Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MJK: An alternative history?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MJK: An alternative history?

    In re-reading Donald McCormick's book "The Identity of Jack the Ripper" (1970 version) - see separate thread for my notes - I came across this story which I do not remember seeing discussed anywhere.

    On page 185 McCormick writes that Henry Wilson, who paid MJK's funeral expenses:

    "discovered that, after leaving Cardiff, she went, not to the West End of London, but to set up in a tiny, drab shop in Commercial Road out of the paltry proceeds of compensation paid by the minowners after her husband's death. And it was because these tycoons of the coalfields had kept her waiting eighteen months for this meagre sum that she had drifted into prostitution in Cardiff."

    The A-Z (latest edition) has an entry for Henry Wilson, but makes no mention of his having looked into Kelly's past. On the other hand he appears to have lived in the neighbourhood and thus could have had access to information.

    Given the Shelden's recently published discoveries about Mary's associates in the Breezer's Hill area, her story to Joe seems to receive corroboration. In turn that would leave scant room for her foray into business in the Commercial Road.

    Edited to add that the story itself seems internally inconsistent and implausible. YET, if it has not been pursued have we missed any opportunity for tracing MJK in business records?

    On the other hand, Donald McCormick has often be accused of making up or stretching material to bolster his books, so one cannot take anything he says at face value.

    So my questions are:

    a) has anyone looked into this story - does it have any credibility?

    b) where did it come from? Did henry Wilson look into MJK's past?

    c) is it just nonsense and needs to be dismissed once and for all?

    I'd like to know. Help please,

    Phil

  • #2
    Th question is : how could McCormick knew that Wilson had looked into Mary's past ? Perhaps an old article, an interview ?

    Comment


    • #3
      McCormick does not give a bibliography or provide footnotes. He simply makes the statement I have given above. The A-Z provides no enlightenment in discussing Wilson.

      One of the things I am looking for is information (from those on Casebook who are far more well-informed than I) as to whether this is made up out of whole cloth or, like the Old Nichol Gang (as now appears), had a source somewhere however unreliable.

      Phil

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Phil
        I have looked in the edition of McCormick that I have (1st edition, 1959) and can find no mention of this alleged incident. Indeed, in this first edition of the book, he wrote, "Mary then (i.e. after the death of her husband) went to Cardiff where she appears to have adopted whoring as a profession."
        But the whole version in McCormick of Kelly and her death is so riddled with obvious invention and downright errors that I would not personally put any credence in any individual part of it.
        Just two quick examples of errors:-
        McCormick says that when Kelly and Barnett moved into Millers Court, Barnett was posing under the name of Joseph Kelly
        McCormick says that Kelly and Barnett first met in early 1888, whereas this was actually at Easter of 1887

        So that folks can judge what I am saying about this account, below is the account of an alleged interview between Abberline and Caroline Maxwell:-
        Attached Files
        Last edited by Chris Scott; 08-04-2013, 02:48 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I am using the revised 1970 version and quoted the exact wording.

          He must have "found" the information in the intervening years, it appears.

          Phil

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Phil H View Post
            I am using the revised 1970 version and quoted the exact wording.

            He must have "found" the information in the intervening years, it appears.

            Phil
            Exactly Phil - sorry I should have made it clear I didn't think for one moment you were misquoting, but rather as you say that the info somehow came to light in the years between
            Chris

            Comment


            • #7
              Throughout his quite prolific writing careeer McCormick seems one of those authors who never let the facts ruin a good story. Why anyone would think he suddenly became a diligent researcher and assiduous fact-checker when writing about the Ripper is beyond my ken.

              Don.
              "To expose [the Senator] is rather like performing acts of charity among the deserving poor; it needs to be done and it makes one feel good, but it does nothing to end the problem."

              Comment


              • #8
                Just a couple of thoughts
                (a) Wasn't it actually Wilton rather than Wilson
                (b) Unless the tale is entirely concocted, could there perhaps have been a St Leonards Parish Magazine or something similar in which a sanitised tale might be told?

                All the best

                Dave

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Chris Scott View Post
                  McCormick says that Kelly and Barnett first met in early 1888, whereas this was actually at Easter of 1887
                  Hi Chris

                  Well, he doesn't seem to have looked much into MJK's past.

                  Cheers

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Quite right, A-Z has him as Wilton. Well-spotted, my bad (as they say). But he's the same man.

                    Throughout his quite prolific writing careeer McCormick seems one of those authors who never let the facts ruin a good story. Why anyone would think he suddenly became a diligent researcher and assiduous fact-checker when writing about the Ripper is beyond my ken.

                    I certainly don't think any such thing (though my reading makes me a tad more sympathetic to McC). I am simply interested to find whether he has a source.

                    It emerged only the past couple of weeks on here (though Stewart says he knew before) that there is a source for the Old Nichol Gang, for instance.

                    Phil

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Phil H.,
                      You are welcome, obviously, to your opinion. It should also be obvious I do not share it.
                      Don.
                      "To expose [the Senator] is rather like performing acts of charity among the deserving poor; it needs to be done and it makes one feel good, but it does nothing to end the problem."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Can anybody post a copy of the 1959 dustjacket of this book?

                        A nice piece of art if I remember rightly
                        allisvanityandvexationofspirit

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Stephen Thomas View Post
                          Can anybody post a copy of the 1959 dustjacket of this book?

                          A nice piece of art if I remember rightly
                          This is the cover of the 1959 paperback copy which I have
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You are welcome, obviously, to your opinion. It should also be obvious I do not share it.

                            That opinion being, Don?

                            I have come across a reference to MJK's past that I have not seen before.

                            I have asked for advice on whether it has been explored or not?

                            As a recent post in another thread shows, Donald McCormick did have a source as it appears, for his much disputed "Old Nichol Gang".

                            Does that constitute an opinion? What precisely do you not share? Should we ignore information on the assumption that it is wrong, without checking? Maybe you have checked and I missed it?

                            Phil

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X