Tweet
Hello all,
Elsewhere.. on Casebook, there was a discussion a while ago about the origin of the term.."a right Mary Ann" or "a regular Mary Ann" which I quote the reference below..
However, I just thought I would add something that perhaps some may not know (forgive me if you do already know this)..
The name Polly is said to be a form of Mary. It is believed to have developed from possibly a nickname, possibly even a rhyming nickname: To Polly from Molly from Mary. Better in fact, in the reverse order, Mary to Molly to Polly.
Another example:-
Bet, Betty, Elisabeth or Elisabeth to Betty to Bet
In Victorian times, it was commion to do this with men's names as well.
John to Johnny to Jacky to Jack.
Each of the individual names above are now used even at birth, without the "lineage", and often boys are christened "Jack" or "Johnny", likewise girls are christened "Molly" or "Polly".
All of which brings me back to the name Mary Jane or Mary Ann Kelly. I stated previously in the thread that I do not believe her real name was Mary Ann or Mary Jane Kelly.
I am, along with a few others, trying like crazy to find out what happened to Alice Carroll after 1887. I hold out little hope of finding the answer, but may have more news in a few weeks time.
The thing that strikes me very very clearly, is the purported certainty of certain members of the police (said at various times after the event occured) that Mary Kelly was the last victim, even though the police were still apparently looking for "Jack the Ripper" quite a few years afterwards.
It may seem odd to some that in the 1890's, although the limited number of murders attributed to one murderer had been established and opined upon at a high level, the police were still looking for "Jack" when other murders occured, and then, when the memoirs and opinions of retired policemen came out, the general feeling went back again to the Kelly killing being the last of "Jack's" sordid ordeal. How we interpret this two way thought is up to each individual. However..
Allow me to expand a little on the possibility of Alice Carroll being Mary Jane Kelly. I am wondering (as others are) whether she were resettled like some of the others in the Pheonix Park murder case. The amount of money she recieved after the trial was substantial, and she was under police protection after the trial as well. She was last known of appearing in court for drunkeness, in Dublin. The names of the streets mentioned in her Dublin life where she lived are remarkable co-incidences too.
In addition to this, the mention of one policeman purportedly thinking that the murders had something to do with the " leader of a Fenian plot to kill Balfour" keeps nudging at me...as well as the statement in the famous reward text referring to an accomplice or accomplices connected to the Kelly murder.
Is it at all possible that the police knew who- Radical Fenians (not individual names) were involved in the Kelly murder? Is it possible that Catharine Eddowes was merely the "wrong" Mary Kelly? Is it possible that Alice Carroll was being hunted down, was living under the name of Mary Kelly and the "Jack the Ripper" murders were infact used by her killers as the background for her killing? People far more knowledgable than I have stated their opinion that Kelly could, like Stride, be unconnected with the "Ripper" crimes.
Well, as for supporting evidence for the above, we have very little indeed. The obvious question is how any Fenian would know that a drunk woman who happened to call herself Mary Kelly was locked up in Bishopsgate Police Station, and even how they would know when she was released. One could answer that with the obvious fact that all underground organisations have their spies on the ground, and follow up on any reported occurrance of an individual. They don't always get the right person either. Policemen too are well known to be paid for their services for information and "help" throughout the ages...for a policeman doesn't always hand out physical back handers.. he takes them too..of a different sort...Informing others on activity is pretty common, as we all know. A back hander...corrupt policemen.. ahhh, the cry goes up..picking on policemen again are you? Well The Turf Frauds a decade earlier told us quite a bit about attitudes to back handers.. and because the culprits were rooted out, dioesnt mean that corruption was, in any way. Williamson survived though.... But here I drift away into little known of speculation and we know little of the motives of any individual in or out of the force for anything they do. Ahhh, motive.. one of the deadly three.. means motive and opportunity. It was pointed out to me that any possible connection between Halse and the removal of the apron piece from Mitre Square fell down on the question of Motive. Read on McDuff...
