Archive through December 10, 1999

** 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 10, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Catherine Eddowes: Catherine's alias: "Mary Ann Kelly": Archive through December 10, 1999

Author: Stephen P. Ryder Friday, 20 November 1998 - 12:49 pm
August 1996 In a case so filled with coincidences, most serious Ripperphiles have had little difficulty passing off the fact that Catharine Eddowes often went by the alias Mary Ann Kelly. Some, however, contend that she was murdered simply because she was mistaken for Mary Jane Kelly. Is it just another coincidence to throw on the pile, or possible evidence to reveal that Mary Kelly truely was a specific target for the Ripper? Is there, perhaps, another significance to the likeness in names? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Date: Thu, 08 Aug 96 13:48:09 -0700 From: Stephanie Richey I'd really like to believe Mary Jane Kelly was a specific victim of the Ripper. My own pet theory (don't we all have them?!) hinges on not only this point, but that Catherine Eddowes was mistaked as Mary Jane Kelly, after Kate gave the name Mary Ann Kelly to the police. As I've stated before, I don't believe Knight's Masonic theory, but when he stumbled onto this piece of evidence, I think he was unwittingly on to something that pointed him in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, most people believe the Ripper victims to be a random selection of hapless prostitutes. I have no evidence to the contrary, but I think my theory is more fun. Post Reply to Conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 15:55:46 +0100 From: Koji I have always suspected that Mary Kelly was a target for the ripper. This would explain why Kelly was the last victim, why she was so brutally murdered and why she was killed inside. There is evidence that Kelly worked in a west end bordello before turning to low class hooking so could someone not have followed her with a grudge? This theory doesnt however explain why 5 prostitutes were murdered. If Eddowes was mistaken for Kelly then the ripper obviously didnt know Kelly too well so why hunt her? As far as the other 3 victims go, he didnt have any reason to kill them on the above theory. I really dont know the answer to this, but its an intriguing topic! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 14:05:44 +0100 From: Koji I have an interesting theory concerning the above topic. Mary Kelly always maintained that she spent alot of time in France. Supposing somebody followed her. The man would have to have asked other prostitutes where she was and then he would have had to silence them to prevent them informing her. Alternatively, could it not be possible that Kelly was the ripper, killed somebody else in her room to protect her identity and then fled town. There are about 10 witnesses claiming to have seen her the day after she was supposed to have been murdered! Two additional slants on an interesting theme! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 15:00:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Leonard P. Gray Using "Mary Kelly" as a pseudonym? I think it possible it was used by more than one Ripper victim...that the person we know as Mary Kelly might actually have another name. That could explain why no one in a century (including myself) has turned up one scrap of documentation about Kelly's past, prior to her arrival in Whitechapel -- not her birth, family, marriage, not one scrap. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 09:10:53 +0100 From: Matthew Fletcher The Kate Eddowes going as Mary Ann Kelly mystery has been completely solved in (I think) a recent Ripperana. As you pointed out she lived with a man called Kelly but Mary Ann Kelly was actually the name of Kelly's now estranged wife. Eddowes clearly went by the name of his former wife when in trouble with the police out of mischief. Someone has found a previous case where she did the same trick.
Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 12:59 am
Help required! I have often seen it mooted that Catharine Eddowes used the alias Mary Kelly. Can anyone give me the origin of such an assertion please? many thanks Bob Hinton
Author: Guy Hatton Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 03:13 am
Bob - Eddowes allegedly gave her name and address as "Mary Ann Kelly, 6 Fashion Street" when released from Bishopsgate police station on the night of her death, having previously responded with "Nothing" to an earlier request for her name. Also, one of the pawn tickets found in her posession is said to have been in the name of "Jane Kelly, 6 Dorset Street". (Sugden, Complete History.. pp 232-9). The "Kelly" part is easily attributable to her common-law "marriage" to John Kelly. The "Mary" and "Jane" are more interesting, though. Could the use of these aliases be indicative of Eddowes knowing the real Mary Kelly, and adopting her aquaintance's name? And what about the "6 Dorset Street" address. Could the similarity to 26 Dorset Street be evidence of occasional residence in the so-called "shed"? When falsifying personal details, surely one of the easiest techniques to adopt would be to use the name of sombody else of one's aquaintance, and a corrupted variant of an address one has actually used at some time? Or could it be mere coincidence? I point this out, not with the intent of proving any point, merely to see what anybody else thinks. All the Best Guy
Author: Scott Nelson Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 03:44 pm
I believe Mary Ann Kelly was the name of John Kelly's first wife, who died in April, 1887. Shortly after, Eddowes is listed as living with him at the same address (can't remember specific details, but see Ripperana 1996 issues).
Author: Jeff D Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 04:12 pm
Hello All ! Coincidences such as these, along with other gory details such as Kelly and Eddowes having the only facial mutilations, leads me to believe that there is some link, however tenuous, between Eddows and Kelly. If this would ever turn out to be the case, surely it would have a significant bearing on the investigation ? For every argument, and alternative view there is always an opposite point of view. Any of these insignificant little points could be interpreted in many different ways, but without distorting any of the known facts in any way, it could be a reasonable assumption to make, that Kelly and Eddowes just may have had an acquaintance. Cheers jeff D
Author: anon Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 04:17 pm
The facial mutilation of Eddowes was publicised in the newspapers and would account for a person trying to make the murder look like the Ripper's work doing the same. However, the facial mutilations were totally different.
Author: Jeff D Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 04:39 pm
Dear Anon, Are you of the opinion that Eddowes' murderer and Kellys' murderer are not one and the same ? I must admit, I do allow criminal profiling to take a big part in making my opinions on just who the Ripper may have been, and whether there just might be an explanation which involves at least two of the victims to have known of each other. I do have a considered opinion on the type of man I believe the Ripper was, and consider my suspect to fit the facts and not the other way around. I do believe that each of the victims knew or knew of each other and they knew of knew of their killer. I just don't know now where I shall go with my beliefs, or whether I just continue to discuss things in this forum....or... I know..... I'll write a b........ he he! Thanks Jeff D
Author: anon Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 05:35 pm
I have no opinion as to whether Kelly was a victim of Eddowes' killer, or not. It is an unknown factor and always will be. Both murders should be looked at upon their own merits - they are both unsolved! You may think or believe what you like, I am interested only in facts. It is not a fact that it was the same killer involved. We will never know if they knew each other or not, and if they did it would prove nothing - they lived in the same area.
Author: Jeff D Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 05:58 pm
Dear Anon, You are absolutely correct, and I thank you for your comments Jeff D
Author: Leanne Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 10:05 pm
G'day everyone, When Catherine Eddowes returned from her hop picking excursion with Irishman John Kelly, on September the 28th, they split up. Eddowes said to the deputy at her lodging house: "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." Mary Jane Kelly was born in 1863, daughter of John Kelly, a labourer in Limerick Ireland. Eddowes often stayed in the empty shed, next door to where Barnett and Kelly lived. Catherines John Kelly was a fruit salesman and had a KIDNEY ailment that lost him his job. He then jobbed around the East End markets. When Joseph Barnett lost his job at Billingsgate, he 'jobbed around' as a fruit porter. I think the chances that they knew each other, are great. LEANNE!
