|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through December 21, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Was it really Mary Kelly?:
Archive through December 21, 1999
Author: Leanne
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 05:38 am |        | G'day Rich,
Here in 'Casebook', under 'Press Reports', I found 'Illustated Police News - November 17th 1888'. Early in the report, it says "Mary Jane Kelly, alias "Ginger".
Further down the page, it says 'She was short, stout and DARK'.
On none of the other 'press reports' does it state the colour of Kelly's hair nor her nickname.
There is no sign of reports from 'The Western Mail'.
-LEANNE |
Author: richie
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 12:14 am | | | from richie-hello again, leanne. the title of the book i was referring to is 'the mammoth book of jack the ripper. its editors are named maxim jakubowski and nathan braund. rather than push one specific suspect, it offers a wide range of theories- some well known, and others that are new-there's even one that puts a new twist on the conspiracy theory. on page 48, mary kelly is described as "the youngest of the victims, at the time of death was about 25 years old, at five feet, seven inches tall. she had long blonde hair, blue eyes and a fair complexion". it was the first time i heard even the mention of her having blonde hair. maybe i haven't read enough books about these murders, but still...one book says mary's heart was taken, another says it wasn't. there were three mint-condition coins found at the scene of one of the victims, there was no such thing at all. the goulston street graffitti was a vital clue, then someone else says the graffitti had no connection with the murders at all. i know i'm straying away from mary kelly, but, as iv'e stated before, i'm a believer in the conspiracy theory-and i truly believe that mary kelly was a major force for all that took place before her 'supposed' murder. hope i didn't talk your ear off. love talking about mary, but i also LOVE to talk about conspiracy theories. true, there's not much to go on, but there are some peculiar acts taken by some people that beg the question-WHY? hope to hear from you soon richie. |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 10:01 am | | G'day Rich,
I have been searching through the 10 JtR books in my library, for details of Mary Kelly's appearance.
Not many books mention the colour of her hair. Bruce Paley's 'Jack the Ripper, The Simple Truth', (published in 1995), says: 'Tall and pretty and fair as a lily'.
The Daily Telegraph reported Kelly as having been: 'of fair complexion, with light hair'.
Fairclough's 'The Ripper and The Royals', states that her friend Florence Pash said "She had good hair, dark, bushy".
What methods were available to women in 1888, to lighten their hair, to escape identification? This would explain all the confusion and different nicknames: 'Fair Emma', 'Ginger' and 'Black Mary'.
'The Life and Times of JTR' by Phillip Sugden says 'The heart, extracted through the abdominal cavity, WAS NEVER FOUND'.
'The Ripper and The Royals' says 'Kelly's heart WAS FOUND on the table by her bed'.
'The Whitechapel Horrors', which was first published about 30 years after the murder, says: 'As in some of the other murders, certain organs had been extracted and as they were missing, had doubtless BEEN CARRIED AWAY'.
'The Ripper and The Royals', also tells me that SIR WILLIAM GULL was Queen Victorias 'Physician-In-Ordinary' and also physician to The Prince of Wales plus Prince Eddy.
GULL performed an opperation on Annie Crook, which led her to partail paralysis and later epilepsy. Her memory was impaired.
It was GULL'S habit to carry grapes and raisins, as a refreshing snack. In Faircloughs book he believes GULL gave the women grapes, treated with laudanum, (an alchoholic extract of opium),then loured them into his coach an butchered them.
In the 'Casebook Timeline' section, it says that in 1888, a clairvoyant named Robert James Lees, went to the police to offer his help 5 times, but they turned him away each time.
I searched for this man's name to see who his suspect was, because 'Casebook' fails to do this, and found: http://www.jamesmdeem.com/espstory.htm
SEE YA,
LEANNE! |
Author: Sara Goodman
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 01:26 pm | | Greetings, Leanne - I see where you are going with this... But on the subject of hair dyes pre-Clairol...
*Peroxide or simple derivatives - how about a lye soap condition rinse? YOW!(1888 contemporary relatives - I am unsure of availability - tho' lye is boiled animal fat and ashes), perhaps a quick trip to the apothocary
*henna - exotic, but available, travelling tinkers or gypsies?
*lemon juice - available thru shipmasters, etc as a scurvy preventative,
+chamomile, hops, and many other herbs could be used to brighten already blondish hair
*These first three would have been the strongest, and most permanent (and damaging) - eventually any blonde result would turn brassy (reddish). Think fried eighties hair, or gang girl hair. IMHO, it would be hard to imagine any of these gals with extra $ to be spent on this type of "advertisement" when its' upkeep can be relentless - though MJK might have had a broader exposure to "beauty" products - travels and all. And as my dear old mum used to say, "You've got to look rich to GET rich" (She's not the deepest dish in the cupboard)
Dubious result, but as many streetwalkers from ancient Alexandria to the gals strolling Hollywood and Vine might say, "It ain't pretty, but they might just see me first."
