Believe SOME of what you read... and...

[c.d.]

Hi all,

Phil.....This assertion that Mary Jane had a speech impediment troubles me a bit since we know for a fact that Joe Barnett did have one. When reports have that kind of cross pollination possible, you wonder whether you can base any ideas on the facts as presented.

Is it more probable that they both had speech impediments, or that she might have misspoken?

All the best

That's a good point, Michael. Must be the law of averages catching up with you.

c.d.

[perrymason]

That's a good point, Michael. Must be the law of averages catching up with you.

c.d.

What can I tell you.....I use the same logical thought process for most every post I make,... that some just are more palatable conclusions than others is most likely the case here.

Cheers cd

[Sam Flynn]

Considering the number of immigrants living in the East End at that time, it's safe to assume that foreign accents were quite common.

Oddly enough, Welsh ones weren't. There were comparatively few people from Wales who ended up in Spitalfields, certainly when compared with Irish and Eastern Europeans. I surveyed the censuses ages ago and, whilst I've stupidly not kept the data, I seem to recall that the Welsh East Enders numbered somewhere in the hundreds, compared to tens of thousands of Irish, Russians and Poles.

[Supe]

Phil,

its a confirmation of THAT bit, which helps, because he stated about the Aldgate thing there too.

That is not necessarily so as newspapers at the time borrowed (stole) from each other without attribution rather shamelessly, often verbatim. So the same story in more than one newspaper need not indicate separate investigatory confirmation. Just another birksome detailwhen studying the murders.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Don,

Thank you, you are quite right to point that out. It may be the case as you said there, but of course it may not also be the case, as it wasn't every time that happened. Would you agree to the words " a fair possibility"?

best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

Would you agree to the words " a fair possibility"?

No. Nor without seeing both stories would I even suggest a possibility they were stories separately gathered. And why focus on those aspects of te stories when they are riddled as it is with patent mistakes?

I will suggest to you what I have suggested to others over the years: choose any major story (e.g. the JFK assasination or Princess Diana's death) and compare the newspaper stories within the first 36 hours to what we know now. I think you will find considerable misinformation.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

I respect that, a fair comment and a wise one too.

Respectfully, I hope you see that I DID write in my first original thread that one must be wary, very wary, of newspaper clips and articles. And I am. Believe me..

But there are some things within JTR that are locked tight. The knot is solid, not always because the information is not there.
The standards that we have laid down for investigation and proof today must be seen to be watertight. After 121 years or so, I feel that a slightly different appraisal of the whole case, looking at it again, not by applying the exacting standards EVERY time, can reveal a little gem. That doesn't mean to say that it is definitive.

I didn't say Eddowes KNEW Mary, I just looked at a possibility, and weighed up all we are presented with. NO, definitive proof ISN'T there.

A few points though..

Aldgate is a relatively small area. Eddowes used Mary's exact KNOWN name...for a reason we do NOT know. It is reported from a person who knew Mary very well, that she worked Aldgate. Eddowes was killed there.

That very same person reports that Mary's mother lived in Ireland. Then, a representative from the Royal Irish Constabulary and a Post Office Official turn up at 13, Miller's Court, (together with an MP). These people are recognised for WHOM they are. They are not named (as far as I am aware of). But their jobs ARE. Such officialdom didn't suddenly turn up, from every police record we have, at any other of the "canonical" murder sites. So why were they there? To gawp in a crowd in broad daylight? Possible, but unlikely. These people stand out enough to be recognised by the press, MP included. It is LOGICAL that they were there for a reason. Post Office? Irish Police? Mary seemingly Irish, reportedly with a mother in Ireland, reportedly having mailed Mary letters?
There is even a report from a man of the cloth, (not sure, the Daily News?) who even said he had READ the correspondance from Mary's mother. Now thats a man of religious worth, on the same basis as the man from the Swedish Church. And we take what HE said as probably true. Therefore, along the same lines, I say it was PROBABLY true that Mary's mother lived in Ireland, that she mailed SEEN letters to Mary, and corroberated by TWO totally different sources that the letters existed.

So if one statement the person made, about Mary's mother is probably true, then we have fair ground to believe the rest of his statement. That she worked Aldgate. Besides which, there is no reason to assume he told the truth in one sentence to the press, then lie the next. We have to go on what we are given.

Coincidence does strike at an alarming rate. YES. We can't say for sure it was coincidental, just as we cannot prove that Eddowes KNEW Mary. It hangs there, as two disparate pieces of information, with a gap between them. The missing link if you prefer.

If we question, to the nth degree, every piece of information, having already weeded out the rubbish and the falsities, then everything we do, everytime we gather information, will never enable us to piece together the smallest pieces of material.