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 04:10 am
Leanne - "Jobbing around" in the markets, the docks, etc. was a regular way of life for tens of thousands of working men in the East End (and elsewhere). That two particular characters known to us did this falls far short of establishing a link between them. I would say the chances are very slight that they knew each other this way. Also, I would be less keen than you are to state Eddowes' residence in the Dorset Street "shed" as fact. We have little or no hard evidence of the shed's very existence, let alone that Eddowes dossed there frequently, or even at all. Caution at all times! All the Best Guy
Author: Caz Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 04:22 am
Has anyone else noticed how this mystery is becoming more fishy, meaty and fruity than an East End marketplace? :-) John Carey's article on Mary Kelly in the December '99 Ripperologist points out that, according to the 1881 census, no fewer than 62 coal miners named William Davies (the possible former hubby who was said to have died in a Welsh mining accident), aged between 17 and 35, were living in (big breath) Ystradyfodwg alone. I wonder how many women named, or calling themselves, Mary Kelly were living in London in 1888? Quite a number I should imagine, given the large number of Irish immigrants. It seems quite logical to me that Eddowes might borrow the name of her common law husband's first wife, Mary Ann Kelly. This seems a much simpler explanation than any theories about Kate passing herself off as MJK or that this could have had any influence over JtR's choice of victim. Love, Caz
Author: Edana Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 08:51 am
Call me old fashioned, but I still think that Eddowes' killer and Kelly's were one and the same. No evidence, that's true...except for a (pardon) gut feeling. If Kelly's murder was a copy cat killing, I think her killer was an over achiever. Edana
Author: Christopher-Michael Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 10:17 am
I do wish we could settle this bit about the Miller's Court shed. But we can't. It's referenced in "Lloyd's Newspaper" and the "Daily Telegraph," both pointing out the same thing; that in Miller's Court was a shed where until recently unfortunate people took shelter. One of those was Kate Eddowes. The wording of both reports is similar enough to consider they emanated from the same source. But who was that source? And how could we know they weren't telling a tall tale (much like Mrs Annie Tapper in Tom Cullen's book, claiming to have sold grapes to the Ripper when she was a child)? Were the story true (and there is no way we can prove it to be, even were the existence of the Miller's Court shed a definitely ascertained fact), it would show that someone - presumably a resident of Miller's Court - knew Eddowes enough by sight to know she spent time there. It would not prove that Eddowes and Kelly knew each other (unless you would like to argue the story came from the lips of a disguised MJK herself). As such with the "I have come back for the reward" story. It only has one source, and as we have seen, we cannot believe everything we read in the newspapers of the time. Even if Eddowes did say such a thing, why on earth would she be blathering about it? How could she know that whomever she was speaking to was not the Ripper? I have always been of the opinion that if Eddowes spoke those words, they were a joke, just as you might make a joke to someone asking you why you were back someplace so soon. But I have been wrong before and shall be again. CMD
Author: ChrisGeorge Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 01:20 pm
Hi CMD: As we know, a lot of people at the time of the Whitechapel murders said they thought they knew who the Ripper was but were wrong. Catherine Eddowes could have been no different to thousands of other amateur "theorists" in this respect. It just so happens that she ended up being a victim of the Whitechapel murderer. It does not mean that she knew whom the murderer would ultimately turn out to be--her suspect might have been quite a different individual. I also agree with you that Kate Eddowes' remark on being released from Bishopsgate Police Station on her last night about going out to claim the reward could have been a joking remark thrown out to the police as an act of bravado. Chris George
Author: Wolf Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 02:22 pm
If Eddowes did know the identitiy of the Ripper, she never told John Kelly which is a bit of a streach. Tully believes that Eddowes did indeed know who the Ripper was and had decided to blackmail him. I can't see how the tiny pitence she might get from the Ripper, considering he was in all likelyhood an East End working man, could outwiegh the hundreds of pounds being offered by various persons and agencies. If Eddowes was looking for a financial windfall, the easiest way would be to walk into the nearest police station or newspaper office. Anon, no there is no concrete evidence that Eddowes and Kelly's killer were one and the same just as there is no concrete evidence linking any of the Whitechapel victims. You could, as Mark Daniel has, make a case that the murders were committed by four or five seperate men. You could, but that would indicate a certain lack of knowledge both of the Whitechapel murders and of serial killers in general. Wolf.
