|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Mary Kelly-info about a child
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Mary Kelly-info about a child
Author: chris scott
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 08:26 am |        | I recently found a Canadian archive site of newspaper articles relating to reports about JTR
The url is http://members.tripod.com/~magpie_IX/ripper
one of the articles reprinted is from a paper called The Globe dates 13 November 1888 and is about the Miller's Court killing
Most of the article is a quote from John McCarthy abou the finding of Kelly but the last paragraph caught my eye and runs as follows:
"The man with whom the victim has been recently living could not really recognize her, but of course the surroundings, clothes, etc., identify her. She leaves a natural son, aged ten, who was absent with a neighbour last night and knows nothing of the occurrence."
"The man" is obviously Barnett and there is the well known quote that he could only recognise here by her eyes and hair
But who is this son????
The information seems very specific as to being left with a neighbour etc.
Natural in this context I take to mean illegitimate
The following points spring to mind:
1) is the "ten" to be taken as ten years old or ten months old. If ten years old then he must have been born when Kelly was 15! If 10 months old and allowing for a normal length pregnancy, he would have been born in December 1887/january 1888 and the conception would have been somewhere about March/April 1887.
2) Who was the father? If ten years old was it Davies because she was said to have married him when she was 16. If ten months old, was it Barnett or Fleming?
3) Under what name was the child registered at birth?
4) What happened to the child?
I can post the whole article if there is enough interest and would be very interested in any feedback or comments especially if anyone has seen any corroboration of this storyline!
Chris |
Author: Thomas Ind
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 08:54 am | | Yup post the whole article.
Glad to see that you have seen what's going on in the MJK. I think that the likes of Begg etc are so wound up in the Maybrick Diary at the moment that they are missing this interesting series of posts.
I think the information given now has surpassed what might be a genuine mistake or naive believe of a tall story.
This is either true or an elaborate and well constructed piece of fraud/hoax. Is anyone checking up the geneological data while we wait for Kelly's next post? |
Author: chris scott
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 09:39 am | | This is the whole article:
The Globe
November 13, 1888
SIR CHARLES RESIGNS.
PUBLIC CRITICISM TOO STRONG FOR THE GENERAL.
More Details of the Murder--The Sight That Met the Landlord's Eyes--The Woman Cut to Pieces.
LONDON, Nov. 12--The latest Whitechapel murder is still the leading topic of discussion, and all of the old theories as to the identity of the murderer are revived.The face of the woman Kelly when her body was found resembled a bloody ball. The nose, ears and cheeks were missing, but the eyes had not been touched.Surgeons stitched the face together as best they could, but it was found impossible to identify the woman from such of her features as were intact or drawn together.
A Fearful Sight
John McCarthy, the landlord of the place in which the last victim of the Whitechapel fiend lived, gives this interview:--
"When I looked through the window the sight I saw was more ghastly even than I had prepared myself for. On the bed lay the body, while the table was covered with lumps of flesh. Soon Superintendent Arnold arrived, and instructions to burst the door open were given. I at once forced it with a pickaxe and we entered. The sight looked like the work of a devil. The poor woman had been completely disembowelled. Her entrails were cut out and placed on a table. It was these that I had taken to be lumps of flesh. The woman's nose had been cut off, and her face was gashed and mutilated so that she was quite beyond recognition. Both her breasts, too, had been cut clean away and placed by her side. Her liver and other organs were on the table. I had heard a great deal about the Whitechapel murders, but I had never expected to see such a sight. The body was covered with blood and so was the bed. The whole scene is more than I can discribe [sic]. I hope I may never see such a sight again."
The man with whom the victim has been recently living could not really recognize her, but of course the surroundings, clothes, etc., identify her. She leaves a
natural son, aged ten, who was absent with a neighbour last night and knows nothing of the occurrence.
Any comments would be welcomed
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 10:12 am | | Accounts on the day of the murder were confused as reporters sifted conflicting information. Several newspapers reported a woman named Margaret who claimed to know Kelly and who said that Kelly had told her that 'she had no money and intended to make away with herself'. This same story was also reported with additional details, but ascribed to a nameless source, in which Kelly was described as living in a second-floor room, to which she took a paying customer, her little boy being taken to a neighbours house for the night. When he returned in the morning, the man who was with his mother sent him on an errand. This woman appears to have been called Lizzie Fisher.
