack was responsible for 4 or 5 what other conclusion can there be. Thinking about it, the forces of the London police and Scotland yard didn't have a great deal of success to boast of at the time did they ?
Comments ? or have I got it all wrong again.
Jeff D |
Author: Jeff D
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 12:39 pm | | Hi Again !
BTW In addition to the above, I do NOT believe that there were more than 1 serial killer on the loose.
With specific regard to Catheribe Eddowes, knowing that she was hung-over and penniless, why did she request that she be released from jail that night? This is a real mystery, whether she felt she knew who the Ripper was or not, she had nowhere to go, yet she demanded to be released and requested the specific time on her way out. I don't think in any way that she would consider black-mailing the Ripper, but her actions that day and night do present even more questions.
Jeff D |
Author: Wolf
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 02:33 pm | | I see that Jeff gets my original point. There may have been other murderers walking around Whitechapel in 1888, just as how many murderers are walking around your cities right now, but how many Serial killers were there?
Alex, social conditions and historical context may help to understand the stresses that lead to the formation of a serial killer but that doesn't mean that 20th Century methods are irrelevant when studying the Ripper murders. M.O. and signiture aside, the "thread" of the Whitechapel murders is clear, a not so gradual increase in mutilation and violence to the bodies of his victims, from, perhaps Tabram, to Kelly. It's this "thread" which helps link them as the work of one man because, then or now, this is a not uncommon trait with serial killers, the need for greater satisfaction. 19th or 20th or 21st, this makes no difference.
Wolf. |
Author: alex chisholm
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 07:44 pm | | Wolf
I’m sure you’ll find I have never suggested that C20th methods are irrelevant when studying ‘the Ripper murders.’ Such methods must, however, be cautiously applied with due recognition of the impact of cultural alterity and historical change.
Discerning a thread of increasing violence - which is of course dependant on which victims one chooses to include, and which to disregard - cannot be taken to preclude the intervention of another murderer, and crucially, when viewed in the light of all other evidence in this case, it does not. So I stand by my point that the consideration of Kelly not being killed by the murderer of Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes is just as firmly grounded in a knowledgeable understanding of these crimes, and every bit as probable as the notion of one killer being responsible for all four.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Jon
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 08:53 pm | | Jeff
Annie Millwood & Ada Wilson were not murdered, though both were attacked by stranger, they both survived, Millwood died of natural causes a month following her attack.
Jeff / Alex
Here's 2 cents......
Serial killers of C20 are influenced by what has gone before, either directly or indirectly.
Whether they read about the previous expolits of others & later in life commit to emulate the same or surpass in some way or they are influenced indirectly through such as Hollywood and the graphic special effects, or through reading true crime.
Either way SK-C20/21 has a wealth of influence around him and this plays itself out in his crimes, so as the SK developes they get more daring, more viscious, ...in general, worse.
(Profiling)
Now, there are those who would have it that if SK-C20 is 'this' way for 'that' reason, then it follows that SK-C19 may have been 'that' way for 'this' reason.
The trouble is, SK-C20 was influenced by SK-C19 so trying to judge SK-C19 by using SK-C20 is going to give misleading results. Whatever made SK-C19 the way he was can only be accessed by looking for SK-C18, or look for prior influences to SK-C19 and you will see what influenced Jack.
Whether Jack was influenced by previous murders or by bloody encounters elsewhere, ie: battlefield conflict, we can only guess. But to try to evaluate Jack in his 19th century society, 19th century influences & standards, by using 20th century society influences & standards is only going to produce a picture of 'your' view of Jack due to 'your' influences and what 'you' deem logical. But you are influenced by Jack in your world too, the answer you arrive at then is very 'Jack influenced' to start with.
This is not to say that certain traits do not follow a common thread through C19, C20 ,C21, I'm sure they do, but the developement of a serial killer is ongoing and only the common denominators are evident, the rest is open to change due to social influences.
