Archive through January 24, 2000

** 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 January 24, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Was it really Mary Kelly?: Archive through January 24, 2000

Author: Bob_C Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 09:01 am
Hi all, Janice, about the stutter, your sources please.In all the hard evidence information I have read (not all, by any means), it was reported that Barnett stammered at the inquest, and nowhere else. The bit about echolalia is, as far as I can ascertain, only supposed from some quarters and again without the least hard evidence. Now, if you want to believe all the newspaper reports of the time, you'll have to believe a lot more than just that Barnett stuttered. (I do not claim that it is proven that he didn't, only that there is no evidence at all that he did.) Let us be clear. Refering to some alleged occurance or charateristic in some newspaper is no evidence whatsoever. If that were so, I could prove who Jack was just by using those reports that passed to my theory and ignoring those that don't. To use the word 'stutter' as the word 'stammer' or vice versa is one of the very least faults to be expected. Again, then, to quote some newspaper is no evidence whatsoever (unfortunantly). Maxwell, the witness who claimed to have seen Kelly going somewhere after she was very probably dead, had quite probably mistaken someone else for Kelly if she hadn't mistaken the day. By her own admission, she had only spoken to this person twice, and described her as tubby and short. All other reliable sources (no newpaper reports) described her as 'tall and a bit stout'. The bit about her being stout would seem to be evidenced by the scene photographs. About her height is difficult to judge. I have tried to judge body height from the photos using the door behind her body as reference and known physical properties of the human body as regards length of body/legs etc., but the result was too unreliable to be of any use, giving values from about 5' 4" to 5' 9". (Correct leg angle is very difficult to measure from the two photos). Point is, could Maxwell really have been mistaken? Even at the inquest, she was reminded that her evidence clashed badly with that of the others. If she really did see whom she believed to be Kelly later that day, she very probably was. Kelly did not live directly in the boardinghouse, but in a seperate room with own outside entrance. Maxwell would thus not have met her generally by 'being about in the lodging house.' Barnett got sacked from Billingsgate. That is all we know. He lost his porter's license for what it was he did, so he certainly didn't get fired for saying 'damn'. I have generally supposed for theft, although without the slightest evidence. He may have been drunk, of course, but he had held that job for many years and had evidently not had this problem before. That is why I tip on theft. You can't hide drunkenness from the boss when he comes around. You can hide theft. I admit again that that is conjecture, not more. Best regards Bob
Author: Tricia Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 10:24 am
Hello Everyone, BOB- I like your detective work trying to measure the body using the photographs. At what height did you estimate the door to be. Doors tended to be lower then. I'm sure you have had to stoop if you've visited old buildings ( I don't have a problem being only 5' 2"). Even with the measurements you did estimate the body was still above average female height. EVERYONE- Don't you think it odd that the only person to refer to MJK as Marie Jeanette is Barnett ? All the witnesses refer to her as Mary Jane so she must have used that name even when she moved to Millers Court. I think the name Marie Jeanette was given to her by Barnett and not used herself in an affected manner Maybe he liked the idea of a bit of French Ooh La La. It was probably used only by him affectionately and his final act of affection was identifying her body and so ensuring that Marie Jeanette was on her death certificate Tricia.