The trouble with Ripperology is that we do not have enough facts, so all of the above becomes intruiging thought and in some cases, extended supposition. There should be enough room for intruiguing thought and such possibilities.. because if we go on facts and facts alone.. we are stone dead cemented in place. We cannot get any further. Reliable and reputable researchers start to look at intertwining links beyond the close circle of facts.
The problem is that the further away from the centre of the spider's web one gets, the links become very tenuous indeed..and all the more unbelievable because of it. The possibilities become a myriad.
Such research starts at the centre, the known facts, and looks at the closest links, then their connections and so on and so on. At some point however, a way back to the centre must be found from the outside edge.. and to help back up the link going out, another line must be found inwards again towards the centre. Naturally, some of these links and lines stop halfway..some diversify into another direction altogether. Which is why the connecting of the background material,. is, in my honest opinion, og great importance to this case (something I have maintained for well over 30 years)..from the myriad of goings on in Whitechapel, to the myriad of underground organisations and its members (known and unknown), to the undergriound activity of the police (Special Branch), it's leaders (Anderson, Monro, Warren etc) and beyond, to the political machinations of the time that connect all of the above. Special Branch answered to no one.. not even the Home Secretary if Anderson and Co didn't deem it needed. They were, in effect, a self governing, self law making and law breaking militia. If it was in the nation's interests... they could do what they saw fit, recieved the monetary means to carry it out and all was accepted, as long as it met the means to an end. Hmmm...
If one, for example, needs a really good idea of how the murders connect with politics, one only has to see the amount of documentary evidence that exists today from the police, dated 6th November 1888. An awful lot of policemen either collectively or individually wrote their concluding words on the "double event" on that date. Swanson included. Why the 6th of November? Well, to me it is obvious. Parliament opened again after the recess on the 7th of November, and any Home Secretary worth his salts would need every bit of informtion at HIS fingertips in order to answer any eventual question in Parliament the next day. As it turns out, another remarkable feature of this case is that there were no questions in Parliament the next day about what had been going on in London for the last 2 months or so, a subject that was on the lips of the poplace and indeed, the entire world...a subject causing abject panic and at times, hysteria, a subject that was clearly out of control of the Metropolitan and City Police forces in the area.
So why all the stoic "we have it all under control" attitude from Anderson who stated years later that no further murder was committed on the streets after he turned up, because of his (self believing) actions and decisons... and that the murder was known to him and etc etc etc.. when at the time...the picture was clearly one of apparent blindness. So bad infact, that the poplace was in uproar. The official reason for Warren's resignation was given, but it cannot be denied that the background of his political and career inability to catch the "killer" of the Whitechapel victims played a heavy hand behind the scenes, as did his reaction to the ongoing riots in Trafalgar Square previously. The power struggle between the Home Secretary and the Police Commisssioner, the problems involving the use (officially and behind the scenes) and non use of Monro and his resignation, the reaction of Anderson and involvement in the forthcoming Parnell inquiry and all its "spy" spin offs, the use of Jenkinson's "spies" selling matches on street corners etc and the all round inability of the police to do what they were ordered to do, namely police the streets, with poor pay, poor conditions, poor hours and poor bemanning, under some questionable leadership.. well.. these are all part of the spider's web..amongst many other things.
Here, it will be shouted.. the simpler answer is the easiest. Well.. its so easy that it doesn't actually work. One man, 5 killings and he then disappears off the face iof the earth, with the police still playing blind man's buff and passing it on to every amateur detective, historian and researcher ever since. Then the guessing game starts of "name the Ripper" I don't have to go through the list. We all know who they were.
The great enthusiast Stewart Evans has said many many times that we will "never know the name of..." I am 99% in agreement. IF it was one man...1000% in agreement. But I doubt that. My thought of a 2-1-2 or a 2-1-1-1 are still as strong as ever. Those who believe in a 4-1 scenario, with Stride the victim of aniother killer, means that the police would have TWO killers on the loose at the same time..something that the poolice would NEVER have admitted to in a mionth of Sundays, and of course, takes the "easy" option of a one man 5 woman killer out of the equation.. which is for some very hard indeed to swallow.. but credit where it is due to thiose who believe it and stick by it.. because they demand extra facts to DISprove it. I respect that.