Profiling has a very limited use & application when trying to apply it to events so far back in time, minimal use at best.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 05:30 am | | G'day Everyone,
Excuse me for getting back to the topic of this board:
Jeff, Catherine Eddowes had told John Kelly that she'd be back at 4pm.
It was 8:30pm at the time she was taken to Bishopgate, so she'd already missed her 4pm appointment with Kelly.
She was finally released from Bishopgate at 1am. Why didn't she go straight home? Why didn't she name her suspect while at Bishopgate? Maybe she thought she'd try to blackmail her suspect first!
She may not have discussed her suspicions with John, because she wanted to collect the reward for herself.
About half an hour after she was released, she was seen near Mitre Square with a man. She had a hand on his chest. I wonder why? What could the conversation have been, at this time? Anyone?
LEANNE! |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 06:29 am | | Dear Everyone,
I fear we seem to have wandered a bit from my original question which was 'Where did the story that Eddowes went by the name of Mary Kelly originate?'
However since you have touched upon the blackmailing aspect (isn't it amazing when I mentioned this in my book everyone said 'Rubbish' now it seems as if I'm gaining converts)let me give you a few thoughts.
People seem to have the idea that Eddowes either knew the idenity of the killer or didn't know. I don't believe this to be the case. I believe that Eddowes, talking to other people and putting two and two together, came to the conclusion that a certain person MIGHT have something to do with the murders.
Her approach was along the lines of "I know what you've been doing" and hoping to get a bite, rather than "I have here witness statements, forensic evidence, CCTV footage and a dying declaration".
She didn't go to the police to claim a reward because she had nothing concrete, just an idea.
Some people do not belive that a blackmailer would do something so stupid - believe me the ability to do stupid things should never be underestimated! Don't forget in the end what did she really have to lose?
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bob_C
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 09:45 pm | | Hi all,
Bob, my information will have it that the Mary Kelly bit had only to do the pawning of John Kelly's boots after the rather abortive 'Hopping' episode in Kent. They had no money, so they 'popped' the boots for 2s 6d. Eddowes carried out the transaction, while Kelly waited bare-footed outside (why is pretty clear). She gave the name 'Mary Kelly' by pawning, and a false address. That she chose the name 'Mary' does not, I believe, mean anything, it being such a common name. That she used the surname Kelly comes, we can suppose, from her common-law husband, a little bit of private female pride, maybe.
About the 'blackmail' business. Indeed she is testified as having claimed to know him. As you say, hoping to get a bite. Where I feel that that may get a bit difficult is that if Eddowes suspected who Jack was, I cannot accept that she would simply attempt blackmail on him, on Jack of all people. It would be putting your head right in the lion's mouth. Why didn't she name him and claim the reward? As you say, she was almost certainly not sure, assuming that she had any idea at all. A good reason for not naming him. But would she be so desperate for money that she would put herself at such a risk? She lived with Kelly together, who had the possibility of earning periodically, she cleaned and mended as she could, her prostitution activities seemed to be 'low-profile', many claiming that she didn't go on the streets at all. As desperate as Nichols and Chapman she may not have been.
Of course she could have been so stupid (as you correctly remark, the ability to do stupid things...) as to try it, but I have difficulty in seeing her gaily aproaching her suspect in some secluded, lonely place: 'Hey, Jack, 'undred quid, or you're nicked!'
A possibility to this theme could be that she confided in, or even got a tip from, a third person. A bit fanciful, maybe, but I could certainly see her seeking someone to help with the blackmail, if that were indeed the case. Certainly someone male, and whom she knew at least in passing. If this person was in league with Jack (or was even the man himself!), then Eddowes got money from him to get drunk on, or he got her drunk. While she lay about in the cells he alarmed Jack and /or having arranged a conspiritive meeting with Eddowes earlier, the end is known. This COULD even tie in with Stride's case earlier (Man with pipe?)
A pretty exotic scenario, I know, but an answer (of sorts).
