|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 April 21, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Was it really Mary Kelly?:
Archive through April 21, 1999
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 12:32 pm |        | May 1996
The murder of Mary Kelly was no doubt the pinnacle of the Whitechapel Terror, thanks primarily to the horrendous mutilation of the body. As a result of this mutilation, a theory has advanced that the victim might not have been Mary Kelly at all (remember: Joseph Barnett identified her by the ears and eyes only). Also, testimony from at least two separate witnesses who claimed to have seen Mary Kelly on the morning after her supposed murder served to fuel this debate. What do you think? Was it someone other than Mary Kelly who was murdered in that room? If so, who might it have been and why?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 02:15:04 -0500
From: Andrew J. Spallek
Both of Mary's ears were partially severed. Probably Barnett was misheard at the inquest when he said he identified her by her eyes and ears. He probably said "eyes and hair," which could easily be confused in several English dialects with "eyes and ears." I doubt that someone who was as intimate with Kelly as Barnett would be mistaken, even grated the extensive mutilations of the body. The easier explanation is that the witnesses who "saw" Kelly later were mistaken. Anyway, if it wasn't Kelly that was killed, what ever became of her? Why did no one else see her other than these two witnesses?
Post Reply to Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:02:35 -0400
From: Michael Rogers
If it wasn't Mary Kelly killed in that room then who was it? and what then ever happened to her. She doesn't seem to have turned up anywhere after that. The testimony of a couple of drunks doesn't hold much water with me. The case was the most famous event to ever hit that area, those two "witnesses" could either have been mistaken about seeing Kelly or could have just lied to get their names in the papers. Their 15 minutes of fame. Stranger things have happened. If it wasn't Kelly it was undoubteldy another tart. It doesn't matter who, anyone will do.
Post Reply to Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 96 20:50:18 -0700
From: Stephanie Richey
There is little doubt Mary Jane Kelly was the victim of Jack the Ripper. The body was found in Kelly's apartment at Miller's Court. Her lover, Joseph Barnett who had been living with her for a year, identified the body by her eyes and ear. People believe he may have said "hair" instead of "ear" and was misquoted, but it is difficult to believe this. The hair, as well as the clothes, probably played a factor in his identification, but "ear" and "hair" are to far apart to be mistaken.
The bottom line is, the body was found in Kelly's room, wearing her clothes, her lover identified her, and with the exception of two other people who were probably mistaken, was never seen by anyone again.
Post Reply to Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 11:28:44 +0100
From: Paul Lee
I think there were more than two people who saw Kelly the day the body was discovered.
Wasn't Kelly in the habit of loaning her (admittedly scant collection) clothing to her female friends (there has been an indication that Kelly was having a lesbian affair with a girl called Harvey I believe)?
And considering the abominable state of the body, I doubt that a positive identification could ever be made. I do agree that the body was probably Kelly's (after all, as has been pointed out, she was never seen again if it was an imposter in her bed), but don't discount the witnesses who saw her hours after she died; for one thing, the inquests had to rely on the testimony of whores! And the ladies who saw Kelly were very adamant- and, as Paul Begg points out, their testimony is, to some extent, supported.
Post Reply to Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 17:35:08 +0000
From: Tom Krailing
We have massive doubts about Kelly's membership among the genuine Ripper victims. It is a really good question whether the body found at Miller's Court actually belonged to Kelly. But if not Kelly, who was it?
And in this case, there are other questions to ask: - Was Kelly directly involved in the murder? If not, where did Kelly stay during the slaughter? - And where did she disappear to after she was last seen the morning after?
After her deal at Miller's Court including her performance as a singer between 11.45 p.m. and about 1.00 a.m. she went out again and returned accompanied by the man seen by George Hutchinson at about 2.00 a.m.
If one believes in Hutchinson's testimony in which he claims that he was waiting almost an hour alone in rain, darkness and cold watching the entrance at Miller's Court (why should he do so? But that's another question) it can't be taken for sure that Kelly did not leave Miller's Court within this time, we'll say, till 3.00 a.m.