In a face to face world, I'd have just replied "Yes, they could've and of a certain class, did", but this can be such a footnote and bibliography sort of page....
Must run, I've been hit in the head by some sort of bird. A gull, I do believe. ;)
ATB, Sara |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 08:26 pm | | G'day Sara & Rich & everyone,
I checked 'Microsoft Encarta 96 Encyclopedia' and under 'Bleaching' it says: "In the 18th century, bleaching solutions of potash and lye and dilute sulfuric acid, were used in Holland and France, and in 1785 the powerful bleaching properties of chlorine were discovered by the French chemist Claude Louis Berthollet.
GOTTA GO.....LEANNE. |
Author: Sara Gooman
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 08:33 pm | | | No wonder my hair's green! |
Author: richie
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 12:46 am | | | hello leanne and others. i realize that this page is devoted to whether or not it was kelly who was actually murdered. but, like i said earlier, some strange things occured that i'll always have trouble with. for one, the actions of police commsioner warren. when the goulston street grafitty [still can't spell] was discoverd, warren himself rushed to the scene and personally ordered the writing on the wall erased. this was in the middle of the night, along with the fact that part of an apron from one of the victims was found under the writing. possibly the only real physical evidence left by the killer[or killers] and warren orders it wiped clean. i'm aware of his explaination for his actions. i just don't buy it. one claim was that it was impossible to cordon off the area. with all the police on the lookout for anything wrong or a suspicius looking men, i find it hard to belive that the scene coudn't keep people out of the area until a photo was taken. why was warren so adamant in his actions? was he trying to hide something? did the word 'juwes' only stand as a mispelled word? or was there indeed a masonic message on that wall? i like the fact that the book " the ripper and the royals' is at least being discussed. i also know that alot of people don't buy it. but since alternate theories are being discussed, i'd like and wecome any opinions on any of this. one more thing--I WONDER WHAT MARY WOULD THINK OF ALL THIS? hope i didn't stray too far from the main topic, but i can't help it. to those who take exception to my note, please forgive me. but when i think of mary kelly, i think or the word mystery-ok, conspiracy. |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 04:05 am | | Hi y'all.
RICHIE: Think anything you like. I suggest you move your written words to an appropriate board already set up like:
1. Goulston Street Grafitto
2. Catherine Eddowes
Or set up a new one - call it Conspiracy Theories or whatever - that way you can discuss several victims in one place - without being off-topic.
Take care,
Ashling
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 04:07 am | | Hi y'all.
RICHIE: Think anything you like. I suggest you move your written words to an appropriate board already set up like:
1. Goulston Street Grafitto
2. Catherine Eddowes
Or set up a new one - call it Conspiracy Theories or whatever - that way you can discuss several victims in one place - without being off-topic.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: PT
Monday, 20 December 1999 - 12:28 am | | Hi all,
I'm new to this board, so please bear with me while I try to figure out exactly what I'm doing! Thanx!
I've read all of the archived messages about the identity of the body found in Kelly's room.
It is possible that Kelly was a 'strawberry blonde'. If this was the case her hair would, at different times look different shades. If it was unwashed, it would look dark. If clean it would look fair. I think that may explain why so many people give her hair colouring as different.
The other thing is that it is possible that Barnett did made a mistake as to the identity of the body, when he entered the room he would have only smelt death, something which would have overpowered him, then in a state of distress he could easily have mistaken the hair colouring, and anything else. What he was faced with was a mess of the highest degree. He had probably never seen anything of this nature before and would have wanted to get out of the room as quickly as possible. When people are under extreme stress, things do not appear always as they seem.
Had the body been that of Kelly's friend then it is understandable that she fled, she obviously thought that she was the intended victim and would have run off in a blind panic. It is even possible that she could have known who the killer was, perhaps she caught him in the act and made her escape, changing her name, in fear that she might be next? |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Monday, 20 December 1999 - 01:29 am | | Hello PT:
You make several excellent points about the identification process in regard to identifying the corpse in Miller's Court. My own opinion is that it was Mary Jane Kelly who was murdered and mutilated in 13 Miller's Court, and that it is wishful thinking that she was not the one killed. As far as I can ascertain, the theories that she survived are not based on creditable evidence. However, as I say, you make some fine points. Welcome to the discussion, PT! We hope you enjoy your time here. I trust that as with the rest of us you will find it very enlightening.
Best regards
Chris George, Editor
Ripper Notes
Casebook Productions, Inc.
jacktripper@fcmail.com
Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth"
Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9, 2000
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/conference.htm |
Author: anon
Monday, 20 December 1999 - 01:39 am | | | Just a minor point - Barnett did not identify the body in the room, but at the mortuary after it had been prepared for identification. |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 20 December 1999 - 04:31 am | | Hi all,
As anon says, Kelly was identified at the mortuary and not at Millers Court. I assume that she would have been pieced together as far as was possible. If we take a look at Eddowes's photo after her wounds had been sewn up, we can get an idea of the possible. Kelly's face was extremely mutilated, however, so Barnett may not have identified her thus, but the eyes were not damaged.
