RIC in Millers court?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra and Lynn,

You kinda sorta guess something's afoot when you read nonsense like this.

Irish Times, Thursday 11th October 1888—

FROM LONDON CORRESPONDENCE

"It has been denied that any officers of the Irish police have been sent here on a special mission, and Superintendent Mallon's presence in London is explained by the statement that he is on holiday.

"The contradiction, I am assured, is at once correct and inaccurate. It is not the case that any representative of the Irish police force has been sent here in connection with the Whitechapel tragedies, but it is the case that three members of the detective department are now in London in connection with the new international organisation, of which the Home Office has been for some weeks in receipt of private information which has caused a communication with the Irish Executive. The result of this communication has been the despatch of three experts to London, where it is known the conspiracy proposes to establish one of its headquarters, with a branch in Dublin."

Some time later . . .

Newark [New York] Daily Advocate, Monday 22nd October 1888—

"London, Oct. 22.— All of the Parnellites implicated in the charges of the Times and all the witnesses summoned by both sides for the opening of the Parnell commission are in London in readiness to attend the first sitting of the commission. Among the witnesses is Chief of Police Superintendent Mallon, of Dublin, whose evidence promises to be of a startling character. Mallon has watched the inner workings of Fenianism since 1867, having been assisted in his work by informers who have abundantly supplied him with details otherwise unobtainable."

John Mallon did not appear as a witness before the Special Commission.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Debs

I think it was January 1887 or thereabouts (mind you, that's from memory)

All the best

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

Spot-on.

In a 3rd August 1886 briefing minute addressed to his new Home Secretary, Henry Matthews, Godfrey Lushington, Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, briefly outlined the original conditions of Edward Jenkinson's employment and his relations with James Monro and the Metropolitan Police, concluding with the words, "But for all that I recommend that Mr. Jenkinson should go."

Henry Matthews sent Edward Jenkinson his letter of dismissal on 11th December 1886, effective 10th January 1887.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

The ones who sacked the ones who were sacked, were sacked.

Hello Debs. Immediately Sir Ed was sacked. But I'm not sure all of them were kept on.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

Thanks for the information Dave, Simon and Lynn.
I wonder how would the newspapers have originally got hold of the information that RIC members were at Miller's Court? Wouldn't that be classed as a bit of a breach of security or something if they were members of this network?

[lynn cates]

security breach

Hello Debs. Thanks.

I read one story (sadly, can't find it, but will keep trying) in which the RIC chap claimed he might have some knowledge of the affair.

Security breach? Very likely. I try to imagine how such could happen. Perhaps a reporter blurting, "Do you know about this?" "Mmm, possibly." Something of that sort.

Whatever the breach, I daresay it was rectified by the truncated inquest and its paucity of information.

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

The victim at Millers Court was Irish, Mary Jane Kelly. The Irish police came to the scene. If they weren't rubbernecking, already being in town on other business, then they were investigating. I don't find that odd. She was Irish.

In fact, I would assume and expect the Irish police would be conferred with, and visit the murder scene if practicable.

Roy

[Graham]

Is there any definite proof that the Millers Court victim was Irish? I have always been under the impression that she stated (but to whom?)
that her background was in Wales, that her husband was killed in an explosion in Carmarthenshire, etc. I also think I read that according to at least one person she could speak Welsh. She may have been Irish by birth and/or by family, but it appears she moved to Wales when she was very young. Don't forget that passports were not required in 1888 - in fact, not until about 1913 or so I believe. Had her birth certificate been discovered at Millers Court, then that would be another matter. However, according to what he claimed, John McCarthy had seen letters from Ireland delivered to Kelly, but Joe Barnett said he thought these were from her brother who was in the Scots Guards (according to what he claimed Kelly had told him).

It's hard to imagine that representatives from the RIC showed up after the death of every Irish person in London. If they were at Miller's Court, I don't think they were there just to rubberneck or for their health. And if they were investigating, then precisely what were they investigating? For my money, the reported presence of RIC officers at Millers Court immediately after the murder of MJK must remain rather odd.

G

[Wickerman]

Is there any definite proof that the Millers Court victim was Irish? I have always been under the impression that she stated (but to whom?)
that her background was in Wales, that her husband was killed in an explosion in Carmarthenshire, etc.

Hi Graham.
There is no shortage of threads under:
Message Boards/Victims/Mary Jane Kelly...

Here is one of the more recent that might cover a few of your questions.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6587

Note post No. 4 for the family in question.

Needless to say, the critical question concerning the marriage certificate and one Hubert Kelly remains unanswered in this thread.

Regards, Jon S.

[Graham]

Jon, thanks, but still no proof at all as to MJK's origins. I have a fairly comprehensive library to which I can refer, and I have yet to come across any definitive statements as to her origins. Which, I think, will for ever remain a mystery.

Cheers,

Graham

[Wickerman]

Jon, thanks, but still no proof at all as to MJK's origins. I have a fairly comprehensive library to which I can refer, and I have yet to come across any definitive statements as to her origins. Which, I think, will for ever remain a mystery.

Cheers,

Graham

Expecting proof of anything in this case is often "one bridge too far", as they say.

Nothing about Mary's previous life before London has been proven.
But equally, we cannot prove it was Mary who was murdered.

[Graham]

Jon, let's face it, we only have the word of Joe Barnett that the corpse found in Millers Court was indeed the woman he knew as Mary Jane Kelly. And he could recognise her only by 'her hair' which, one presumes, was of a hue difficult to mistake.

Graham

[Wickerman]

Jon, let's face it, we only have the word of Joe Barnett that the corpse found in Millers Court was indeed the woman he knew as Mary Jane Kelly. And he could recognise her only by 'her hair' which, one presumes, was of a hue difficult to mistake.

Graham

There are news articles which suggest some family members did come to her funeral, so that would suggest the family at least found no reason to doubt the identity of the victim.
We are short on specific details about this though.

Regards, Jon S.

[Graham]

Yes, I am aware that there were reports of members of her family attending her funeral, but doubt that they are accurate. I am sure that the 'gentlemen of the press' would have been crawling all over them, given the sensation caused by the Millers Court murder, but I can't recall any contemporary newspaper reports describing interviews with any member of her family.

Graham

[Wickerman]

Yes, I am aware that there were reports of members of her family attending her funeral, but doubt that they are accurate.

Its not really a question of accuracy, they either did or they did not, its either truth or lies.
If the press had attempted to identify the individuals who came, then this may be judged as accurate or inaccurate.

I am sure that the 'gentlemen of the press' would have been crawling all over them, given the sensation caused by the Millers Court murder, but I can't recall any contemporary newspaper reports describing interviews with any member of her family.

I can't think of any reason they would agree to be interviewed, Mary had been living an immoral life. Social standards were to be observed, they would very likely request privacy through the police.

Regards, Jon S.