Mrs. Cox, who returned home at 3.00 a.m. occasionally heard men going in and out the court throughout the rest of the night. Was she able to distinguish between male and female footsteps? It seems likely that she heard Kelly leaving Miller's Court a third time. We know that Kelly was allowing other prostitutes to stay in her room. It is possible that she lent her bed to another woman to share it with a client which sufficient money for a more comfortable deal than a quickie in a dark backyard. But where did Kelly spend her time in the meantime?
The scream "murder" heard by several persons at about 4.00 a.m. fits to the aproximately estimated time of death. Well, if Kelly was the victim and the man described by Hutchinson was the murderer, what did they do between about 2.00 a.m. and 4.00 a.m.? Probably what a prostitute and her client as a rule are doing; but Cox estimated that when she returned home at 3.00 a.m. there was sound or light was coming from Kelly's room. Maybe Kelly was asleep. But did her murderer really take a nap prior his attack? Does this suggest that the murderer had sexual contact to Mary Kelly? It would be peculiar to the other Ripper crimes.
Post Reply to Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 13:37:07 -0700
From: Adam Wood
I can't see the Ripper leaving Mary Kelly's room dressed in her clothes - all the witness descriptions have him with a moustache!
Pretty noticeable wouldn't you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 96 23:05:16 -0400
From: John Sherman
It is a staple of mystery fiction that when a body is idetified by a wallet or hat or something because there isn't any face any more, the ID is always wrong (remember "Laura?"). Here is a senario:
Mary Kelly was in the habit of lending her room to other tarts. This is why Joseph Barrnet left her in the first place. Suppose Mary ran into a friend who had the Ripper in tow and asked to borrow Mary's room. Mary says yes and her friend is killed. The next day, before she hears about the murder, she is seen by two people. When she hears about the murder, she panics because she saw the Ripper. (Her friend might have been with someone else altogether and met the Ripper later, but Mary wopuldn't know this and would still panic.) When she realizes the police think it's her that's dead she decides to remain dead. Her lover Barrnett helps out by mis-identifying the murder victim. Several other respondents have asked why Mary never turned up if she didn't really die? An unknown Victorian prosititute the police already thought was dead? I can't imagine anyone could find it easier to just fade away than Mary Kelly!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:20:14 +0200
From: Adam Wood
Us there any source which describes the clothes found folded on a chair in kelly's room? Are they the same as those she was last seen wearing (ie linsey frock with red shawl)?
According to Mrs. Maxwell's sighting of Kelly the next morning, she was wearing a dark skirt, velvet bodice and a maroon-coloured shawl. If these items were found in her room with the body, how can Kelly have been wearing them the next day?
Also, I've been re-reading Wilson and Odell's "Summing up and Verdict". it contains a quote from Dr Bagster Phillips' post-mortem finding that Kelly was 'in the early stages of pregnancy and that she was healthy and suffering from no other disease except alcoholism'. I know you've previously said kelly was not pregnant, but has this been proven?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.
From: OdeToPOE@aol.com
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 03:39:24 -0400
Interesting. I somehow doubt, however, that an individual who could go to those extremes of murder would actually be able to talk to someone and conceal the devestation of blood on their hands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 20:19:27 -0500
From: Jacqui Leopold
Mary Kelly was identified by her lover. Having been in love, I can say that it (love) is something that makes you identify little things about the one you love. I can identify my lover by a freckle on his ear... So regardless of whether or not he said "ear" or "hair" I think that he knew it was Mary Kelly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:54:49 -0500 (EST)
From: BillyBond@aol.com
I don't there is any reason to doubt that it was Mary Kelly who was so horribly butchered. As others here have said, I think we can discount the testimony of those who claimed to see her the morning after the murder -- and if that wasn't her, where did the real Mary Kelly go?
