ripper lore

[Simon Wood]

Hi Graham,

But the tabloid press of the day [The Star] did mention it in passing. And it was Barnett who told them.

There will now be a flurry of posts saying that The Star misunderstood Barnett/ got him confused with someone else/made it up.

Regards,

Simon

[Graham]

Hmmmm...don't know what to think about this. I've always been fascinated by the legend of Mary Kelly having a daughter and would love to know how and when that originated. With regards to a young boy living with her, I'd have thought that at least one of her neighbours/acquaintances other than Joe Barnett would have mentioned this to the press. But who knows what was said and went unreported?

If what we know about Millers Court is all there is to know, then I might agree with you. But it ain't. Nowhere near. We've only guessed at the scenario based on the shakiest of timings and testimony from a selected group of witness.

I do agree with the above, though.

Graham

[claire]

I might be barking (mad, yes) up the wrong tree here, but didn't Maria Harvey have a child? And, if she was staying with Mary, wouldn't her child have stayed with her?

[The Grave Maurice]

We know you're not mad, Claire, although you might be barking. The sources don't seem to make any mention of Maria having a child; but, she did claim that she left a boy's shirt and a child's petticoat in MJK's room. Maybe that's what you are recalling.

[claire]

Thanks Maurice Perhaps that is what I had in mind, and I may also be confusing the reports of a child/young person in an upstairs room with Maria's circumstances.

As far as Gabe is concerned, I suppose that being based in Bloomsbury wouldn't preclude his presence in Whitechapel or its vicinity at the time. I don't imagine there were too many of his ilk around, so being a bit peripatetic (especially to the nasty old East End) would probably have been part of the job. And, let's face it, if he were at a hospital/clinic at the same time as a 'requested' surgeon, it may be a sort of professional courtesy to allow him along. For a bit of (oh dear) rubbernecking.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Graham,

In an interview with the Star, 10th November 1888, Barnett is reported to have said that Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her.

Illustrated Police News, 17th November 1888—

Another account says that she had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her, and latterly she had been in narrow straits, so much so that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving . . . Soon after they [Kelly and the companion] parted a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly, and offered her some money. The man then acompanied the woman home to her lodgings, and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbour's house. Nothing more was seen of the woman until Friday morning, when, it is stated, the little boy was sent back into the house, and subsequently dispatched on an errand by the man who was in the house with his mother.

Regards,

Simon

[Steve S]

That all can be explained by cover-ups and conspiracies.........

[Tom_Wescott]

Are you doubting that McCormick ever read Dutton's writing and that McCormick just invented it's existence?

Of course I am. In his book, McCormick refers to old newspaper articles making reference about the Dutton diaries in order to support its existence. What McCormick doesn't tell you is that HE wrote those original articles! The Bachert article from 1889 doesn't exist.

Simon, et al,

Because one doctor on the scene was also attached to a society for prevention of cruelty to children is no indicator that a child was present. After all, had a child been found in the room, he would have been taken to a doctor, not vice versa. Then there's also the matter that not one of Kelly's friends or associates knew her to have a child in the room. You're spending an awful lot of time and energy chasing ghosts.

But if nothing else, the gullibility displayed on this thread proves how potent many of these myths were and still are.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[protohistorian]

The area we study was ONLY (as if to be known as, to the exclusion of other interpretations) grindingly poor, and full of marginalized people. Dave

[KatBradshaw]

I don't know if this count but the idea of the foggy East End is one that seems to stick around.

[protohistorian]

Hello Kat. I will count it. I am sure it is more common in imagination than in life. Dave

[joelhall]

What about Eddowes having glomerulonephritis (Bright's disease)?

The kidney which was sent with the From Hell letter showed signs but apparently Eddowes remaining kidney, in her post-mortem examination, did not.

Or am I mistaken?

[protohistorian]

Nice one Joel ! Dave

[tnb]

Quite correct Joel - and yet even today we get books and documentaries stating 'Catherine Eddowes suffered from Bright's Disease'. Hmmm.

Has anyone mentioned Tumblety's 'collection of uteri' yet?

I should probably add Frances Coles being 25 in 1891, too.

[protohistorian]

How about universal poverty in the area or that this was the worst area in London? Dave