I also respect that some say that Kelly was killed by a different hand than both Stride and the other three. Respected Ripperologists have stated this. That would make three killers on the loose at the same time. Here the cries of "impossible" ring out, based on amongst other things, statistics. Well the answer I have seen it said to that the fact is that every statistic has a start and a finish possibility. The mean average isn't always the answer. The majority in the number of cases uncovered over x amount of years doesnt neccessarily point to this being the answer in 1888 in Whitechapel. Again, the police would never have admitted this in public, and heads would be rolling faster than you can spit tobacco into a bowl from 12 paces. Both in the police and in Government.
So the possibility that Nicholls and Chapman were killed by one person, Stride by another and then Eddowes and Kelly by one (group/organisation/set of radicals) is only a half step away from the thinking of the respected Ripperologists above.
It would fit nicely in with Stewart's respected views too. Certainly nobody knows the name of the killer of the first two victims, likewise the name of the Stride killer, and then the differing names within the same group/organisation/set of radicals. A very good reason why nobody will ever know the names of the murderers of the final two victims if the killers were thus connected.... remember the word accomplice(s) from the offer of reward after the Kelly murder?
So. Is it possible that Alice Carroll was the person murdered in 13 Millers Court, Dorset Street? Until we find out what became of or what happened to Alice Carroll after 1887, and if she was/wasn't part of a resettlement plan or not, then the answer is the possibility, however small, must remain lft open.
And like it or not, I put it to you all that this to must be equally respected as a viewpoint, given all of the background information and myriad of goings on at the time. Is is far from a crank idea. Otherwise respected researchers would not be looking into it.
Yes, it is possible. Highly unlikely, and highly improbable...but possible.
Is it possible that the motive, should the thought be so, for Halse to have possibly removed the apron piece lie linked to any of the above? Highly unlikely..but...as one commentator has said, it would have been possible with the motive attached to the very clear means and opportunity. The only thing one has to take into account is that someone, somewhere, knew something that only a selected few knew. The fact that all police leave was limited and maximum force shown in the CITY may raise some eyebrows.. not the MET area. So could someone have been tipped off something was about tio happen in the Square Mile? Feasable and well known even today.
"Mary Ann Kelly" was arrested for drunkeness and escorted to Bishopsgate police station. She was released 4 hours later. 5 or so hours later a woman was found murdered in Mitre Square. It took a few days before Catherine Eddowes was named as the victim, identified by a man, John Kelly, whose testimony and statements to the police and at the inquest give rise to major concern for some (together with the lodging house keeper) and whose story of how (they) came to know that this woman was locked up is highly dubious and not veruified in any way. At the inquest, as been pointed out in a recent article, both Halse's statements and intentions have been questioned, as have another important policeman's, P.C.Long. Various ideas have been attributed to them both.
There is a 6 week gap. If Mary Ann Kelly wasn't Alice Carroll..then before another doorbolt is tried, the RIGHT Alice Carroll must be found. And when she was... my oh my the disfigurement made her.... yup... unrecognisable...and in keeping with the poplace's view and police presentation... of a one man killer's deeds. Plausible?.. Again.. it is highly speculative all round.
But it would clear up the most important parts of Ripperology and satisfy most everyone's questions. We would know "who" was behind murders 4 and 5..and would also explain why there is a terrible lack of material in the Kerlly file alone.. not to mention the remarkable fact that very very many of the letters porporting to come from "Jack the Ripper" sent to the CITY police miraculously survived WW2's bombings and all other info re police papers on Catherine Eddowes "went up in flames".. I would have thought they would both have been kept in the same place, personally...wouldn't you?
Now if there was any Special Branch involvement/Fenian involvement and it got out... it WOULD have been of grave concern to the Government. Anarchy was indeed in the air anyway. This would have certainly sparked it off..and with the Irish troubles persisting... through the next 110 years.. there is no way that information could, or would, have been made public.
