|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 March 24, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Was it really Mary Kelly?:
Archive through March 24, 2000
Author: Leanne
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 07:11 am |        | G'day everyone,
I found an old post of mine on 'Monday, April 26, 1999', on this board. At the time, I had 'The Ripper and the Royals' in my hands.
It says that Kellys' aunt, Nora O'Brien, stated that her letters from Mary stopped in early November 1888, then she received a Christmas card from her in January 1889. She told Abberline that it had been sent from Canada.
But Kelly was buried on November the 19th. Still, I wonder who sent it, if it's true, and why?
LEANNE! |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 08:01 am | | | Oh dear , I'm going to upset everyone again I just know it. But here is another controversial theory of mine : THE DEAD WOMAN IN THE PHOTO TAKEN IN MILLER'S COURT WAS NOT MARY KELLY. I repeat , not. I measured the body in the photo in Rumbelow's ' The Complete Jack the Ripper ' , hardback edition 1987 and came up with a total body length of 131mm vis the photo. Measuring the length of the pillow and the size of the head in relation to the pillow I came up with a coversion value ( to cm ) of 1.4 ; thus 131 x 1.4 equals a height of 164cm or 5'6''. This is commeasurate with Kelly being 5'7'' tall allowing for a small margin of error. But now , I have come across Walter Dew's description of Kelly as being short and dumpy , and a further description describes her as a little woman. Since Dew knew Kelly I am presuming him to be correct in his assertion : but if he IS correct then it is not Kelly in the photo. I believe Bob C. has also attempted to estimate the length of the body vis the door in the background and come up with a similar figure to me ; however a small woman in the 1880s would have been 5'0'' - 5'2'' tall. Who is in the photo then ? It is curious that Barnett identified Kelly by her ' ears and eyes ' and not her crowning glory , her reddish blonde hair. Did Barnett know something about her disappearance and give a false identification to the police , to protect the real MJK ? If Kelly was still alive , then there is no discrepancy with Mrs Maxwell's account that she saw Kelly on the Friday morning at 8.30 am. It would explain much. I know that this seems impossible , but there is no way that the corpse in the photo could be a 5' tall woman ; if I have erred then the corpse is actually TALLER than the measurements I have given. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 09:13 am | | Simon -
You are forgetting (or perhaps you did not know) that Kelly's landlord, John McCarthy, also identified the body:
"I knew deceased as Mary Jane Kelly I have seen the body and have no doubt as to the identity." (Kelly inquest papers, held by the Corporation of London, Greater London Record Office, Ref. R1095)
Walter Dew (whose recollection of MJK you take at face value above) also saw the body. There is no record of his testifying at the inquest, but do you suggest he - a trained policeman - was so disturbed by the sight that he could not tell whether the body on the bed was that of Kelly or not, whereas a civilian such as Barnett or MCarthy could?
Perhaps I may anticipate your response; you may suggest to me that some secret information (or promise of big money to come) was why MJK was allowed to run up a debt of over 30s to McCarthy, and that both he and Barnett realised that silence was essential if they too were not to be caught up in the plot.
As on the other MJK board you suggest Kelly was blackmailing the government, and here suggest a doppleganger was killed in her place, I ask:
1. Who was it, then?
2. Why was there never a report of a missing woman connected with the time of the Kelly murders?
3. If the body was not Kelly, why then did Barnett (her lover), McCarthy (her landlord) and Dew (who 'knew her by sight') all say it was?
4. This theory is often predicated on the supposition that Catherine Eddowes was murdered by mistake, as she was using a "Kelly" alias. Do you believe this?
5. If you do, then why did the killer(s) allow themselves to make a second mistake in Miller's Court?
6. Why would MJK be blackmailing the Government?
7. Why would she and her "friends" be killed in such a manner?
8. Why would MJK stay in the East End if her "friends" were being slaughtered all around her?
I could go on, but I hope you see what I mean. It is a normal human tendency to believe that there is no such thing as a random event; that everything has a cause and effect if only we look hard enough. A great deal of ink has been spilled to suggest that the Ripper murders were a deliberate, planned outrage, but I have never yet seen anything beyond "what if" and "isn't it curious" to prove this.