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 03:29 am | | G'day Bob,
I don't think the blackmailing aspect is 'rubbish'. Perhaps Catherine saw something incriminating, while she was at one of the 'casual wards' or maybe just heard some friends talking, as you suggest. However if a reward was offered, after her death, I think her friends would have come forward.
Looking at my notes on her inquest, they say that at the end of the first day, City Solicitor Mr Crawford announced that a reward of 500 pounds was offered by the Lord Mayor - but she was already dead! The reward should have been offered sooner!
Eddowes may have been waiting for this offer, or perhaps there was another reason why she didn't mention her suspect.
Is there proof that John Kelly was no relation of Mary Jane Kelly? I know there were lots of Irish Kellys, but were none of them related?
She had her hand on the man's chest, could she have been saying: "Calm down, calm down! I didn't say nothin while I was at Bishopgate Police Station!"???????
LEANNE! |
Author: anon
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 03:51 am | | | ...and pigs can fly. |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 08:40 am | | G'day anon,
If pigs can fly, then they are more intelligent than you, aren't they!!!!!!!!!!!!
LEANNE! |
Author: anon
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 11:35 am | | | Like most of your reasoning I fail to follow this (possibly because I'm not intelligent). |
Author: Bob_C
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 03:31 pm | | Hi Leanne,
No, I agree that the blackmail bit need not be 'rubbish' Let us be very clear, however, that Eddowes would have known the danger. Ask yourself if, when you knew or suspected someone to be a vicious, insane serial killer with a trail of corpses behind him, you would causually trot along to a meeting with him, put your hand on his chest and say, 'Not tonight, Jack, I 'aven't said nofink by them filths today, but if you don't make the dough roll tomorrow, I'll squeal.'
Sorry, but even men were badly frightend by Jack, let alone women of the same class as the victims.
As far as I know there is no proof that the Kellys weren't related. There is also no proof that they were, and the chances would have been pretty small anyway, what with Kelly being almost as usual a name as Brown or Smith.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 03:55 am | | Dear Bob C
I take your point about 'would a blackmailer approach someone believing them to be a vicious killer'. However I reiterate people do the most incredibly stupid things - regardless of the apparent danger.
I offer the case of the Sunset Strip Slayers. One of the two killers former lover approached her and said that he knew her present lover, Douglas Clark, was the killer. This being the case he must have known that the very person he was talking to, Carol Bundy, was the other. The inevitable happened and John Murrays headless body was found shortly afterwards.
Now John Murray didn't rush to the police or the authorities he went to the killer and spilled the beans, which is precisely what I am saying Eddowes could have done.
People do the stupidest things!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 06:51 am | | Hi Bob,
Yes, it could of course have been so. I still have reservations because Murray did that which I suggested in a previous post, turned to a third party instead of the killer. Even if he suspected Bundy, he may have thought that may not have constituted a danger for him, erronous as that belief was,
Also there doesn't seem to have been an attempt on Murray's part to blackmail, only to say 'I think I know who that is.' Now that is exactly what we hear from Eddowes. She suggested that she knew who Jack was ('I think I know him') but there is no evidence that she intended to blackmail him. I would even suggest that her stating this would tend to indicate no blackmail intention. One of the pillars of blackmail is that you know something no-one else except the target does and can threaten him with this knowledge. It would not suit the purpose of any intending blackmailer to cast his knowledge, or even suspicion, abroad.
Of course, the blackmail theory is not thus to be refuted. Eddowes may indeed have tried, but in what danger of life!
Best regards
Bob |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 01:38 pm | | Hi, Bob Hinton:
As I have said before, I have read your book, and I note your post here as in your book referring to the case of the Sunset Strip Slayers in support for your contention that "people do the most incredibly stupid things." Perhaps so, but the happy-go-lucky Eddowes reported on her last night on earth possibly belies the fact that she was going to meet a cold-hearted killer. Her manner of skipping blithely away from Bishopsgate police station seems inconsistent with the theory that she was going to make an assignation with a killer.