Author: Christopher-Michael Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 08:46 pm
Much the same argument, of course, Wolf, is in Peter Turnbull's "The Killer Who Never Was," which is blessedly out of print. I'd be willing to argue that at least two killers were stalking Whitechapel in the Autumn of Terror, with regards to the Ripper and Torso killings. . .but five? Please. CMD
Author: Jon Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 10:01 pm
Well, CMD...... Considering a group or member of a gang was responsible for the death blow to Smith, and there is no reason to suppose the same 'gang' fate befell Tabram, then we have 2 murderers on the loose. Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & likely Kelly, by Jack makes 3 killers. Stride & Torso adds up to 5 killers..... This, not to mention McKenzie & Coles in subsequent years makes me wonder..... How many Killers were there in Whitechapel in 1888? I find the thought of 5 being rediculous but when you count through them, what alternative are we left with....? Regards, Jon
Author: alex chisholm Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 10:47 pm
I believe the story of Eddowes in the shed, ground-floor front, at 26 Dorset Street may well find its origins in the Daily Telegraph, 3 Oct., report of two women positively identifying the Mitre Square victim as an associate. However, as the Telegraph relates, these women "did not know her by name. She does not seem to have borne a nickname. They were ignorant of her family connections or her antecedents, and did not know whether she had lived with any man. The dead woman had, in fact, belonged to the lowest class, and frequently was without the money to obtain admission to the common lodging-houses. Whenever she was in this impecunious state she had, in the company of the women who now identified her body, slept in a shed off Dorset-street, which is the nightly refuge of some ten to twenty houseless creatures who are without the means of paying for their beds." Given their admitted ignorance of detail, together with John Kelly�s subsequent identification and account of Eddowes, it seems doubtful that these women actually knew the body they had identified at all. Nevertheless, it may well be this very dubious connection that the Telegraph rehearsed on Nov. 10 in order to enhance any possible link between the murders of Eddowes and Mary Kelly. As for Wolf�s opinion, in response to anon, on the views of the likes of Mark Daniel, I�m afraid I have to demur. To postulate four or five murderers in relation to the canonical five may well be stretching credulity a little too far, but more than two or three Whitechapel murderers is clearly the most likely probability. The consideration that Stride and even Kelly could well have been killed by different hands to those which dispatched Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes is just as firmly grounded in a knowledgeable understanding of the murders - and the social and cultural history of the time - and every bit as probable as any notion that a single fiend killed all five. Of course Psychological profiling and the study of serial killers can be utilised to some extent, but at this point in time these neither increase nor decrease the probabilities one way or another. Unless, that is, one starts from the premise of an accepted singular Jack the Ripper. It should also be recognised that these disciplines, as well as the bulk of serial killers on which such studies depend, are very much the cultural product of the later twentieth century. Jack the Ripper was a creature of 1880s Victorian cultural imagination. In my opinion then, it is, more often than not, attempts to establish the identity, MO, or �signature� of C19 Jack by ahistorical reference to C20 Serial killers which betray a real lack of knowledge and understanding of these crimes and their history. Sorry if I digress Best Wishes alex
Author: Leanne Friday, 10 December 1999 - 06:33 am
G'day All, Where was 'Shoe Lane' workhouse/casualward? CMD: You say: "Why on earth should she be blathering about returning to claim the reward to the superintendent at Shoe Lane". Keep in mind that she was being 'turned-out' of this casual ward, probably because she returned from hop picking with no money. Maybe it was if to say: "I'll soon have plenty!" You also say: "How could she know that whomever she was speaking to was not the Ripper?" - She may have been sure about her suspect! She then met John Kelly at 'Cooneys', (which by the way) was where MJK was lodging when she met Joseph Barnett in 1887. CHRIS GEORGE: Where did you read that Eddowes said: "I have come back to earn the reward...", after being released from Bishopgate Police Station? My books all say that she said: "I shall get a damn fine hiding when I get home". LEANNE!