Kate Eddowes as Mary Ann Kelly.

[Debra A]

Hi Jon. Thanks.
Do you have a possible?

[Jon Guy]

In John Kelly`s interview with the Echo Oct 3rd 88, Kelly says he has been living in the Deans for about ten years.

Therefore the 1881 Paternoster couple is not our John Kelly

Also, Kelly should be in the 1881 Census at an address in Flower and Dean St.

In the Echo interview Kelly is claimed to be known as "Jack", so he may be in the Census as Jack Kelly.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Debs

Hi Jon and Lynn.
I've not been able to find anyone else who might fit in 81 either. I didn't discount this guy, I just thought his occupation was off as the A to Z mentions Kelly saying he worked for Lander for 12 years?
Also, we don't know where Kelly was born. Some papers reported that John Kelly was an Irishman, which I thought would mean born in Ireland but then again, Barnett was described as an Irishman and he was born in London. It's confusing!

I think Eddowes appears as Kate Conway in 81 and living with her previous partner?

Yes, she is in the 1881 Census as Kate Conway in Chelsea, so neither Kelly or Eddowes had yet met at 55 Flower and Dean. Deputy keeper Frederick Wilikinson isn`t in the 81 Census for Flower and Dean either. So, it must have been sometime after the Census was taken they all converged on 55 F&D

Regarding the 1881 occupation, I was thinking that if employment with Lander was not full time, which appears so as Kelly states he went jobbing around the market, so like many in that area he may have had look for work at the docks.

[Dave O]

Hi Debra,

Neal Shelden has Kate (occupation charwoman) living with Thomas Conway (hawker) and their two sons at 71 Lower George Street, Chelsea in 1881.

Dave

[Debra A]

Hi Debs and Lynn

Isn`t the 1881 Paternoster Row, Kelly our best bet for our John Kelly circa 1881?

John Kelly is not in the 81 Census for 55 Flower and Dean St, nor is Eddowes.
Deputy keeper Wilkinson had known the couple for 7 or 8 years so that could be that Paternoster Kelly took up with Eddowes not long after the 1881 Cenus and moved to 55 F&D St.

Hi Jon and Lynn.
I've not been able to find anyone else who might fit in 81 either. I didn't discount this guy, I just thought his occupation was off as the A to Z mentions Kelly saying he worked for Lander for 12 years?
Also, we don't know where Kelly was born. Some papers reported that John Kelly was an Irishman, which I thought would mean born in Ireland but then again, Barnett was described as an Irishman and he was born in London. It's confusing!

I think Eddowes appears as Kate Conway in 81 and living with her previous partner?

[lynn cates]

up to date

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Can't say. Debs is the up to date one. I'll find out.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Absolutely, Lynn. Just wondered if he`d been discounted.

Paternoster Kelly in mind, in the 1871 Census there is an unmarried hawker, John Kelly, born Whitechapel 1844 living at a Lodging House at 63 Wentworth St.

[lynn cates]

maybe

Hello Jon. Thanks. That's not too far away. Could be the same one. Better sift a bit first, though.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Debs and Lynn

Isn`t the 1881 Paternoster Row, Kelly our best bet for our John Kelly circa 1881?

John Kelly is not in the 81 Census for 55 Flower and Dean St, nor is Eddowes.
Deputy keeper Wilkinson had known the couple for 7 or 8 years so that could be that Paternoster Kelly took up with Eddowes not long after the 1881 Cenus and moved to 55 F&D St.

[lynn cates]

1881

Hello (again) Debs. Thanks. Sounds like our lad. Wonder why no 1881 results for him?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

tailor

Hello Debs. Thanks. Wonder if that's the same tailor I found elsewhere?

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

I suppose it is fair to assume that one of these two chaps was our John Kelly?

Cheers.
LC

The market porter b c 1843, single, Roman Catholic and listed as living at 55 Flower and Dean Street in every entry (over half a dozen) in the Whitechapel Infirmary admission and discharge registers between 1885 and 1890 , dying in 1890 so not appearing on the 1891 census, seems likely, to me.
Working at the market, age similar to Eddowes, address John Kelly was known to live at for years, all tally?
But we still don't know enough about him to locate him in 81? We don't know where he was born or where he was living then, although he was supposedly working for the fruit salesman Lander for over 12 years (in 88), so was in London?

[Debra A]

I found your man in another source, Lynn. Ancestry must have missed the last few pages off .
1st quarter 1892 means the death was just registered in either Jan/Feb/March not that it occured in Jan. BTW.

Admitted 20 Jan 1892 # 4340 John Kelly. 50, 272 W.C Rd. (Whitechapel Rd?), single, tailor, phthisis, Roman Catholic, dead 9th Feb 1892

LMA/STBG/WH/123/023

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Debs. Thanks. In a way, I feel better. Sorry about the missing information, though.

Wonder why my information had him out in January? (Clerk's error, I daresay.)

I suppose it is fair to assume that one of these two chaps was our John Kelly?

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

Hello Debs. I'm blown. Can't find my bloke in 1891.

Ironically, there are many John and Mary Ann's and John and Catherine's.

Is it possible that the John who died in January, 1892 in Whitechapel was in an infirmary when the census came round?

Cheers.
LC

He should still have been traceable in there, Lynn, but your man did die in the Whitechapel infirmary on 9th Feb 1892 of Phthisis.
Whitechapel Infirmary: Register of Deaths; Call Number: STBG/WH/128/02.
Unfortunately, the corresponding Whitechapel Infirmary admission and discharge book 1891-1895, which would have held his details, has the last few pages missing or un filmed, and they are the ones his entry [ #4340 according to the index] would have appeared on.