Chris George |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 05:28 am | | G'day all,
Remember in 1888, people wouldn't have known as much as we do today, about how serial killers think and behave. Maybe she didn't get as far as saying: "If you pay me enough to buy a bed each night..."
She may have put her hand on his chest and said: "Hey you!..I saw...."
He may have then said: "Oh I can explain that love, but let's not talk about this out here."
LEANNE! |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 06:26 am | | | Heres my theory on the Catherine Eddowes / JtR encounter : ' Whats an old girl like you doing out on a miserable night like this ? '. " Well , I've spent my lodging money and I'm going to see my daughter Annie in Bermondsey to borrow some more." 'What ? You're going to walk to Bermondsey on a night like this , you'll be soaked. Let me give you a lift in my carriage , its just parked around the corner.'" But...".'No buts , I insist. Besides you don't want to be on the streets with these murders going on do you ? I heard that there's been another one tonight.'." Oh ! How shockin' ! Well...alright sir , I accept ! Lead on.". Eventually they reach the end of Church Passage. ' Well , here we are , the carriage is parked just here in Mitre Square. '. Kate places her hand on Jack's chest : " O sir , you are a gent doin' this for me.". Jack replies ' oh , its no bother...'. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 06:40 am | | | Alternatively , somebody who thought Eddowes was Mary Jane Kelly could have placed a tail on her on the night of the 30th ; if she'd been shouting out that she knew who Jack was in the local pubs , then somebody might have asked her name...and got the reply Mary Kelly or Jane Kelly. Thus when the Stride murder failed , the Ripper may have driven his carriage over to Aldgate and waited for Eddowes to see if she was released. When she was , the Ripper offered her a lift out of the rain and she entered the carriage to be murdered. Then her body was dumped in Mitre Square. This theory means that you have to accept the Ripper had a carriage , but ( more controversially ) you have to accept that the witness Lawende was mistaken in his identification of Eddowes being in Church passage. This is possible ; he didn't see the woman's face. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 10:50 am | | More likely -
Jtr : Hello, love. You doing business?
Eddowes : Yes - fourpence.
Jtr : Know anywhere we can go?
Eddowes : Down here - follow me.
(Heads down Church Passage).
Simple as that, I reckon.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 11:15 am | | | Ah Guy , if it were only that simple ! But what is the evidence Catherine Eddowes WAS a prostitute ? I believe I am right in thinking she had no covictions for soliciting , am I not ? She was poor , but that don't make her a whore ! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 03 March 2000 - 05:38 am | | Hi Simon.
While it's true (to the best of my knowledge) that Eddowes had not been convicted for soliciting, that's not to say that she didn't resort to casual prostitution when necessary, and the circumstances of the sighting by Lawende at the entrance to Church Passage (which was not on her route "home") appear to suggest that that is exactly what she was doing at the time. If she wasn't, then we have only the uncorroberated story about "claiming the reward" to fall back on as an explanation for her behaviour after she was let out of the cells. We can never discount that story 100% without further evidence, but I feel that it should be seen very much as the less likely of the two possibilties.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 03 March 2000 - 05:54 am | | | Hi Guy ! I think you are probably right about Eddowes but I'm still not sure that indeed she was a casual prostitute. She wasn't mentioned as being one by the police who would know more than anyone , police officers were continually on the beat in the East End in those days and would see women soliciting in the streets and local pubs. Given her age I imagine Eddowes would have had to spend quite a while soliciting to obtain custom , and it seems likely she would have been known as 'a casual ' to the local beat officers if to no-one else. Remember there were a lot of poor women in the Whitechapel district , not all of them resorted to prostitution. If this WAS one of the few times Eddowes resorted to prostitution , then her case is doubly tragic. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 03 March 2000 - 06:05 am | | Agreed, Simon, that poverty did not inevitably lead to prostitution. Whether or not Eddowes, if she was a "casual", would have been known to the police is impossible to say. Certainly, more regular "offenders" such as Mary Kelly were known, but as a casual, Eddowes may have been lucky enough not to have come to their attention. We simply have no way of saying for sure. Indeed, if, as you suggest, this was one of few occasions on which she resorted to soliciting, then her fate is particularly unfortunate. Let us not forget, though, that none of these women, prostitutes or not, deserved to die in the way they did. All the deaths are tragic.