It raises great questions as to the reluctance and lengths the Met Police today (the revealing of Irish informants names) have gone to stopping the public access to any Special Branch material..even after the judge in charge of the case Trevor Marriott attempted agreed with him, and two lay (thats unqualified in the profession of law) members of the same tribunal voted him down. I certainly have never heard of a qualified judge's words being (basically) ignored by those who take his knowledge, advice and formal judgement onboard in a case. It is virtually unheard of. And before you start thinking that it is impossible to challenge the wisdom and actions of the two lay members that sided with the judge, Trevor Marriott lodged, but then later dropped, an appeal BEFORE the tribunal was held against one of the members on the panel because that member was on a previous tribunal panal that had ruled in favour of the Met Police keeping documents closed in another case. He dropped the appeal on legal advice.
In summing up. I believe Mary Kelly wasn't her name. There is a small chance the victim was Alice Carroll. I have no proof of either..but then..proof in this case is almost non existant anyway.. so whats the difference?
I had prepared this post a day or two ago.. and was going to add more to it for an article in Ripperologist Magasine (sorry Chris.. this was part of the article intended and you may still use it still if you wish as far from all subscribers are members here, I'd imagine...send me an email or pm if you wish to)... but the reasons for posting this now in this way are two fold.. I have been very ill recently and am in the course of recovering (note the absence from the boards), and the recent publication of an article that is connected with this one by another commentator.
I will not be around for a while again, enforced absence due to illness and recovery, forthcoming workloads and other committments linked to selling and moving home, and cannot give my time and attention to any replies made personally to me on this thread. So please ladies and gentlemen, do discuss amongst yourselves if you find this posting of interest in any way... and at some stage I will endeavour to come along again when health and possibility enables me to.
I make no apologies for the length of this posting as most intended articles are longer than posts anyway, and if reading this amount is difficlut for some, I suggest they adopt the same methodology they use when reading articles or even books. As articles go, this would be, in its present state, quite short. I wish you all a pleasant New Year!
kindest regards
Phil
PS... apologies to all for any typo's etc.
Elsewhere.. on Casebook, there was a discussion a while ago about the origin of the term.."a right Mary Ann" or "a regular Mary Ann" which I quote the reference below..
However, I just thought I would add something that perhaps some may not know (forgive me if you do already know this)..
The name Polly is said to be a form of Mary. It is believed to have developed from possibly a nickname, possibly even a rhyming nickname: To Polly from Molly from Mary. Better in fact, in the reverse order, Mary to Molly to Polly.
Another example:-
Bet, Betty, Elisabeth or Elisabeth to Betty to Bet
In Victorian times, it was commion to do this with men's names as well.
John to Johnny to Jacky to Jack.
Each of the individual names above are now used even at birth, without the "lineage", and often boys are christened "Jack" or "Johnny", likewise girls are christened "Molly" or "Polly".
All of which brings me back to the name Mary Jane or Mary Ann Kelly. I stated previously in the thread that I do not believe her real name was Mary Ann or Mary Jane Kelly.
I am, along with a few others, trying like crazy to find out what happened to Alice Carroll after 1887. I hold out little hope of finding the answer, but may have more news in a few weeks time.
The thing that strikes me very very clearly, is the purported certainty of certain members of the police (said at various times after the event occured) that Mary Kelly was the last victim, even though the police were still apparently looking for "Jack the Ripper" quite a few years afterwards.
It may seem odd to some that in the 1890's, although the limited number of murders attributed to one murderer had been established and opined upon at a high level, the police were still looking for "Jack" when other murders occured, and then, when the memoirs and opinions of retired policemen came out, the general feeling went back again to the Kelly killing being the last of "Jack's" sordid ordeal. How we interpret this two way thought is up to each individual. However..
Allow me to expand a little on the possibility of Alice Carroll being Mary Jane Kelly. I am wondering (as others are) whether she were resettled like some of the others in the Pheonix Park murder case. The amount of money she recieved after the trial was substantial, and she was under police protection after the trial as well. She was last known of appearing in court for drunkeness, in Dublin. The names of the streets mentioned in her Dublin life where she lived are remarkable co-incidences too.