Author: Bob_C Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 11:36 am
Hi Tricia, I didn't use the door height, but the door width, which I have assumed to be about the standard 3' 0" overall. (Of course not very accurate, as I said). I couldn't use the height because, as you rightly say, the doors tended to be lower then and I had no way of estimating it. A house opposite my childhood home was built in 1846 (date on wall) and had doors that really were lower in height, but evidently just about as wide as today. As you say, if my calculations are anything like half accurate, she would have been taller than the average woman, but that was testified by all except Maxwell anyway and is probably to be considered as proven without my special efforts. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Barnett who thought up the name of Marie Jeanette, and I don't know that he even called her by these names. Evidently Kelly had earlier travelled in male company to Paris from the Frenchwoman's where she had been staying where, we may here only assume, it was intended that she should work in a brothel there. (See e.g. P. Sugden's Complete History). She is reported as saying that she didn't like Paris (which may be why) and returned to London. Possible indication of this is that she didn't return to the frenchwoman's, but 'submerged' in the East End. It could have been that Kelly had realised what she had in store for her if found by those responsible, and decided to make herself scarce. We could possibly accept that this affectation of hers may have been assumed at this time. As far as I can tell from my information on the inquest report, Barnett referred to her as 'Mary Jane', but I can well be wrong as I do not have a copy of the original. It is indeed curious that her affected name was entered on her death certificate. I don't know if she used it daily, or if they knew that she preferred it and used it as a last gesture to her, or it was just Barnett's work. There are many on the board who will, no doubt, correct me if I'm wrong. Best regards Bob
Author: PT Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 12:11 pm
Hi all, Marie Jeanette may well have been used in the same way as prostitutes today use names like Trixi etc. Not wanting to give her real name to 'customers', she may have used a fancy name. As to Maxwell seeing her later that day, she must have known what she looked like if Mary Jane had beeing living there for sometime. Most of us know what our neighbours look like and know their names. After reading all the posts here, has anyone considered this? A while ago, someone put forward the idea that Jack the Ripper could have been a woman. All the bodies, save for Mary Jane Kelly's were left with the features in tact. The body in Mary Jane Kelly's lodgings was totally disfigured. Was this to hide the identity of the dead person, was it Mary Jane Kelly who was the murderer? Did Barnett say that the body was her because he knew? Just a thought. I'm quite sure that the body in the lodgings was that of Mary Jane Kelly, but it does make you think doesn't it?
Author: Bob_C Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 01:59 pm
Hi PT, Wow! Now, Kate Eddowes had very bad facial mutilations as well, so that doesn't fit in with the theory. This female JtR has been suggested a large number of times, (Conan Doyle et. al) especially as Maxwell claimed to have seen her later (see my post above). About Maxwell, evidently she didn't know Kelly well, or she would not have given testimony at odds to all others who knew her, or ought to have known her, well. (See above post again). She claimed only to have spoken to Kelly twice at all. How many times must Barnett not only have talken to Kelly, but shared an extremely intimate relationship with her. If we ignore the identification by Barnett, which is not very safe, we still have descriptions of Kelly that just do not match up with Maxwell's. To consider if Kelly could have been Jacky the Ripperess is a whole new kettle of fish. Think of all the difficulties she would have had, living with Barnett as she did, plus a whole cadre of other things like why, what for, how etc. Best regards Bob
Author: Tricia Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 09:18 am
Hello Bob The inquest on MJK was held on 12th November and the inquest papers state that it was held on the body of MARIE JEANETTE Kelly. The only person who says he knew the deceased as Marie Jeanette is Barnett.All the other witnesses state they knew her as Mary Jane.I don't think that she used the French version to disguise her real name, because she was a prostitute, as everyone in the area knew her as Mary Jane and she probably had clients from within that area. I still find it odd that it was only Barnett who referred to her at the inquest as Marie Jeanette. Any thoughts ? Best wishes Tricia
Author: Bob_C Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 10:06 am
