Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly Name link

[Barnaby]

This thread saddened me because it calls to my attention that we really don't know Mary Kelly's true name. The killer tried to destroy her identity but effectively reinforced a false one, and we still can't ascertain who she really was - and that matters for her memory and dignity. I'm thankful for the researchers who are still trying to discover the real Mary Kelly.

[spyglass]

Governments & cover-ups pretty often go hand-in-hand, and yes there can be conspiracies to cover-up, but what we are talking about is a conspiracy to murder a commoner, not a high profile politician, or spy, but a nondescript prostitute who few people ever believe when they tell a story.
Just don't be led astray by the long debunked Royal Conspiracy theory of the 1970's. Conspiracy theories should be the result of evidence, not conjecture.

Hi

Yes ofcourse, but we really dont know what or who MJK really was do we.
I wasnt going down the Royal Conspiracy route here, but have had a long interest in the Feinian angle, but have never had a one single suspect/theory...I'm open minded, but again it is a possibility and plausible that Eddowes could have been the wrong target.

[Wickerman]

Governments & cover-ups pretty often go hand-in-hand, and yes there can be conspiracies to cover-up, but what we are talking about is a conspiracy to murder a commoner, not a high profile politician, or spy, but a nondescript prostitute who few people ever believe when they tell a story.
Just don't be led astray by the long debunked Royal Conspiracy theory of the 1970's. Conspiracy theories should be the result of evidence, not conjecture.

[etenguy]

Conspiracies have and do exist. Regards

Indeed, Spyglass, and to this day Governments and the police are sometimes involved in cover ups and conspiracies - there is an example in the news now in the UK.

[etenguy]

Is it a inference too far to suggest the Killer got the Wrong person in Eddowes and had to wait to finally get his original target? regards

Hi Spyglass

I don't think the press using the wrong name when reporting MJK's murder, albeit one with a close link to Catherine Eddowes, supports the theory that the murderer killed the wrong person in Catherine Eddowes and had thought her MJK, who he then went onto murder. By the time the name Lizzie Fisher was used, MJK was already dead.

However, nor does it undermine such a theory. I have not come across any evidence that leads me to support the wrong person theory. I think it more likely that Catherine used common names when providing aliases to the police, as described in the earlier post by Jeff Hamm.

[etenguy]

Anyway, nothing is entirely impossible, of course, but personally I see it as something to note, but an incredibly shaky foundation to build upon.

Thanks Jeff - incredibly thoughtful response and I find the argument that Joe and Mary would have discussed Catherine's death if Mary Jane had known her, as quite compelling evidence she was not a friend or acquaintance. Unless they were very scared and decided to stay quiet - but i find no evidence to support that suggestion and am therefore left with the unsatisfying conclusion that the use of the name Mary, Jane, Ann, Kelly was a coincidental link to the subsequent victim, MJK, and the use of the name Lizzie Fisher in the press was a coincedental reference to the married name of the sister of the previous victim when applied to MJK.

Despite being left with that conclusion, I find the interlinking use of aliases refering to both these victims as beyond what one might normally expect to be due to coincidence. However, what else it might be eludes me.

[spyglass]

Wouldn't that imply the killer had obtained a name, but did not know what 'Kelly' looked like?

Which, in turn, suggests the killer obtained the name from a third party.
Either, because this third party was the one who wanted 'Kelly' dead, or the third party had made some accusation against a woman known as 'Kelly'?

This then begins to sound very conspiratorial.

Well it has been used in certain Conspiracy theories I know, but I would rather just say it is a fair possibility worth considering.

I have always thought it likely that Kelly was the main target, where the others fit in, I dont know.

Conspiracies have and do exist.

Regards

[Wickerman]

Is it a inference too far to suggest the Killer got the Wrong person in Eddowes and had to wait to finally get his original target?

regards

Wouldn't that imply the killer had obtained a name, but did not know what 'Kelly' looked like?