In addition to this, the mention of one policeman purportedly thinking that the murders had something to do with the " leader of a Fenian plot to kill Balfour" keeps nudging at me...as well as the statement in the famous reward text referring to an accomplice or accomplices connected to the Kelly murder.
Is it at all possible that the police knew who- Radical Fenians (not individual names) were involved in the Kelly murder? Is it possible that Catharine Eddowes was merely the "wrong" Mary Kelly? Is it possible that Alice Carroll was being hunted down, was living under the name of Mary Kelly and the "Jack the Ripper" murders were infact used by her killers as the background for her killing? People far more knowledgable than I have stated their opinion that Kelly could, like Stride, be unconnected with the "Ripper" crimes.
Well, as for supporting evidence for the above, we have very little indeed. The obvious question is how any Fenian would know that a drunk woman who happened to call herself Mary Kelly was locked up in Bishopsgate Police Station, and even how they would know when she was released. One could answer that with the obvious fact that all underground organisations have their spies on the ground, and follow up on any reported occurrance of an individual. They don't always get the right person either. Policemen too are well known to be paid for their services for information and "help" throughout the ages...for a policeman doesn't always hand out physical back handers.. he takes them too..of a different sort...Informing others on activity is pretty common, as we all know. A back hander...corrupt policemen.. ahhh, the cry goes up..picking on policemen again are you? Well The Turf Frauds a decade earlier told us quite a bit about attitudes to back handers.. and because the culprits were rooted out, dioesnt mean that corruption was, in any way. Williamson survived though.... But here I drift away into little known of speculation and we know little of the motives of any individual in or out of the force for anything they do. Ahhh, motive.. one of the deadly three.. means motive and opportunity. It was pointed out to me that any possible connection between Halse and the removal of the apron piece from Mitre Square fell down on the question of Motive. Read on McDuff...
The trouble with Ripperology is that we do not have enough facts, so all of the above becomes intruiging thought and in some cases, extended supposition. There should be enough room for intruiguing thought and such possibilities.. because if we go on facts and facts alone.. we are stone dead cemented in place. We cannot get any further. Reliable and reputable researchers start to look at intertwining links beyond the close circle of facts.
The problem is that the further away from the centre of the spider's web one gets, the links become very tenuous indeed..and all the more unbelievable because of it. The possibilities become a myriad.
Such research starts at the centre, the known facts, and looks at the closest links, then their connections and so on and so on. At some point however, a way back to the centre must be found from the outside edge.. and to help back up the link going out, another line must be found inwards again towards the centre. Naturally, some of these links and lines stop halfway..some diversify into another direction altogether. Which is why the connecting of the background material,. is, in my honest opinion, og great importance to this case (something I have maintained for well over 30 years)..from the myriad of goings on in Whitechapel, to the myriad of underground organisations and its members (known and unknown), to the undergriound activity of the police (Special Branch), it's leaders (Anderson, Monro, Warren etc) and beyond, to the political machinations of the time that connect all of the above. Special Branch answered to no one.. not even the Home Secretary if Anderson and Co didn't deem it needed. They were, in effect, a self governing, self law making and law breaking militia. If it was in the nation's interests... they could do what they saw fit, recieved the monetary means to carry it out and all was accepted, as long as it met the means to an end. Hmmm...
If one, for example, needs a really good idea of how the murders connect with politics, one only has to see the amount of documentary evidence that exists today from the police, dated 6th November 1888. An awful lot of policemen either collectively or individually wrote their concluding words on the "double event" on that date. Swanson included. Why the 6th of November? Well, to me it is obvious. Parliament opened again after the recess on the 7th of November, and any Home Secretary worth his salts would need every bit of informtion at HIS fingertips in order to answer any eventual question in Parliament the next day. As it turns out, another remarkable feature of this case is that there were no questions in Parliament the next day about what had been going on in London for the last 2 months or so, a subject that was on the lips of the poplace and indeed, the entire world...a subject causing abject panic and at times, hysteria, a subject that was clearly out of control of the Metropolitan and City Police forces in the area.