Hi Tricia, Where does it state that only Barnett knew her as, or called her Marie Jeanette? I do not have an original copy of the inquest papers, alas, but the write-ups I do have tell us nothing about Joe's preference for this affectation. Kelly's 'french connection' being a much better bet for the source of these names that the imagination of Barnett, it must be pointed out that this period was years before she met him. He may well, of course, called her so, but there is no prime source that I have seen that substantiates that. Once again, it is odd that she be buried under those names, but why should the inquest simply take Barnett's word for it? There were enough other witnesses. If Barnett did call her by these names, we can assume that either Kelly led him to by telling about (exagerating?) her french expiriences, or he called her in that connection out of fondness. We must also consider the possibility that witnesses called her Marie Jeanette (maybe at her wish)in daily life, giving the name they knew or supposed correct at the inquest. That is usual with nicknames or similar. Notice witness testimoney where Kelly was given as being 'much superior to others' in that sort of life. A year or so ago, I started a special study over Kelly and her life, unfortunantly not having the time and money needed to do more than go just a bit under the surface, so it is not more than half a document. If you would like a copy, however, e-mail me. It does contain some established facts (plus, of course, a lot of supposition). Best regards, Bob
Author: Tricia Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 01:17 pm
Hello Bob In the book 'Jack the Ripper, The inquest of the final victim Mary Kelly' by John Smithkey 111 he reproduces copies of the original inquest papers written by hand and also gives a printed version. Only Barnett says he knew deceased as Marie Jeanette. I think the reason Barnett's version of her name was accepted by the inquest was because as they had been living together for about 18 months he was considered her 'common law husband' and in the absence of any blood relatives he was the next best thing. I would love a copy of your research as Mary Kelly has always interested me, I think because she is a bit of a mystery. Regards Tricia
Author: PT Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 06:09 pm
Hi again! Bob, is it possible for you to let us all have a copy of your study? I'd be really interested to see exactly what you found out about MJK. The confusion over her name I believe is not unusual for the time. There was some confusion as to the correct name of another of Jack the Ripper's victims as well. Also, as most people were illiterate, they would not have known the exact spelling. I've come across a lot of this in my genealogy research. People being buried under a name different to the one they were born with. Did Mary have a strong Irish accent, could it be that people just misheard her name because of it? In fact it would be useful to get her birth certificate and find out exactly what name she was born under!
Author: Bob_C Monday, 17 January 2000 - 04:25 am
Hi PT, How do you suppose I could let everyone have a copy? If any one individual requires a copy, please e-mail me. If enough people apply, of course, then I will have to arrange something else. I repeat here what I said above about the work: I started a special study over Kelly and her life, unfortunantly not having the time and money needed to do more than go just a bit under the surface, so it is not more than half a document. If you would like a copy, however, e-mail me. It does contain some established facts (plus, of course, a lot of supposition). As far as I can estimate, Kelly would not have had a strong Irish accent, having left her native Irland as a small child. She is said to have spoken Welsh perfectly. Just to give the little about her birth etc. that I �(and others) have traced, I include here the following excert from this paper: Mary Jane Kelly, a young prostitute murdered sometime in the morning of Friday 9th November, 1888 at her home, 13, Millers Court, Whitechapel in the city of London is with some certainty the: Mary Kelly, born on 19th April 1864 in Ballingarry, registry district of Castleton, in the county of Limerick, Ireland. Father John Kelly, a labourer. Mother Anne nee. McCarthy. There were two sons born to the couple in that district. John, born exactly two years after Mary on 19th April 1866 and Peter, born on 29th June, 1868. Any children to the couple before Mary Kelly are not registered at Castleton. Best regards Bob
Author: Bob_C Monday, 17 January 2000 - 06:34 am
Hi Tricia, Thanks for the input. I don't have that book so I can't comment, but I will try to get a copy. It is still odd that she was buried under these names, while it may be assumed that one of the main jobs of a coroner is to establish exactly who the deceased is! That should mean birth certificates etc. We may, of course, accept that papercram was not as rigidly centralised as nowadays. We know that Kelly's family still existed, Barnett tells us that Mary made herself scarce as she heard that her father was in London looking for her (possibly fearing a wallop or two). As I understand it, enquiries were also made at the Scots Guards, where her elder brother 'Johnto' is supposed to have served. (At that time stationed in Irland). What, if any, result is not known by me. Best regards Bob
Author: PT Monday, 17 January 2000 - 09:46 am
