|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 13, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Mary kelly:
Archive through May 13, 2000
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Sunday, 07 May 2000 - 11:55 pm |        | G'day everyone,
Remember that the only testimony we have about MJK comes from Beernut himself. How do we know that he read the papers to her? I reckon he made that up to show what a caring person he was. Why didn't any of the other witnesses say that they had to read things for her?
As for the key, she just lost it, plain and simple.
Jules |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 01:44 pm | | G'day Jules:
I think the part about Beernut reading the newspapers to MJK sounds like a little domestic detail that rings true. Who else could testify to it other than the member of the couple who survived? Who else might have been in the room when the reading of the papers took place? There may have been other details that Beernut lied about but I have the feeling he was speaking the truth in this instance.
Chris |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 08:56 am | | G'day Jules and Chris,
And why do we think that 'Beernut' read the papers to Kelly, if it wasn't to scare her off the streets? Mary Kelly was 'quite well educated for someone of her class', so could have read them herself, if this was her wish!
Leanne! |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 11:11 pm | | G'day Chris, Lea, everyone.
You could be quite right Chris, but what I'm thinking of is that Beernut was trying to create an impression that MJK was more dependent on him than she really was. Once again I don't know if this has any relavence, but it might just be something else to think about.
Leanne, with all the talk going around about the murders (and especially amongst the working girls) Mary would have heard about them anyway. I don't think she'd need someone to reads to her about them as well.
Jules |
Author: Christopher T. George
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 08:13 am | | Hi, Jules:
Yes indeed I think you could be correct in saying Barnett wanted it to appear that Mary Jane Kelly was more dependent on him than she was really was. In fact, we get the impression that MJK was rather a strong, independent woman and that she was NOT dependent on him -- a scenario which makes him seem ineffectual. In examining all of these witness statements we have to think about the agenda that the witness is pursuing in giving the statement. In a lot of instances, it will be to make themselves appear in a better light, and I certainly think there is much of that in Barnett's statements.
Chris |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 03:48 pm | | MJK as "...a rather strong, independent woman...":
Doesn't wash. She might be said to be stong and independent only within a larger context of being a dependent leech. She had been living with, and sponging off, a long series of men: Morganstone, Flemming, Barnett, etc. She asked Hutchinson for a loan on the night she died, if we can believe him. She took money from Barnett even when she was telling her friends she was through with him--there is only one kind of woman who does this. She was way behind in her rent to McCarthy. She had no money of her own, and was living day-to-day. Her work was prostitution. She was a confirmed alcoholic. How possibly can she be figured as strong and independent in the true meanings of these terms?
This problem of seeing victims only in the best light, a kind of speaking well of the dead, casts a shadow on interpretations of the case, IMHO.
David |
Author: Christopher T. George
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 04:10 pm | | Hi David:
I think part of the "myth" of Mary Jane Kelly is that she was a manipulative woman. No? I await your response with interest.
Chris |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 07:10 pm | | David,
I feel that when speaking of MJK as "independent" they were referring to emotional dependency on Barnett not financial. And why do you say she was "sponging off" of men? She was providing a service, they were paying for it. She was a prostitute, no? |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 07:34 pm | | Could MJ live her life independently? One point I didn't mention above is that she was also illiterate. So, all things considered, I don't see how it could be said that she was "strong and independent" if she had the set of characteristics she had. How could she support herself? What kind of work, other than prostitution, could she get? What would be the source of her strength and independence? I don't see any. MJ, like a great many other women like her in Whitechapel, was forced onto the streets just to stay alive for another day. Is this anything like independence?
How can it be said that MJ was working as a prostitute insofar as her living with Morganstone, Barnett and Flemming? She was a kept woman, as many were. She didn't bring in the money, the man did. So how does that make her anything but dependent on the man?