So why all the stoic "we have it all under control" attitude from Anderson who stated years later that no further murder was committed on the streets after he turned up, because of his (self believing) actions and decisons... and that the murder was known to him and etc etc etc.. when at the time...the picture was clearly one of apparent blindness. So bad infact, that the poplace was in uproar. The official reason for Warren's resignation was given, but it cannot be denied that the background of his political and career inability to catch the "killer" of the Whitechapel victims played a heavy hand behind the scenes, as did his reaction to the ongoing riots in Trafalgar Square previously. The power struggle between the Home Secretary and the Police Commisssioner, the problems involving the use (officially and behind the scenes) and non use of Monro and his resignation, the reaction of Anderson and involvement in the forthcoming Parnell inquiry and all its "spy" spin offs, the use of Jenkinson's "spies" selling matches on street corners etc and the all round inability of the police to do what they were ordered to do, namely police the streets, with poor pay, poor conditions, poor hours and poor bemanning, under some questionable leadership.. well.. these are all part of the spider's web..amongst many other things.
Here, it will be shouted.. the simpler answer is the easiest. Well.. its so easy that it doesn't actually work. One man, 5 killings and he then disappears off the face iof the earth, with the police still playing blind man's buff and passing it on to every amateur detective, historian and researcher ever since. Then the guessing game starts of "name the Ripper" I don't have to go through the list. We all know who they were.
The great enthusiast Stewart Evans has said many many times that we will "never know the name of..." I am 99% in agreement. IF it was one man...1000% in agreement. But I doubt that. My thought of a 2-1-2 or a 2-1-1-1 are still as strong as ever. Those who believe in a 4-1 scenario, with Stride the victim of aniother killer, means that the police would have TWO killers on the loose at the same time..something that the poolice would NEVER have admitted to in a mionth of Sundays, and of course, takes the "easy" option of a one man 5 woman killer out of the equation.. which is for some very hard indeed to swallow.. but credit where it is due to thiose who believe it and stick by it.. because they demand extra facts to DISprove it. I respect that.
I also respect that some say that Kelly was killed by a different hand than both Stride and the other three. Respected Ripperologists have stated this. That would make three killers on the loose at the same time. Here the cries of "impossible" ring out, based on amongst other things, statistics. Well the answer I have seen it said to that the fact is that every statistic has a start and a finish possibility. The mean average isn't always the answer. The majority in the number of cases uncovered over x amount of years doesnt neccessarily point to this being the answer in 1888 in Whitechapel. Again, the police would never have admitted this in public, and heads would be rolling faster than you can spit tobacco into a bowl from 12 paces. Both in the police and in Government.
So the possibility that Nicholls and Chapman were killed by one person, Stride by another and then Eddowes and Kelly by one (group/organisation/set of radicals) is only a half step away from the thinking of the respected Ripperologists above.
It would fit nicely in with Stewart's respected views too. Certainly nobody knows the name of the killer of the first two victims, likewise the name of the Stride killer, and then the differing names within the same group/organisation/set of radicals. A very good reason why nobody will ever know the names of the murderers of the final two victims if the killers were thus connected.... remember the word accomplice(s) from the offer of reward after the Kelly murder?
So. Is it possible that Alice Carroll was the person murdered in 13 Millers Court, Dorset Street? Until we find out what became of or what happened to Alice Carroll after 1887, and if she was/wasn't part of a resettlement plan or not, then the answer is the possibility, however small, must remain lft open.
And like it or not, I put it to you all that this to must be equally respected as a viewpoint, given all of the background information and myriad of goings on at the time. Is is far from a crank idea. Otherwise respected researchers would not be looking into it.
Yes, it is possible. Highly unlikely, and highly improbable...but possible.