Hi Bob, Thanks for that. It's been a while since I read my last Ripper book, the last one being Donald Rumbelow's. I did go on one of his walks through the streets of London and to one of his talks at our local library. I didn't actually realise that MJK had left Ireland as a small girl. I will e-mail you for a copy of your study and read it thoroughly before posting again. Thanks. Paulette
Author: Tricia Monday, 17 January 2000 - 09:59 am
Hello Bob, The info on Mary,s birth is really interesting. You say that any children born before her are not recorded in that district. She claimed,as you say, to have an elder brother,nickname Johnto, real name Henry and I tried to work out how he got his nickname. Possibility- Johnto is pronounced John too! Dad was John, younger brother was John so maybe it was a family joke to name Henry John as well. She also claimed to have six or seven bothers and one sister. No relatives came to her funeral despite, apparently, a search being made to try and locate them. Did you manage to go any further in your search ? Her alleged marriage is a mystery. The coroner was obviously accepting Barnett's word as on her death cert she is noted as Marie Jeanette Kelly otherwise Davies. It is also interesting that her mother's maiden name was McCarthy and so was her landlord at Millers Court. Possible connection ? She was allowed to get 29s in arrears with her rent. Probably just a coincidence but I do like to do a bit of lateral thinking the result of reading too many Inspector Morse books. Take care Tricia
Author: Bob_C Monday, 17 January 2000 - 10:16 am
Hi all, PT, no need to wait until you've read my efforts before writing again on the board. Every little bit of sensible discussion, right or wrong, is welcome. Please don't feel that we are there just to overbear anyone into silence! Tricia, please don't think I claim to be some big-wig over Kelly. I did try as far as possible to get it right, but don't expect wonders! I thought the same as you about Johnto (Henry) and how he could have got his nickname! Indeed, no relatives (as far as is recorded)attended the funeral, either because of not being found to inform, or they wanted nothing to do with her, which would have been a bit hard on the girl but for those times was completely possible. I have tried to check on the Davis or Davies marriage, but have got nowhere. A friend has gone much futher, checking all the lists of coalminers killed at about that time period in the whole of Wales. There were, alas, lots of Davis or Davies known and recorded to have been killed, but none matching the description given down to us. She may have had a 'common-law' husband of this name and used a fabricated death to explain the separation. There are, indeed, indications that the story of a child of hers may well not be invention. The rest of what I have done over her story is contained in the paper, which I will have pleasure in sending to you as well if you wish. Best regards Bob
Author: Jon Monday, 17 January 2000 - 06:33 pm
Correct Tricia. Johnto actually reads John too, (John as well) the second 'o' was missed. Regards, Jon
Author: Tuppence Friday, 21 January 2000 - 03:33 pm
Was there something distinctive about Kelly's teeth or her bite? Perhaps she had a lisp...and the other victims all had some teeth missing maybe this was the attraction for Jack? Just a thought...though I am reminded of that modern killer who removed his victims' teeth (after death) for peculiar purposes.
Author: Tricia Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 05:46 am
Hello Everyone, Bob - You may not be a big wig on MJK but the info you've let us have has been very interesting and I've enjoyed our exchanges of ideas. I would E mail you for the info but not being very good with my computer I'm not sure if I can access your address through the casebook. Jon- Thanks for confirming that Johnto means John as well. I have never seen it printed as Johntoo. Tuppence - One witness said that Mary had a speech impediment. This might have been a lisp perhaps caused by missing teeth.However, I don't think Jack would have had to look very far for women with missing teeth as I don't think dental hygiene was at the top of there lists for daily living. regards Tricia
Author: Chas. Gaines Monday, 24 January 2000 - 01:16 am
the victim more than likely was MJK the ripper may or may not have been in her room prior to her singing either way the song she was singing would have enraged him even drawn him to her the facial mutilation is atypical of his (JTR's) profile... therefore as there is no doubt to the identity of the singer there is no doubt as to the victim. nice theory tho the scenario of MJK arriving on the scene and leaving terrified that she be next... as to the aunt recieving the postcard from america supposedly from MJK if this did occur than none other than JTR himself mailed it now that leads to you know who...
Author: Chas. Gaines Monday, 24 January 2000 - 01:28 am
Jack's motive to kill was created by one source tho the triggers were many.......
Author: Leanne Monday, 24 January 2000 - 06:36 am
G'day Chas. (Chastity?) I remember reading something about a postcard being sent to an Aunt of Marys too! I think it was in the book: 'The Ripper and The Royals', and I can't be bothered searching for it again in the library. If this postcard was received after her death, I wonder was it merely an attempt to keep her family from attending her funeral? LEANNE!