All the best
Guy |
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 08:08 pm | | Simon--
You are gallant, but if she was still alive after a week with no steady beau, and she had lost her virginity, she would have had to have been a prostitute. You see, not all men are like you. Many men, in fact, hold grudges against women who have had sex. In 1888, any woman who'd had sex and wasn't married either A) had the money to coerce the man to marry her, or B) Didn't and was exiled from society into prostitution.
I know it sounds harsh, and I know you're a soul who sees past the wounds into the beauty of the delicate girl's face, who hears how she sang her troubles away and laughed in the face of danger. I know it must be terrible for you to accept, and I am positively NOT mocking you for it. But the truth is that, in addition to being a wonderful, gracious, spirited, vivacious beauty, Catherine Eddowes was a whore. She needed to be. No one married girls like her. Life was cruel to women, crueller than you or I can imagine. But let's call her what she was, even though we mourn to say it: Katie was a prostitute.
With Sympathy,
Sarah |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 01:48 pm | | | How can you beleve much of anything these people say.Eddowes is pictured by doss house keeper as jolly and often singing.Her closest associates don't seem to know much about her habits as prostitute or hawker.Yet she must have been an obnoxious person to her relatives. Her daughter,brothere and sisters don't want her to know where they are.Her husband Conway(the pensioner who registered under an alias) saw her on occasion but had no desire to contact or even speak to her.Actually no one knows a lot about Eddowes,Kelly,Conway or they're not talking.She must have been a tough customer. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 03:27 pm | | David,
I'm not trying to paint Kate Eddowes as an angel, but I hardly think that the fact that Thomas Conway avoided her is a reason for anyone to think she was obnoxious as you put it.
We have to remember that Conway beat Kate black and blue when they were together, according to her sisters Mrs Emma Jones and Mrs Elizabeth Fisher. And I never did find any Army record for Thomas Conway in the 18th Royal Irish Regiment under the name 'Thomas Quinn'. I think he only came forward at Kate's death because he was scared of what else might come out about him if he didn't. Kate was better off without him in her life.
There is no evidence to say that Kate's sisters avoided her at all. Just like many families in those days they didn't meet each other that much, and in the case of Emma and Elizabeth had very large families of their own to take care of.
Kate's daughter 'Annie Phillips' avoided her mother because she used to come after her for money, but I wonder if Annie felt guilty about making that decision?
At the inquest in 1888, Annie said that her mother had attended at her confinement. I can only imagine that with a child to think about Annie had to stop giving her mother money, and with her husband, moved on without leaving Kate an address.
We also have to remember that the younger Eddowes brothers and sisters probably didn't know much about one another either. One brother 'Thomas Eddowes' was living in the north of England in 1881!
Neal. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 03:55 pm | | | Thanks Neal; The Times article quoted in JTR Companion then is incorrect?"Conway had drawn his pension from the 18th R Irish Reg.under a false name, that of Thomas Quinn."(238). It doesn't seem that any of these people were exactly straight forward.Eddowes sister stated that Conway got drunk on occasion and beat her up.The daughter,Annie Phillips, said he was a 'teatoller'. She certainly wasn't a occasional drinker who got to bed at 9:00 at night. Just how much are these witnesses willing to tell the police? With all the aliases it would be difficult to find out who they really were. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 04:49 pm | | David,
You should never trust The Times too much!
I do accept on this point that Thomas Conway (Quinn) gave that information, but I'd like someone to find the proof in the regimental records.
I think Eddowes sisters were reliable as the evidence of Conway's brutality could be seen on Kate's face when they met with her. Annie was probably protecting her father?