David |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 01:57 pm | | | Again I repeat: emotional dependency is completely different from financial. And technically a "kept woman" is no different from a prostitute. Both provide sex for financial support. As for MJK being forced onto the streets and therefore not independent, I am forced to go to work everyday in order to make my living, does this mean that I am not independent? I take money from my boss, does that mean I am not independent? Also many people were illiterate back then. Illiteracy is not a statement on one's dependency. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 02:22 pm | | | David , I think that MJK being (a) illiterate and (b) a confirmed alcoholic , are both subject to scrutiny here and are by no means confirmed facts. But what Mary definitely was is poor. Thus no wonder she would take the money off Barnett and ask Hutchinson for a loan ; she needed every penny she could get. Ruthless she was perhaps , but if one of us reached that level of poverty who is to say we would not act the same ? Mary wasn't dependent on Barnett , indeed she contrived for him to leave by various means because she had gone off him. A man brought in money for her , but she always seems to have found another one in her hour of need : she used her charm and her looks to her advantage. Thus I think Kelly WAS a strong woman - she had to be , living on the streets. |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 03:09 pm | | Simon,
That is the point I going to make too: Strong people do whatever is necessary to survive. the fact that she was a prostitute doesn't mean that she was weak and dependent. She used what means she had to live. It isn't like there was a wealth of job opportunities for one of her class during that time. |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 10:43 pm | | Simon and Aleqria,
All you are both saying is that MJ didn't have the ability to live on her own, and thus manipulated others to live off them. Manipulation of others is dependence on others. It doesn't change from being dependence into being independence just because you actively make the schemes that keep the mechanisms of deception inflated yourself--only low people think it so. It is still dependence. You are only independent if you don't make these schemes.
David |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 05:16 am | | G'day,
At Kelly's inquest, Barnett tended to downplay Kelly's drinking habit: 'When she was with me, I found her of sober habits'.
Julia Venturney said: '(She) often got drunk'.
Landlord McCarthy said: 'She was an exceptionally quiet woman, but when in drink she had more to say'.
As Barnett had to get up at about 4am to start work at Billingsgate at 5am, and couldn't afford to be hungover, does this indicate that Kelly didn't spend that much time with him? I wonder if he did stay in bed, when Kelly went out drinking?
Kelly had received some formal education in Wales, then she married when she was 16. Maria Harvey said that her education was: 'much superior to that of most persons in her position in life.'
David, where's your proof that MJK was illiterate?
Leanne! |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 06:57 am | | David,
By your definition of dependence, there are no independent people in this world. Every person relies on someone else to provide their support, whether you're a CPA, a teacher or a prostitute. I think you simply cannot allow yourself to believe that a prostitute is anyone or anything other than a manipulative, grasping parasite. I think the same of lawyers and politicians. But I don't go so far as to claim that because lawyers extort money from their clients, they are dependent and weak. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 06:51 pm | | I like what Harry Mann said on one of the other boards:
"I think the term prostitue a bit harsh when
describing such women, and I would lean towards the more descriptive term of unfortunate".
Of the victims, Kelly most closely fits the orthodox definition of a prostitute, but only when considering her brothel days or her adventure in France. With Barnett, she was in a domestic relationship; my guess is that she only went back to the streets when things weren't going well.
I'll duck the tricky question of whether or not she was "independent"; it's six of one, half dozen of the other, I reckon. Was she manipulative? With Barnett, I'd say "yes". She stayed with him, but confessed to her friends that she no longer cared for him. She secretly pined for Joe Flemming, who still came to see her even after she was with Barnett.
But in reading the inquest, it's not hard for me to imagine that Barnett felt that he had 'saved her from the streets', and perhaps he lorded it over her. My guess is that he was a client when he met MJK, and this preyed on his mind in the form of jealousy. There is also something a little self-righteousness in his Barnett's tone. What, he left her alone due to moral indignation during the Ripper scare? He must have finished his days in guilt. If he hadn't lost his job as a fish porter, Kelly wouldn't have returned to the streets; if he hadn't left her alone, she wouldn't have been killed by Jack the Ripper. It's a dismal story really, suitable for a tragedy by Thomas Hardy or one of the Brontes.