We are not dealing with a murder mystery, in which there are clues pointing to a small number of possible culprits; we're dealing with a serial killer -- and have most of the population of London (or at least of Whitechapel & environs) to choose from. |
Author: Paul D Scott
Monday, 11 January 1999 - 09:47 am | | Personally, I do not think you can discount the evidence of those who claim to have seen Kelly the morning after the murder just because it seems nonsense on the surface. At least one of the witnesses was absolutely convinced they had seen Kelly, even spoken to her. Had just one person suggested seeing her, perhaps it could be dismissed - but we're talking about more than one person here.
It would have been extremely easy for Mary Kelly to go into hiding if she had chosen to. Researchers have tried for many years to prove her background and CANNOT. If she had not been murdered by JTR (assuming she did) we would have known nothing about her at all. Records disappear even now, and people can disappear for many years before being 'found' in other guises. Remember London was teeming with poor people - call yourself another name and you became that person (as in Catherine Eddowes calling herself Mary Kelly when arrested).
And if you don't believe she could have disappeared, then try this, unrelated but true:
Harold Bride was the junior operator on the Titanic and survived. After the inquiry he disappeared. No one knew what happened to him until very recently, and then only after years of painstaking research. Even now, all we know is that he became a travelling salesman in Scotland and the year he died. No death certficate in existence. And this happened many years after JTR |
Author: richie u.s.a.
Sunday, 14 March 1999 - 05:40 pm | | | i know i might anger a few people, but if there was a conspiracy, and if kelly had a part in it, i would vanish into oblivion, too. i don't have all the details, but i remember that one of the witnesses who spotted her the morning after she was supposedly murdered said that she [kelly] had just vomited on the street. maybe kelly had spent the night somewhere else, came back to her place and saw what remained on her bed. then she went out and got sick. she also may have realized her good fortune and dissapeared for good. she was younger than the other victims, and perhaps, being prettier as well, found the means to blend into the crowd for good. just a few thoughts from someone who believes in the conspiracy theory- but has no real proof. as i've said on other pages-all we have left are shadows and echoes. |
Author: Cindy L.
Sunday, 14 March 1999 - 08:51 pm | | What about the fact that her lover had left her after a disagreement about MJK allowing other prostitutes to share her room along with her clothes.
I agree with the fact that it would have been easy for MJK to disappear if she wanted to, perhaps fearing for her life. What if she thought she was the intended victim, and did return to Ireland as she had expressed a desire to do?
Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
Cindy L. |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 15 March 1999 - 01:55 pm | | Hi all,
My 2d. I don't think it would have been so easy for Kelly to shove off. Even then you needed the money to get anywhere wide, and Kelly had ittle or none. Unless someone helped her by paying the bill, she'd most probably had to remain where she was. It is unlikely, although not impossible, that she could have saved up for her flight.
More important is that I haven't seen any testimony from any one of her friends saying that she had any more than the fear of Jack that they all had. On the night of her death it has been testified that she had at least two 'guests' prior to meeting Jack. If she was intending to shove off and had the means, why wait and risk getting chopped?
If she had intended to go prostituting through the land to pay her way, which is how she seems to have come to London (or perhaps not), that would have been damn risky, not to say draughty, with packs of screaming, murderous, blood-thirsty madmen breathing down her neck.
Regards
Bob |
Author: richie u.s.a.
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 12:28 am | | | to cindy and bob- by most accounts, kelly was a pretty good looking woman. and also pretty smart. one woman, i think named maxwell, was adamant that she saw kelly the morning after she was murdered. maxwell also said that kelly had vomited on the street when maxwell ran into her. if kelly had returned to miller's court and discovered that body, it's quite possible it made her sick. i know i'd be sickened at that sight. i know people [most, anyway] don't buy the conspiracy theory, but if it was, and kelly was THE intended victim, it would'nt take long for kelly to put two and two together. bob, i have nothing to refute your opinion, and i do respect it, but kelly was different from the other victims. younger, smarter-if she did survive an attack intended for her, is it really too far a stretch of the imagination that, somehow, she would have found the means to vanish. the body in miller's court was identified as kelly. the killer[s] would think their job was done, and the coast would be clear for kelly to slip into oblivion. like i said, IT'S ALL CONJECTURE. but ifind kelly a fascinating topic. what she was, what she really might have been, who she might have known, and, of course, WHAT she might have had knowledge of. i'd like to hear your, as well as other's opinions about what kelly might have been. and knew. |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 01:35 pm | | Hi Richie,
The problem about Kelly and next day is, that if she had come home and found madam X spread all over her room, she wouldn't only have been sick, but would have screamed her head off all over London.