It is probable - indeed, perhaps certain - that the woman described as having a little boy was indeed Lizzie Fisher, not Mary Kelly. (see The Jack the Ripper A to Z pg.136) |
Author: chris scott
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 10:26 am | | Paul
Many thanks for the comments
The note in the Globe Article about the "man with whom the victim has been recently living" and the comments that Barnett made about only knowing Kelly from eyes and ears (or eyes and hair depending on who you believe!) does suggest that Kelly was the person they were talking about
Also the comment "She leaves a
natural son, aged ten, who was absent with a neighbour last night" can be viewed in the light of the article being dated November 12th not to refer necessarily to the night of the murder. In this context "last night" would mean November 11th and suggests the child might have been lodged with a neighbour in the aftermath of the murder for some days
Chris |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 12:44 pm | | Hello Messrs Scott, Ind and Begg.
Thanks for posting the whole article Mr. Scott. The newspaper quote is certainly intriguing and definitely made in reference to MJK having a child. However, it also raises the spectre that the son lived with the mother. Note, "absent with a neighbour last night."
If, like Dr. Ind and myself, you have been following Kelly Jones' posts on another board it does seem to confirm the existence of a Brigitte who supposedly looked after MJK's child.
Would that be your analysis also Dr. Ind?
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 01:23 pm | | | If the woman who was murdered DID leave a child of ten then that is further evidence that it was NOT Mary Kelly. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 03:02 pm | | Chris:- The Times, Saturday, November 10, 1888, reports: 'Another account gives the following addition details:- Kelly had a little boy, aged about 6 or 7 years living with her, and latterly she had been in narrow straits, so much so that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself as she could not bear to see her boy starving. There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed in that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out anymore but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman home to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbour's house. Nothing more was seen of the woman until yesterday morning, when it was stated the little boy was sent back into the house, and, the report goes, he was sent out subsequently on an errand by the man who was in the house with his mother. There is no direct confirmation of this statement.'
Other reports attribute this story to a young woman named Margaret and in the New Yprk Times account of November 10, which also mentions the little boy, it is stated that the murdered woman was known as Lizzie Fisher. Nobody who definitely knew Kelly mentioned anything about her having a child, as surely they would have done if she had one, nor is there any mention of the child in the files, and Kelly did not live in a second-floor room. The woman seen at 10.00 pm could have been Kelly, although I think she was drinking with a woman named Elizabeth Foster in the Ten Bells at that time. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 06:45 pm | | Jim
I don't know what to make of Kelly Jones post and no it is not my interpretation.
As I have said recently, the detail given is now beyond the possibility of it being a bad mistake, mixup or misinterpretation. So it is either true or a hoax/fraud. If it is true, in the next few days we will all know the ID of JTR. If it is a hoax, it is extremely elaborate and I guess that we will be discussing it for many years in a similar way to the fact that the diary is still being discuss.
Kelly has been very brave. Although from her e-mail address she is untraceable and if she gives up now we will never find her again. If she does have a fake story she has provided provinence to it so is either very foolish or very brave. If she provides false or forged documents she is infact breaking the law. There is something about this that is definitely fishy. Why is it all not coming at once and why are things being held back. However, if one accepts the fact that kelly has a huge pile of documents to look through then this is explained. Then the sheer courage of it if it was a hoax does make me wonder whether it might even be true.
Either way - I have no doubt that we will be discussing it over a long period of time |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 12:25 am | | G'day,
If that Canadian report is right, MJK had a 'natural SON'. Kelly Jones says she had a DAUGHTER Elizabeth, who was her great grandmother.
I wonder how many children Mary Kelly had before 1888?
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 12:47 am | | G'day,
Go to the url that Chris Scott gives, and read: 'The Ottowa Evening Journal - Nov. 16'.
If has an interesting article about George Hutchinson!
Leanne! |
|
|
|
|