Many people prefer to think that Mary Kelly was the target all along (pace Moore/Campbell, she must have done SOMETHING to deserve THAT), and find the idea of a random, unprovoked killing too unbelievable. All well and good; it would be a dull world indeed were we all to believe the same thing. But basing such thoughts on the faulty recollections of policemen, converted measurements of a 100-year-old photograph and beliefs that people perjured themselves before a coroner's court in support of a theory where (too often) the LACK of evidence is considered PROOF of complicity is a bit much for me to swallow.
But that's just me. Others, no doubt, think differently and consider me a pedantic, narrow-minded old fool.
Regards,
CMD |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 09:35 am | | | Er... I was going to say the promise of big money to come WAS the reason McCarthy allowed Kelly to run up her 29s debt on the rent ! With the amount of mutilation to the corpse it is possible the landlord could have been mistaken as to Kelly's identification however. As to the photo , I measured it ages ago and thought nothing of it as I assumed 5'7'' was Kelly's height , but with the Dew info I recently obtained I thought the discrepancy was worth mentioning. I think it is curious that nobody mentioned Kelly's hair as a means of identifying her , do you have an explanation for this CMD ? Its strange since it was her most distinctive feature. As for a doppelganger , people did go missing in London at that time without people being aware of it : I am suggesting this was the case in the Pinchin st murder and the so called Torso murders in London leaving the police unable to identify the bodies. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 09:37 am | | | CMD , as to your questions I am going to post ' Simon's Theory ' on the General Discussions board tomorrow. So stay tooned ! |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 04:18 pm | | Simon -
I am, at the moment, a rather lazy and dispirited sod, so I shall note that the hair/ear/eyes identification of MJK by Barnett has been brought up before. I believe the general consensus is that Barnett was misunderstood and actually did say "hair," this being mistranscribed.
If anyone does remember the whole discussion and what it eventually boiled down to, would you be kind enough to remind Simon and myself?
I look forward to your theory, Simon, though having seen bits of it from trawling around the boards, I will warn you in advance I doubt I shall believe a word of it! You will, additionally, forgive me if I do not answer you right away; I have to have a new hard drive put in on my computer and as a result my time on these boards is limited and cursory (you can all stop cheering now, thank you).
Gratuitous self-puffery: only 31 days to the US Conference; have YOU made your reservations yet?
CMD |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 09:46 pm | | G'day Fellas,
Boy, do I remember that debate on the 'hair/ear/eyes' thing!
We had this debate on: (Friday November the 20th), (Monday December the 20th) and on (Tuesday December the 21st)!
I think some people believed that Barnetts cockney accent, caused this question, then I went on to point out the other faults in Barnetts testimony at MJKs inquest.
LEANNE! |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 04:29 am | | As to whether it was Mary Kelly that was killed,we have the evidence of George Hutchinson who claims to have known Kelly well.He says she entered her rooms just after 2am,and did not leave during the time he was there.He claimed to have left about 3am,and there is no evidence she left afterwards.Leaves little time for a substitute to have entered.