I can't remember accounts that she was smart, but neighbours did say she had pretty long hair. I've been doing research on Kelly now for some time, and have got quite a lot together, true or not. If you want, I'll E you a copy of what I've got up to now. Just E me over the link above.
Regards,
Bob |
Author: richie u.s.a.
Thursday, 18 March 1999 - 01:31 am | | | dear bob, thanks for the offer, but i'm having trouble with my e-mail. sometimes i think my computer simply does what it wants. i'd love to read what youv'e got, and hope to rectify the problem as soon as possible.in the meantime, i'd love to read a little of what you've come up with. i find kelly to be a very interesting topic. hope to hear from you soon, richie. |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 18 March 1999 - 11:43 am | | Hi Richie,
It isn't possible, for reasons of size, to put even a fraction of my stuff about Kelly on the board, but to give you an idea I include a short précis of a little bit of Kelly's probable origins.
"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 born to the couple before Mary Kelly are not registered at Castleton."
The work is at present about 30 pages long and growing, not including references, credits and so on.
Regards,
Bob |
Author: richie u.s.a.
Friday, 19 March 1999 - 12:16 am | | | hey bob, i think i better get my e-mail problems straightened out, because i'd love to read what you have come up with. but while i work on that, can you tell me if your findings suggest that kelly knew any of the victims? |
Author: Mara
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 06:36 pm | | Hello everybody!
My name is Mara and this is the first time I write to this group.
Coincidence has played a great part in my fascination with the Ripper murders and particularly, with Mary Kelly.
I started reading an article on The Son of Sam and found, on the same site, information on JTR. I was a little disturbed by the last murder and puzzled by the similarities in the names used by four of the victims. On the same week a friend of mine (who did not know I had read about it) offered to lend me a graphic novel by Alan Moore called From Hell. I myself didn't know what it was about until I found a transcription of the From Hell letter on another site, before I started reading the book.
Whoever has read that graphic novel knows it was based, mostly, on Stephen Knight's book and it defends the theory of a royal conspiracy too. Although Mr.Moore really did a lot of research on books and presented lots of facts, I don't agree with the conspiracy theory either. And even if the queen did want to eliminate those women, I doubt she would ask a doctor to do it.
Regarding the possibility that the body found in Miller's Court was not MK's, well, I bet many of us want to believe that theory too. At least I want to believe it, simply because it would be nice to know that, in the end, Jack failed to kill his intended victim. It gives us some satisfaction that out of sheer luck, one of those poor women escaped a terrible fate.
I am not saying it was or wasn't her, but even if it wasn't, some other poor, poor woman died there.
I don't think we will ever know for sure (unless someone builds a time machine, but if such a thing is possible, it won't happen anytime soon and when it does happen we too will all be dead).
There is one point in which I agree with Mr.Moore, though. I hear people calling them tarts, hags and whores; people say they led an easy life, almost implying that they prostituted themselves by choice and deserved their fate. Well, even today we hear of countries where women don't get the chance to do anything, but starve to death or sell their bodies for food. At the time JTR's victims lived, prostitution was the only thing they could do, and even that paid so little, it was barely enough for their doss, let alone to live an 'easy'life. They weren't hags nor gorgeous princesses. They were human beings trying their best to survive. And Bob, I'm sure you know much more about The JTR murders than me, but isn't it even remotely possible that MK was really so scared of the murderer, that she did stop soliciting men before the night of the crime? If you accept that the two people who saw her the day after were mistaken, then it is also possible the ones who saw her the night before, welcoming clients to her room, were too. And it is even more likely, since the streets were so badly lit. If the woman they saw wasn't her, then it is possible that she came back the next morning, saw the body and fled.