Who was it that you say were using aliases? |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 05:31 pm | | | Neal: Thanks. I appreciate your replies and the research you have done and are doing. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 05:35 pm | | | Neal: Perhaps you can answer my question under Geo Hutchinson.? It may be worthless, but I would like to know if possible. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 07:17 pm | | | Neal; Do you suppose that Mary Kelly changed her name to Marie Jeanette Kelly not to be confused with Mary Anne Kelly?I know there must be no connection, and it has been discussed to death, but it is interesting, for whatever reason, that both Eddowes and Kelly were mutilated beyond recognition and the doctors thought it was intentional,and both had such similar names or aliases.Has it definitly been proved that Mary Kelly was not an alias? |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 11:00 pm | | David -
At the very least, Eddowes' sister Eliza Gold was sorry for her death, as the "Telegraph" reported that 'witness commenced to weep very much' when she was testifying that yes, the body in the mortuary was Eddowes. The difficulty in the case is that it's hard to believe a great deal of what anyone is saying, most especially if they are sailing close to the wind in regards to legality.
For an example, when Eddowes' lodging-house deputy Frederick Williamson testified at the inquest, he noted that he did not know the couple was broke, and since he trusted all lodgers he knew, he would have let them stay had they told him. However, following on, Eddowes' lover John Kelly noted that if they did not have money, they would be forced to walk about all night. So who is telling the truth? A proud John Kelly who wouldn't think of approaching anyone for a favour, a compassionate Wilkinson or a Wilkinson trying not to look like a bad guy (much like Timothy Donovan after Annie Chapman's death)? So any reconstruction of what Eddowes must have been like as a person must of necessity be viewed not only through the lens of "who says it?" but also "who benefits?"
With regards to Kelly, I think your question would make sense only could we first presume with some degree of certainty that Eddowes and Kelly knew each other or were so close in locale as to be often confused. Additionally, we have only Joe Barnett's word that Kelly liked to be called "Marie Jeanette;" everyone else who testified at her inquest took care to note that they "knew" her as Mary Jane. Yet another confusing situation! And no, it has not yet been proven that "Mary Kelly" was not an alias, though how you'd go about doing that, I have no idea.
Neal - a great pleasure to run into you on the boards. I hope we cross paths again.
All the best,
CMD |
Author: Neal Shelden
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 05:11 pm | | David,
Thanks for the posts. Do you mean the question about Mary Jane, George Hutchinson, and Breezers Hill?
On the other question of whether Mary Jane Kelly was an alias? I'm of the opinion that her real name was not Kelly. The best lead that we have on her was Barnett's claim that she had a brother in 2nd Battalion Scots Guards. It might seem like a research nightmare, but every name in the Scots in 1888 should be checked and a family link to the real Mary Jane might be found?
As for Eddowes use of the alias 'Mary Ann Kelly', I think it was such a common name she didn't need to take it from anyone. I suppose it's possible that she could have taken it from a friend, but we must also remember it was her younger sister's name also (Mary Ann Eddowes), and the name Kelly came from her lover.
Hi Christopher-Michael,
Great to hear from you again.
I agree that the opinions of Frederick Wilkinson and John Kelly with regard to Eddowes are highly questionable. As with Donovan about Chapman. But I just think that on the family side, the Eddowes sisters gave no indication that Kate wasn't liked by them, or that they avoided her in anyway.
On the subject of landlords, I'm looking into John McCarthy's family at present, and hope to have some interesting new details about him to put on the boards in the next few weeks.
All the best.
Neal. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 10:19 pm | | Neal , its possible that there is another way to find Mary if she was using an alias ; I'm referring to her admission that she married a collier named Davis. This could have been merely a living arrangement , but Mary did seem to differentiate between ' living together ' ( as she did with Morganstern and Fleming ) and marriage.