H.M. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 08:36 am | | The passage concerning the discrepancy over Kelly's height comes from Bob Hinton's ' From Hell ' , page 118 : " In appearance , Mary has been described as ' a short dumpy woman but quite attractive '. Walter Dew...said of her : ' Often I had seen her parading along Commercial Street...usually in the company of two or three of her kind , fairly neatly dressed and wearing a clean white apron , but no hat '. She was possessed of a number of nicknames , Ginger and Black Mary being but two. Whether these referred to her natural colouring or her temperament is not quite clear. Most accounts of her speak of her as being fair-haired , but one witness who spoke to the Illustrated Police News said ' I have known her for about five years , she had long dark hair. ' On balance though it would appear she was fair haired and complexioned , features that were to be of the utmost importance later. It is however this lack of an accurate picture of Mary Kelly that makes her so beloved of conspiracy theorists. One woman described her as being '5 feet 7 inches in height' and yet another as ' a pleasant little woman '. However , since we have the word of Walter Dew that she was ' a short dumpy little woman ' I think the balance of evidence is that she wasn't 5'7" but rather closer to five feet. One thing they seemed all agreed upon is that she was ' rather stout ' which leads one to believe that whatever she did go short of , it was not food. " I can only say that , from my own experience , 90% of the Irish woman I have known have been short in height and none have been 5'7" or taller , which would have been tall for a Victorian woman. This all leaves us with a 5'7" victim though , so who was it in the photograph ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 08:41 am | | Wolf , as to Kelly no longer frequenting her local pub I have found the reference : I had assumed it was based on what Joe Barnett had said but this is almost certainly not the case , sadly. The quote is from Bruce Paley's essay (!) in ' The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper ' , p.245 , and is as follows : " As intended , the back-to-back impact of the double murder and the Jack the Ripper letter virtually emptied the East End streets of prostitutes , who were nowhere to be seen after closing time. This included Mary Kelly. As The Times later reported , a police sergeant making enquiries into Kelly's death discovered that she had stopped frequenting her local pub , where she used to go nightly , since around the time of the double murder , and it was about this time as well that Kelly and Barnett stopped paying their rent , further indication that Kelly was no longer soliciting. " I t is possible that Paley's book contains more information on this , but I am afraid I do not possess it therefore I cannot make further comment on it. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 09:52 am | | The Times report is, however, contradicted by the evidence of numerous people, to the effect that:
1.) Kelly had been seen drinking in the Horn of Plenty (one of the two nearest public houses to Miller's Court) on the evening of the 8th November, that she had been drinking earlier that day or the day before, and that she had been seen to visit the Britannia (the other "local") at some point (if there is any truth in the Maxwell/Lewis testimony). Credible evidence is given that she may have been accompanied by Joseph and/or Daniel Barnett on some of these excursions.
2.) That, a previous hiatus notwithstanding, Kelly had certainly returned to soliciting - she was seen to be doing so on the night of her death, and Barnett's testimony indicates that she had been doing for a period of at least a week or more prior to this. (He gives her return to prostitution as one of the reasons for his departure.)
Paley also states (without giving his source, though maybe it is the same "one woman" referred to by Hinton?) that Kelly stood 5'7" tall, thus apparently contradicting Dew's "short, dumpy" description. It is one of my concerns about his book that he seems on occasion to embrace the more colourful accounts printed in the contemporary newspapers in preference to those in the official documents - symptomatic, perhaps, of someone preferring a "good story" over historical accuracy. In a number of respects, however, Paley should be congratulated on his research, most obviously into Barnett himself.
This is not to say that the newspaper accounts are necessarily worthless - indeed, in a number of areas, such as inquest transcripts, they are often the main or only resource left to us - but that they should not be relied upon too heavily.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 04:50 am | | Hi all. Will someone please tell me in what book or newspaper account does Walter Dew describe Mary as being short and dumpy??? I've not been able to find any such statement in my small collection of original source material. Is it in Dew's memoirs?
Thanks,
Janice |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 06:12 am | | G'day Everyone,
Paley's 'Simple Truth' says that a neighbour described Kelly as: "Tall and pretty and fair as a lilly." A former acquaintance, recalled that Kelly was about 5ft7 and stout, with blue eyes and "a fine head of hair, which reached nearly to her waist" (Elizabeth Phoenix, statement to the 'Star', 'The Daily News' and other newspapers on the 12th of Nov.)
Kelly's best friend noted that Barnett, (who used to spoil her with gifts), said: "he would not live with her, while she led that course of life". (Julia Venturney, inquest, Coroner's files). Mary Kelly had reached the point where she "could no longer bear Barnett".
With Barnett losing his well-paying job, just before the murder of Nichols, he was losing his grip on her. She would more likely than not, have returned to soliciting, to maintain her lifestyle and not necessarily have told Barnett.
Barnetts alibi for the night she was murdered, was that "he was at Buller's Lodging House in New Street, and was playing whist there until half past twelve, when he went to bed."
Kelly's cry of "MURDER" was heard between 3:30 and 4:00am, three and a half hours after Barnett "went to bed."