Or maybe she continued with prostitution because she didn't have a choice. I know of people who have dangerous jobs and would like to change, but they don't know and/or don't have the opportunity to do anything else. It's a matter of survival.
And if you are still reading the messages on this group, and willing to share what you have uncovered, please post more bits for us. It's not easy to find books on the subject around here. I guess we don't have any 'ripperologists', and very few 'ripperfiles'.
Thank you all for the opportunity to share my thoughts and get some of it off my mind.
Mara
P.S:Am I an impressionable person, or did it seem to you too that the ghosts of those women danced around your head, after you learned the facts surrounding their deaths? |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 16 April 1999 - 03:16 am | | Hello, Mara,
Welcome to the board.
Dealing with the real story of Jack, there are so many things we don't know, or aren't sure of. There is a lot of fiction in the world, and some plain nonsense, concerning these unfortunate women and their terrible fates.
We may not paint a romantic world of these women indeed. They were mostly destitute prostitutes, in many cases forced to do it or starve, although it was also an 'easier' method of earning money as some other jobs that women were forced to do then. I say 'easier' and mean less physical toil.
To assume, however, that they were oppressed little pieces of humanity, agonised and crushed, forbidden to do anything else except the selling of their shattered, dying bodies at last breath to obtain a filthy crust of bread from the gutter is also going too far. Many of them did other work, such as making and selling trinkets, charring, other menial tasks. When that didn't bring enough, or because of ill-health, laziness or some other cause, they had the possibility of going on the street.
Mary Jane Kelly was in some ways less destitute, she had her own house, squalid little hovel that it was, and had at least some property, even if most of the furniture may be assumed to have belonged to the landlord.
The suggestion of Kelly escaping in that someone else got killed in her place is pretty unlikely. It should not be supposed anyway that Jack selected her personally as a victim. It may be assumed that it was more or less a chance meeting. I say 'may'. Although it has been said many times that Kelly was different to the others, I don't think the differences were so great, or so material, as perhaps thought. She was a prostitute (at least from time to time), she went soliciting in the east end, she was poor. She did have a room to take her customers to, unlike many of the others, but that was because she had lived with a man (Joe Barnett) who had paid the rent. As Kelly died, she was facing eviction for non-payment of rent, and had she been killed later, after eviction, the only difference between her and the other Ripper victims would have been that she was the youngest (and perhaps the prettiest).
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Mara BR
Saturday, 17 April 1999 - 03:22 pm | | When I said that they had no other means of survival, Bob, I didn't mean that they were "agonised, crushed pieces of humanity" that "sold their shattered bodies for a crust of bread", but that they had little choice. And the reason why I was so emphatic, is because people really imply that they deserved their fates! That's absurd!
I agree with you on the chance meet theory. I don't think JTR had one intended victim. When I theorised everything I did in my other msg, I meant to say that anything is possible. We weren't there, so we can't be sure.
If all I had to go by was the MO of the crimes, I'd say that Jack was either a doctor looking for specimens - and then I'd have to agree with other people that think Kelly was not one of his victims; or that he was a deeply disturbed person, which sometimes acted like a child. What was done to Mary K. was not some medical experiment. It looked like a child played with her body, taking it apart to see what it looked like inside and then, not being able to put it back together, got upset and proceded to destroy it even further. Just like a child taking a toy apart.
I don't think they were sexual crimes either. It is more likely that he used prostitutes because they were easier to lure and the police wouldn't look into the case as meticulously as they might if the victims were 'respectable' ladies.
You are right when you say that the only difference between her and the other victims was her age and perhaps her looks. The other thing people point out, is that she was the most savagely attacked, but I think, and I guess you agree, it was simply because they were indoors, and so he could take all the time in the world to play without worrying about the police showing up.
As I said before, I want to believe she escaped, it doesn't mean I believe she did. And I repeat myself: anything is possible! And sometimes, the most ludicrous theory is the right one: beacuse it is too weird not to be true.