Example, SPE didn't say for sure that Tumblety WAS JTR. He was presented with a new name and looked very very closely for links. I felt at the end of the book, then with subsequent the researching afterwards, that the missing link wasn't found. But that doesn't mean that Tumblety WASN'T involved. It just means that we cannot with definitive proof say that he was. Tantalisingly near. And on that basis, I put forward the point about Mary and Kate, as I have with the letters from Ireland and the RIC. NO, I might NOT have definitive proof. But sometimes a hunch is better than exacting evidence.There have been many a crime and situatiom WITHIN dectective work based on likelyhood, and that has paid off.

All the "suspects" fall down on varying degrees of lack of proof. Philip Sugden, in his excellent book, tore away most, if not all the obvious mistakes and wrong information. Having re read the entire book again, for the umpteenth time, I see that even Mr. Sugden made various statements that were ALMOST certain. But not definitive. Don't get me wrong, I believe that book to be one of, if not THE best book written in 121 years on the subject. Sometimes however, possibilities that are less than the exacting standard we ourselves apply to research, could very well be true.

I respect EVERY person on this site, and everyone who has used their time, dedicated their lives in some cases, to the detrement of their families even, to the cause of finding answers to this whole subject.

All I ask in return is respect for the possibility that there ARE other possibilities out there, without them being definitively provable. It might lead to another "I" crossed and another "t" crossed. But to blindly refuse to accept possibilities, which have a fair chance of being true, because they might rock the "established" vision laid down in years before us, is, for me, unacceptable. Look how far we are after 121 years. Had not the enthusiasm and dedication of many good people forraged deeper than before, questioned material that has been in front of them for the umpteenth time, we would not be where we are today, and that is a darned sight further than any policeman, researcher, politician or lay man from 1888.

For me, Sickert,(Ms Cornwall), Eddy(Knight and others) and the Diary are examples of things taken out of all proportion and taking possibilities to and beyond that limit of acceptability.

But even here we have learned much from all of the above examples. And it in the first two cases, we have gained positive information amongst the unprovable supposition.

Excuse me for seemingly ranting. An explanation was needed after your wise suggestion. I have been researching/reading up/writing down/ listening to this subject for 40 years. And I remain open to possibilities that may change the established view. And if that happens? So be it. If not? So be it. I don't care if I'm wrong. I don't care if I'm right either. I am just trying to tilt the stalemate a little.

With due respect as always,

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

[QUOTE=Phil Carter;106488]
There is even a report from a man of the cloth, (not sure, the Daily News?) who even said he had READ the correspondance from Mary's mother. Now thats a man of religious worth, on the same basis as the man from the Swedish Church. And we take what HE said as probably true. Therefore, along the same lines, I say it was PROBABLY true that Mary's mother lived in Ireland, that she mailed SEEN letters to Mary, and corroberated by TWO totally different sources that the letters existed.

As a follow up..here is the extract fromn the Daily News as I wrote about.


Daily News
United Kingdom
12 November 1888



THE EAST END ATROCITIES
SUNDAY EVENING IN SPITALFIELDS



......It is six o'clock, and bands of street preachers are beginning to make themselves heard through the dusky streets.......It seems as though every few paces in this neighbourhood of Spitalfields street singers and preachers are doing their best to take full advantage of the solemnizing effect of these successive tragedies. "There is no doubt," said a City missionary, "that the impression has been very profound among these unhappy women. We have had special meetings for them, and at the very outset of our efforts we got thirty four of them away to homes, and we have had a good many others since. I knew the poor girl who has just been killed, and to look at, at all events, she was one of the smartest, nicest looking women in the neighbourhood. We have had her at some of our meetings, and a companion of hers was one we rescued. I know that she has been in correspondence with her mother. It is not true, as it has been stated, that she is a Welshwoman. She is of Irish parentage, and her mother, I believe, lives in Limerick. I used to hear a good deal about the letters from her mother there. You would not have supposed if you had met her in the street that she belonged to the miserable class she did, as she was always neatly and decently dressed and looked quite nice and respectable." "You have been at this work a good many years?" "Seven years in this neighbourhood." "And do you find the state of things improving in any degree?" "Well, I think there is a little improvement - some little improvement. I have been out and about the streets at all hours, and have sometimes found a shocking state of things. I remember a year or two back going out one night and finding eleven women who had crept for shelter into the staircase of one house. They were quite destitute, and were sleeping here. The opening of the refuges of one sort and another has done something to reduce the numbers found in this way, but there is still a deplorable state of things."

That makes TWO independants comments about letters from her mother in Ireland, one a City Missionary. One a very close aquaintance of Mary.

I believe that these two reports, together, make the possibility a probability.
There is absolutley no gain to be made in lying within this statement from a religious man.

best wishes

Phil

[c.d.]

Was Mrs. Maxwell ever taken to the morgue to view Mary's body and make an identification?

c.d.

[Phil Carter]

C.D,
Not as far as I am aware, no. Interestingly, Barnett identified Kelly by recognising with certainty her "eyes and ears".