Leanne! |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 07:42 am | | Paley states that it was after the double murder ( i.e. September 30th 1888 ) that Kelly had stopped soliciting , so it seems that she did indeed spend a period of 3 weeks or so off ' the game ' before returning to the streets. The reason for this is that there had been no more Ripper murders for a while and the working girls felt safe enough to return to their beats once again. Thus Kelly could well have returned to the Horn of Plenty after a period indoors. Incidentally , Florence Pash's description of Kelly is slightly different to the others , I print it here : " Mary Kelly. All I can remember is that she was in some way difficult. Strong willed with ideas of her own...She was quite good looking. Good hair , dark , bushy. One of the Art Schools might have been persuaded to take her on , on a regular basis. " ( Fuller p.15) I must point out though that this refers to Kelly in 1886 and she may have changed her appearance by the time of the Murders. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 08:53 am | | G'day Simon,
She may have had long dark hair in 1886, (hence the nickname 'Black Mary'), and changed her hair colour to blonde, by the time she me Barnett, (in April 1887), hence the nickname 'Ginger'. This would explain all the conflicting disciptions. Was she trying to disguise her appearance?
I remember we had a discussion, ages ago, about whether peroxide was available in those days. I can't tell you what the outcome was.
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 09:02 am | | G'day again,
Found It!!!
The 'peroxide' discussion, was on this board (Archive through December 21, 1999).
Leanne! |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 07:02 am | | Mary could well have changed her hair colour , but changing her height would have been impossible. In the Victorian period 5'7" would have been tall for a woman , yet Kelly's nicknames do not make any reference to her height. Unlike ' Long Liz ' for example. Her hair was probably fair at his period , possibly by chlorine bleaching , hence the nickname ' Ginger ' , and ' Dark Mary ' probably referred to her temperament. But her height can't have been anything special. If so , it wasn't Kelly that was murdered it was somebody else - the victim in the photo was 5'7". But Kelly had a woman living with her at one time , why not again ? And we know that Kelly was afraid , since Barnett had moved out it would make sense to move somebody else in. For a bit of protection and perhaps some help in paying the rent. This might explain some of the discrepancies. |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 09:21 pm | | | Is there any way to find out the dimensions of the bed in that horrible picture? Wouldn't such things have been standardized? If they weren't, mattress makers wouldn't know how big to make mattresses and sheet and blanket makers wouldn't know how big to make their products. If we knew the dimensions of the bed we could make a ball-park estimate of her height. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 04:23 am | | G'day Simon,
Maria Harvey had stayed with Kelly, until November the 6th and was the woman that caused Barnett to leave. She was at Kelly's inquest and stated that she was drinking with her, in her room until 5 minutes to 7, when Barnett stopped by.
Then Kelly's friend and neighbour Lizzie Albrook dropped in and left at 8pm at the same time Barnett left. I'm not sure if Albrook was at the inquest, but Bruce Paley quotes her from 'Lloyds Newspaper', 11 Nov'.
No one mentions another woman being there and Kelly was seen later, entering her room with a man, so I think we should leave the 'other woman' thing. If she needed another woman to help her with the rent, how come she was so far behind in paying it?
Leanne! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 04:43 am | | Hi All,
Paul Begg, in his Uncensored Facts, quotes Cullen:
'Black Mary was no stranger to the Britannia. Many was the time she had rushed into this pub, after rolling some drunken sailor, to swap shawls with one of the other whores there. Thus disguised, she would take to the streets again, knowing that the police would be looking for her under a different description.'
Then Begg points out, 'By all accounts Mary Jane Kelly was an attractive woman, a cut above the average for the district, so the chance of her escaping detection by the simple ruse of changing shawls was slim.'
Yet we have at least two independent witnesses, Maurice Lewis and Caroline Maxwell, who each say they saw Kelly twice, Lewis at 8 and 10am, Maxwell at 8.30 and 9am, on the morning of November 9th. There is no obvious reason why they should both be lying, but their testimony goes against all the other evidence, so we have to assume there was a bit of a Kelly look-alike wandering the streets that morning who, though equally striking in appearance, was not apparently striking enough to be recognised in her own right as a separate identity. I still find this puzzling, although I guess there will never be any logical answers.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