Best regards to you all
Mara |
Author: Laura
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 10:12 am | | | I feel that the woman murdered was Mary Kelly but I read that Kelly had an aunt who received a christmas card from her from America after she had been supposedly murdered. Any validity in this? Is there any arguments also as to why the victims hand was placed inside her stomach? This macabre procedure does seem almost childlike as Mara BR suggested. It seems that the killer was exploring and "having fun" in mutilating the body as a child would have fun playing with a toy. Could it be that the hand in the stomach scenario was an attempt to rectify the body as a child might want to mend a broken toy? Has anyone any theories on the piles of flesh that were placed on the bedside table, was this symbolic of anything? Was it placed there for a reason? |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 19 April 1999 - 04:43 am | | Hi Mara,
I didn't mean to suggest that you thought about these women so (the dirty crust bits). It was just to underline the previous paragraph that these women very often did have alternatives, and used them, but also resorted (or were forced) to prostitution to supplement income.
I admit that I can't imagine what Jack thought, felt or why he did what he did. A Doctor would almost certainly have been able to obtain all the organs he required legally, why then risk the noose?
I agree with you that Kelly got the worst treatment because Jack had the time and possibility. If he was 'playing' or not is hard to tell. If we knew, it would go a long way to at least understanding his character. I do have a slight suspicion that he may have been sexually misused as a child by his mother, or some other near female relative, thus causing something in him later to snap, but that is pure conjecture.
Other ideas are just as good, e.g. syphilis infection from a prostitute deranging him and leading him to take revenge on all prostitutes so, or total impotence and being laughed out for it by women, this deranging him etc. etc.
We have to admit, even now, that we don't know much about him, indeed as a well-known poster once observed, 'The more I learn about him, the less I know.'
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 20 April 1999 - 12:07 am | | Hi Bob C. Welcome Mara & Laura!
MARA: I'm in the USA. If you don't mind posting what country you're in - Some of us may know ways for you to obtain source materials where you live. Just a suggestion.
LAURA: Can you remember where you read about Mary Kelly's aunt - and what her name was? None of her relatives came to the funeral & the police were unsuccessful in tracing any family. Many people on this board are trying to trace Kelly's descendants ... Any info you have on an aunt or any other family would be exciting news. Thanks.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Laura
Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 08:41 am | | Hi Ashling!
It was nice to read your message! Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read that Kelly had an aunt and I've been racking my brains trying to think!! I've read so many books on the subject that I can't remember but if it comes to me I'll let you know. You seem quite informed on Kelly and it would be great if you could give me any really good info on the murder as I am writing an essay on the last of the ripper murders for uni.
Thanks very much
Laura |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 09:07 am | | G'Day Laura,
Could the book you are trying to remember be 'The Ripper and The Royals'?
I can't say the authors or publishers name, but I seem to remember glancing at that book in a local library quite a while ago. I may have even borrowed it!
I've briefly searched the 'Book & Film Reviews' page of this Casebook, but can't find it listed!
-LEANNE |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 09:12 am | | G'day Ashling,
If it's absolutly vital that you know more about this book, I s'pose I could treck down to my two local libraries and try to 'dig' it up again!
-LEANNE! |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 12:14 pm | | Hello, all -
I am unaware of any American connection for Mary Jane Kelly, or more specifically, any American aunt. I wonder, perhaps, if Leanne is misremembering a mention of Kelly relatives in Melvyn Fairclough's "The Ripper and the Royals?" From p. 223:
"Through a letter sent to me in Jan 1889, from Miss Nora O'Brien of Roofer Castle, Limerick, Ireland, who stated that Marie Jeanette Kelly was her niece, daughter of her brother who was in the army, officer of the Inniskilling Dragoons."
These are supposed to be the words of Inspector Abberline, taken from his "secret" diaries. It should be noted, of course, that the diaries are almost universally regarded as forgeries, and Melvyn Fairclough himself no longer believes in them.
Of course, if this isn't the answer, I'd like to know what book she's thinking of. There you are, then, Leanne - Ashling and I both need you to find the book. Hop to it! :-)
Christopher-Michael |
|
|
|
|