It hasn't been possible to find a marriage certificate for a Mary Kelly and a Mr Davis , but maybe she married under her real name. Thus it could be possible to find all the marriages of colliers called Davis or Davies in Wales round about 1880 , find out which ones married a girl about 16 or 17 , find out which Davies died in a pit accident , and cross reference this information with the members of the 2nd Battalion Scots Guards in 1888 to determine Mary Kelly's real name.
Wasn't her brother in the Scots Guards called Henry ? That would narrow things down a bit. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 11:16 pm | | Yet another "Kelly" connection:
"The details of the morning's crime leave no doubt that the murderer of Alice Mackenzie, known to some as Kelly,is also guilty of ..."
From The Chicago Tribune, July 18,1889. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 10:58 am | | Simon:
Do you have any conception of the sort of research that you are suggesting? The only way to make this even possible is to use the Feldmanesque "Vacuum-Cleaner" technique where you order from the Family Record Centre every male Davis/Davies marriage record from say 1879 to 1881 recorded in Wales or the borders. If there are say 300 records, the cost of certificates would be £1,950. If you hired a professional to do the work (like me) you would look on an extra bill for about £500. |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 10:59 am | | | After you've got all this what have you got? If you can believe Barnett, Kelly was a higher priced whore over in the West End, but at 25 fell on hard times and had to disappear over to the East Side into a lower lifestyle.It would be interesting to know why she left(to know anything about her is interesting).It seems to me that she was much more than a common whore. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 04:17 pm | | I've decided to search for her on the basis that the only thing you can trust about her story before her arrival at Mrs Buki's, is that her brother was in the 2nd Battalion Scots Guards. 'Henry' as Simon said.
I'm not certain anymore whether we can say she was definately Irish, let alone Welsh? Maybe an English accent from up North or the West Country could confuse the people in the East End that she might have been one or the other?
With some confusion as to where she might come from, could she have had a more English sounding accent?
My belief is that even if she did come from an Irish background she probably lived in England a lot longer than what she let on. I also believe that stories about her life in Wales were either taken from someone else, or just lies. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 03:46 pm | | A new detail about Catherine Eddowes and her common-law husband has come to light via the census.
Their daughter Annie Phillips (nee Conway), who married in 1885 and appeared at her mother's inquest in 1888, gave her birthplace as YARMOUTH, NORFOLK!
There is no birth registration for Annie on or around 1865 when she was born, but then this was due to the fact that Kate and Thomas were not married. This new detail at least provides us with a new piece of the jigsaw of where Kate and Thomas stayed for a time before their final return to London. |
Author: Bob Hussey
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 05:15 pm | | Neal,
Sorry to muddy the waters further but YARMOUTH is on the Isle of Wight, Great Yarmouth is in Norfolk. Could it be that the daughter was deliberately giving false info to the census in order to distance herself from her true past and in inventing a place of birth far from the true one made an error? I do hope not or it would seem, from the preceding thread, that none of them could tell the truth if their lives depended on it (no pun intended). |
Author: Guy Hatton
Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 05:11 am | | Bob -
I don't think you should assume deception. When I was younger, I used to go regularly on family holidays in Norfolk, and I don't recall ever hearing the 'Great' used in normal everyday speech when referring to that Yarmouth.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Neal Shelden
Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 03:44 pm | | Bob, I would say Guy's right that it was the famous Yarmouth in Norfolk as the entry said.Thomas Conway and Kate Eddowes were known to have travelled around a bit together, and they probably found work there in the summertime of 1865 when Annie was born.
As for whether Annie was trying to distance herself from her past, I don't think she was?
She named her eldest daughter 'Catherine' after her mother and could have changed it during the years following 1888. But chose not to do so. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 08:48 am | | Hi Guy,
Snap.
From my earliest memories to the age of eleven, it was Great Yarmouth every August. I remember being allowed in a bar, sipping a Britvic orange and watching a skiffle group play.
These days, it's Yarmouth I.O.W I think of most, because hubby goes sailing in those parts and my daughter thinks it silly that there are two rivers on the island both called the Yar. 
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