Barnett testified that he recognised her 'by the ears and the eyes', not the hair. Either her hair was too matted with blood or there was some other reason why Barnett didn't identify her so. Kelly was sometimes called 'Ginger', which leads us to assume that she may have had at least a light teint of red in her hair. We may assume then that she was not dark-headed, which is evidently substantiated by the photos of her at the scene of the crime.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Leanne
Monday, 20 December 1999 - 04:46 pm | | G'day everyone,
Yes, Barnett was sure that it was her, dead on the bed, eh?
Barnett peered through the open window to view and identify the body. This is according to the 'Star' newspaper, of the 10th of November, 1888.
Some believe that Barnett actually killer her, in a rage.
I read in a book once, that Kelly escaped, fled to Canada and changed her name, but this is just one of the many myths surrounding the case. She may have had a son that the nuns sent to Canada. He was adopted and so changed his name, or never knew his name in the first place. This is probably where the myth came from. What does everyone else think about this?
I now believe that Kelly's cry of "MURDER!", (heard by some), wasn't actually the exact time she died. She was butchered later. That's why Caroline Maxwell spoke to her at 8:30am on Friday morning and saw her again at 9am, outside the 'Britannia', talking to a stout "market porter".
At 10am, Maurice Lewis saw her inside the 'Britannia', drinking with some people. 45 minutes later, Thomas Bowyer found her mutilated body!
LEANNE! |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 20 December 1999 - 05:09 pm | | During Mary Jane Kelly's inquest, the inquest jury was taken to see her body. A sheet coverd the obscene mutilations, and the jury was allowed only to see her face. This is probably the same procedure that was used in regards to Barnett and why he identified her by hair and eyes, rather than some sort of birthmark or peculiarity elsewhere on her.
I hardly think Barnett was likely to be wrong. He had slept with Kelly for a long time, you know; certainly long enough to be familiar with her appearance. Unless (I hear you cry) he was the killer and it was all part of a cover-up and so on - but I don't wish to argue that point.
Leanne - I think the Canada story you mentioned comes from Melvyn Fairclough's discredited "The Ripper and the Royals." I wouldn't put much stock in it.
CMD |
Author: anon
Monday, 20 December 1999 - 06:56 pm | | | "I identify her by the ear and the eyes." - Joseph Barnett, Kelly Inquest papers. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 20 December 1999 - 09:38 pm | | | Of course. My mistake. |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 06:04 am | | G'day Christopher and everyone,
Which newspaper reports have you read? The 'Illustrated Police News' of November 17th 1888, says that at Kelly's inquest, Barnett said: "I have have seen the body of the deseased and I identify it by the HAIR and the eyes. I am positive that the deceased was the woman with whom I lived, and that her name was Marie."
The 'Daily Telegraph' of November 13th, says that as soon as the argument over where the inquest should take place was over, the JURY was taken to view the body, decently coffined, at the mortuary and then the actual room at Millers Court.
'The Manchester Guardian' of Saturday November 10th 1888 says, (Just after it tells how the side of Dorset Street was kept clear, in the expectation that bloodhounds might have been employed), that 'Barnett, the man who was acquainted with Kelly, was sent for and he identified the body, styling the woman "Ginger", as she was called owing to the colour of her hair'.
I know that some newspaper reports got it wrong and said "EAR", but I trust the 'Illustrated Police News' and the fact that the name "Ginger" was discussed!
LEANNE! |
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 07:27 am | | | Hair is probably a more distinctive feature than ears. Although I would probably recognize my husbands ears, yet on a woman there is a lot of variation in color, length, style, amount of curl that would be more defining than the ear. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 09:07 am | | Leanne -
The inquest report on MJK (Ref. R1095, held by the Corporation of London, Greater London Record Office), reads in part:
"Joseph Barnett having been sworn upon the day and year and at the place above mentioned deposed as follows: - I reside at 24 and 25 New Street Bishopsgate which is a common lodgin house I am a laborer & have been a fish porter I now live at my sisters 21 Portpool Lane Grays Inn Road I have lived with the deceased one year and eight months her name was Marie Jeannette Kelly Kelly was her maiden name and the name she always went by. I have seen the body I identify her by the ear and the eyes I am positive it is the same woman. . ."
[N.B. - there is no punctuation in my transcript of this report save for the period above, and so I have not attempted to add any here]
I would be careful about trusting to a newspaper over an official transcript such as this, Leanne. In this case, we are not dealing with a reporter trying to get all the details for a story, but an official proceeding to which Coroner MacDonald and the inquest jury attested their names. We may, I think take it as close to certain as we might ever be in this case that Barnett said "ear and eyes."
Additionally, the IPN was a bit down-market and somewhat sensationalist. Rather along the lines of the old "Police Gazette" here in the US. They have wonderful illustrations and often provide illuminating side notes, but I should not use them as a primary source for definitive information on Kelly or any other Ripper murder.
CMD |
|
|
|
|