Is it possible that the motive, should the thought be so, for Halse to have possibly removed the apron piece lie linked to any of the above? Highly unlikely..but...as one commentator has said, it would have been possible with the motive attached to the very clear means and opportunity. The only thing one has to take into account is that someone, somewhere, knew something that only a selected few knew. The fact that all police leave was limited and maximum force shown in the CITY may raise some eyebrows.. not the MET area. So could someone have been tipped off something was about tio happen in the Square Mile? Feasable and well known even today.
"Mary Ann Kelly" was arrested for drunkeness and escorted to Bishopsgate police station. She was released 4 hours later. 5 or so hours later a woman was found murdered in Mitre Square. It took a few days before Catherine Eddowes was named as the victim, identified by a man, John Kelly, whose testimony and statements to the police and at the inquest give rise to major concern for some (together with the lodging house keeper) and whose story of how (they) came to know that this woman was locked up is highly dubious and not veruified in any way. At the inquest, as been pointed out in a recent article, both Halse's statements and intentions have been questioned, as have another important policeman's, P.C.Long. Various ideas have been attributed to them both.
There is a 6 week gap. If Mary Ann Kelly wasn't Alice Carroll..then before another doorbolt is tried, the RIGHT Alice Carroll must be found. And when she was... my oh my the disfigurement made her.... yup... unrecognisable...and in keeping with the poplace's view and police presentation... of a one man killer's deeds. Plausible?.. Again.. it is highly speculative all round.
But it would clear up the most important parts of Ripperology and satisfy most everyone's questions. We would know "who" was behind murders 4 and 5..and would also explain why there is a terrible lack of material in the Kerlly file alone.. not to mention the remarkable fact that very very many of the letters porporting to come from "Jack the Ripper" sent to the CITY police miraculously survived WW2's bombings and all other info re police papers on Catherine Eddowes "went up in flames".. I would have thought they would both have been kept in the same place, personally...wouldn't you?
Now if there was any Special Branch involvement/Fenian involvement and it got out... it WOULD have been of grave concern to the Government. Anarchy was indeed in the air anyway. This would have certainly sparked it off..and with the Irish troubles persisting... through the next 110 years.. there is no way that information could, or would, have been made public.
It raises great questions as to the reluctance and lengths the Met Police today (the revealing of Irish informants names) have gone to stopping the public access to any Special Branch material..even after the judge in charge of the case Trevor Marriott attempted agreed with him, and two lay (thats unqualified in the profession of law) members of the same tribunal voted him down. I certainly have never heard of a qualified judge's words being (basically) ignored by those who take his knowledge, advice and formal judgement onboard in a case. It is virtually unheard of. And before you start thinking that it is impossible to challenge the wisdom and actions of the two lay members that sided with the judge, Trevor Marriott lodged, but then later dropped, an appeal BEFORE the tribunal was held against one of the members on the panel because that member was on a previous tribunal panal that had ruled in favour of the Met Police keeping documents closed in another case. He dropped the appeal on legal advice.
In summing up. I believe Mary Kelly wasn't her name. There is a small chance the victim was Alice Carroll. I have no proof of either..but then..proof in this case is almost non existant anyway.. so whats the difference?
I had prepared this post a day or two ago.. and was going to add more to it for an article in Ripperologist Magasine (sorry Chris.. this was part of the article intended and you may still use it still if you wish as far from all subscribers are members here, I'd imagine...send me an email or pm if you wish to)... but the reasons for posting this now in this way are two fold.. I have been very ill recently and am in the course of recovering (note the absence from the boards), and the recent publication of an article that is connected with this one by another commentator.
I will not be around for a while again, enforced absence due to illness and recovery, forthcoming workloads and other committments linked to selling and moving home, and cannot give my time and attention to any replies made personally to me on this thread. So please ladies and gentlemen, do discuss amongst yourselves if you find this posting of interest in any way... and at some stage I will endeavour to come along again when health and possibility enables me to.
I make no apologies for the length of this posting as most intended articles are longer than posts anyway, and if reading this amount is difficlut for some, I suggest they adopt the same methodology they use when reading articles or even books. As articles go, this would be, in its present state, quite short. I wish you all a pleasant New Year!
kindest regards
Phil
PS... apologies to all for any typo's etc.
Comment