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

[QUOTE=Phil Carter;106498]

I believe that these two reports, together, make the possibility a probability.
There is absolutley no gain to be made in lying within this statement from a religious man.

best wishes

Phil

Hello all again,

When I started this thread, I asked that for a short while some short snippets of reported info be believed. After a weekend of reading reports from the Press (not all I may add), the reference above to two people, totally independant of each other, leading us in the same direction, namely that Mary's mother lived in Ireland and she sent correspondance (letters) to Mary. Ok... now what...

1) If McCarthy's statement tallies with another source about the above, which it does, (re the City Missionary's statement) then we have greater reason to believe the other things he said in the same statement. Because there is no apparent reason to tell the truth in one sentence then lie the next. In that statement, he states..

....The deceased's Christian name was Mary Jane, and since her murder I have discovered that she walked the streets in the neighborhood of Aldgate.

a) Since her murder?...Hang on... this article is dated Nov 10th. So where
did he get that info from?
b) She walked the streets of Aldgate. Does it give us the right to say Mary
could have known Kate Eddowes who used Mary's exact KNOWN name
when arrested then was murdered in Aldgate? Probably not. But it DOES
link Kate and Mary by VICINITY of work. And Aldgate is a small area.

2) McCarthy has absolutely no reason to lie. He is not regarded as a suspect
by the police. Neither is he out to impress upon the press his importance in knowing Mary. And the mentioning of walking the streets of Aldgate is as innocent a line as you can get. There is no GAIN in it. He is just telling something he knew, like the correspondance from Ireland from her mother.

The RIC man, the Post Office Official and the MP visiting the site the next day stood out enough to be reported. We do not, as far as I know, know the names of these people. But one, we might. Wasn't the Coroner an MP? (I read somewhere in the Press that the Coroner turned up at 13, Miller's Court... can anyone confirm this?)

Now a Coroner has very good reason to be there. And that he have in tow a man from the Royal Irish Constabulary AND a Post Office Official would CERTAINLY be grounds for linking evidence... i.e. correspondance by post from Ireland.

I reitterate, that I do not lay total weight behind all of this, but these tiny things can be linked to each other.

Whilst we are on the subject of trying to link things...

Carmarthen, Carnaervon, Cardiff have all been investigated into and so far no real tangible link to Mary... I apologise if this has been looked into before, but this struck me when I read it..



The Star
LONDON. MONDAY, 12 NOVEMBER, 1888

FIFTH EDITION.
WHITECHAPEL.

Mrs. Carthy states that the deceased when she left her place went to live with a man who was apparently in the building trade, and who she (Mrs. Carthy) believed would have married her.

It appears from inquiries made at Carmarthen and Swansea, that after leaving the former place for the latter, Kelly, who was then only 17 years of age, entered the service of a Mrs. Rees, who stands committed to the next assizes on a charge of procuring abortion, and who is the daughter of a medical man formerly resident at Carmarthen.
(my emphasis)

Now, it was reported she married at about 16, and here, about 17, she was in SWANSEA under the service of a Mrs Rees.
What do we know about Mrs Rees in Swansea? And where did this information come from?


food for thought perhaps?

best wishes, much respect

Phil

[KatBradshaw]

Just a thought....

...Mary's mother sending letters from Ireland does not stop her having grown up in Wales. I run the risk of making up stories here but one hypothesis I am sure I have read is that Mary's mother returned to Ireland on the death of her father. I think this was looked in to by someone searching for Mary in Wales and finding a family where this had happened that may have been linked to Mary.
It is certainly a possibility. Travel between Ireland and Wales was not as difficult as one might think. My own Irish family traded cattle between Bristol and Cork in the 19th Century. Their surname, Morgan, is one claimed by Irish and Welsh alike. Their farm, Manor Farm, is what the football ground is named after I believe.
Mary Jane is also a common name as we have seen. Again My own Great Great Grandmother was called Mary Jane Ince. I believe that Catherine Eddowes actually called herself Mary ANN Kelly, not Mary Jane.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Kat,
Thank you for your reply.
I agree, Mary born in Ireland, bought over at an early age to Wales. Re Kate Eddowes and Mary's name, yes, as Mary was known as Mary Ann Kelly..my error.
I AM interested in that hypothesis you presented. Because of again, trying to link a few things together...

1) Mary's father came looking for her when she lived in Pennington St, Mary tried to avoid him.
2) Letters, (we know NOT when they were sent) from Ireland from her mother.

Because IF, as you say it has been looked into, we match the timing of Mary's mother going back to Ireland with her father coming to look for her? We know when she lived in Pennington Street.
Could it be that the informing of her grandfather's death was the reason for her father coming to look for her? And the reason for the letters sent from Ireland?

best wishes

Phil

[spyglass]

There isnt any evidence that Kelly and Eddowes knew each other, and there isnt any evidence that Eddowes was a prostitute either, just assumed.