RJP |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 07:19 pm | | I'd think Kelly would read the papers herself if she could, and not have Joe read them to her. I don't think a prostitute is necesarily a dependent person, but if you add up all the information on MJ, she does look pretty dependent and manipulative, IMHO. She was dirt poor and lived with a series of men to survive--she didn't have a job with a pension plan. She was taking money from Barnett while telling people she "wasn't able to bear him." Add it up.
David |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 06:08 am | | G'day,
It's not surprising that Kelly found herself attracted to a stange, stammering, yet dignified fish porter, who promised to look after her. She may have guessed correctly that she would be the dominant one in their relationship.
After twenty months, she had reached the point where she could no longer bear him.
Barnett knew that Kelly was still fond of Joseph Flemming and Julia venturney said that it was no secret that Flemming wanted Kelly back.
So long as Barnett continued to bring home a good, regular wage, the relationship endured. Barnett would 'patch-things-up' with her by buying her gifts. He explained this at her inquest: 'One minute rowing and the for days and weeks always friendly. Often I bought her things coming home, (from work), and whatever it was she always liked it'.
Barnett said: 'She used to ask me to read the about the murders....if I did not bring one, she would get it herself and ask me whether the murderer was caught'.
I'd say that Kelly may have been able to read, but pretended that she couldn't, as a way of making Barnett feel that she was still dependant on him.
When Barnett lost his job and could no longer 'buy her gifts', she had finished using him!
Leanne! |
Author: David M. Radka
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 12:27 pm | | Every man has to learn about women on his own, through experience. You've got to experience exactly what you're dealing with, to be able to comprehend it. Women are like war or heroin--those that have been there say it's senseless to try to explain the experience to anyone who hasn't also been there.
I've found women to basically be concrete and emotional people, with a wide range of emotions but a profoundly self-centered or self-serving concept of fairness; and men to basically be abstract and analytical people, with a poor, sometimes impoverished ability to experience a range of emotions but having an acute distinction of fairness from unfairness in what they do, and the readiness or presence of mind to decide which they're going to be. Women basically live to experience their emotions concretely, men consider women essentially immature, helpless and dependent in this regard; men live to think and act, not really to feel, women consider men essentially brutish, obtuse and untrainable in this regard. Each considers the other to be lacking one of the gears requisite for being civilized. When it comes to this, never the twain shall meet: women are women and men are men, people respond based on what they are, and that's that.
A quote from Nietzsche may serve to express a typical appraisal of women by one of the smartest men of the nineteenth century: "Women aren't even shallow. They are still cats and birds, or, at best, cows." While I certainly don't agree with this entirely, I can well imagine where it is coming from.
A recent quote from a feminist may serve to express a typical appraisal of men by women: "Why are men such JERKS?" I am only dimly able to imagine where this might be coming from.
Barnett, it seems to me, was just another man having his essence sucked out of him by a black widow spider. Mary Jane wouldn't be done with him until she already had something lined up better than he, but since she hadn't got that yet, she'd still take what he had to give her. This is not fair, as I see it. If Mary Jane doesn't like Joe any more that's her privilege, but she ought to respect him enough to tell him, and not hold out the promise of a future to him just to get his money. I see the money she took from him under these circumstances as ill-gotten gains, such as by scam or fraud, and I see people who perpetrate such activites as using others deceptively and unethically. Therefore, Mary Jane was a dependent woman.
David |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 01:36 pm | | David--
Speaking from personal observation, I would say that men are the willing dupes of young, charming, alcoholic women. Ergo: Flemming, Hutchinson, Barnett, Morgenstone, etc. I suspect the relationship between Kelly and Barnett was perhaps more complex and symbiotic than simply leech/blood supply. The skeletal frame of a relationship is often unsightly; for all we know, there may have been genuine affection and tenderness on Kelly's part. Besides, Barnett hardly comes off well. He settles down with a drunken prostitute and then acts shocked when he finds she has a wild streak.
(This is the best I can do to defuse your bomb. I fear that you're in for heaps of abuse).
RJP |
|
|
|
|