Which, in turn, suggests the killer obtained the name from a third party.
Either, because this third party was the one who wanted 'Kelly' dead, or the third party had made some accusation against a woman known as 'Kelly'?

This then begins to sound very conspiratorial.

[spyglass]

I have in the past remarked on what I (and some others) thought was a curious coincidence that Catherine Eddowes used the names Jane Kelly (on her pawn ticket) and Mary Ann Kelly (to the police on the night she was murdered) when as we know, the muder victim following Catherine Eddowes was Mary Jane Kelly. This is often explained by coincidence given the popularity of the individual components of the name Mary Jane Kelly.

To add to this coincidence is the name said to be used by Mary Jane Kelly by some newspaper reports following her murder, Lizzie Fisher. In some early reports the victim's name is given as Lizzie Fisher, sometimes known as Mary Jane. Elizabeth Fisher, coincidentally, happens to be the married name of one of Catherine Eddowes' sister.

In light of this double naming coincidence, is it an inference too far to conclude that it is likely Catherine and Mary Jane knew each other?

Is it a inference too far to suggest the Killer got the Wrong person in Eddowes and had to wait to finally get his original target?

regards

[JeffHamm]

Dear Jeff

Thank you. I have subscribed to your arguement for some time, but when coupled with a less common name used by MJK it begins to look like name borrowing from names that the person knows and reaches for when needed. I see the weakness in my arguement more about being able to verify that MJK used the name Lizzie Fisher. Other than newspaper reports at the time of her death, I haven't found any other references to MJK using Lizzie Fisher as an alias.

Hi etenguy,

Well, if we think that Mary, Ann, Jane, and even Lizzie (variation on Elizabeth) are fairly common (and I think the examples listed points to that being reasonable), then the only potentially uncommon name is Fisher, and to find that link one has to go one step beyond two victims to get to a victim's sister. We expand the potential number of people where some link could occur, increasing the odds of finding some sort of "match", increasing the concern it's a coincidence.

We have little reason to believe that Kate and her sister were at all close (otherwise, why is Kate living in poverty?), making it unlikely she's going to be a frequent topic of conversation she has with others, unless they are close friends perhaps. But even amongst close friends, unless the friend also knows your sibling, the friend is unlikely going to hear a sister's married name very often, if ever. In a conversation A person would just refer to them as "My sister ..." or maybe she comes up as "My sister <insert first name> ...." It's not impossible, of course, but it seems like an odd bit of information to use to refer, in normal conversation, to "My sister <insert first and last name> ...".

Of course, if the press just got it wrong, and Lizzie Fisher was never used as an alias by Mary, then it all falls down to coincidence. But if that is possible, and we both agree it is, then doesn't mean the name could easily be a coincidence, even if Mary did use it? If it could arise by coincidence some other way, that doesn't reduce the possibility that it arose through coincidence by Mary herself after all (she is just adding one more person to the number of potential sources from which that coincidence could have originated after all, so if anything, by adding another potential source of the coincidental origin, the probability of a coincidence increases, albeit by a very small amount).

Also, I would think if Mary and Kate knew each other, Barnette would be aware of that. He read her the news about the murders after all, and so when reading about the double event it seems incredibly unlikely that Mary would not have said to him that she knew Kate. Also, if she knew Kate well enough to know of Kate's sisters' last name (which I think would indicate they must have been close friends), it also seems improbable that Joe Barnett did not know of her as well. But we have no indication of any recognition on Joe's part of any relationship between Mary and Kate, or any of the other victims for that matter.

I would want to see more definite signs of a direct connection, particularly as any personal connection between an earlier victim and a later victim is something that people who knew the later victim would have been aware of as I find it hard to believe that wouldn't have been a very hot topic of conversation by the later victim amongst those she knew. And yet, in none of the cases do we have anyone indicating that was the case. There's not even a hint of a later victim even saying something like "I've heard of her" in reference to an earlier victim.

I accept that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however, the police would have investigated to obtain information about each victim's "personal circles" as that is what they do in murder investigations - who does the victim know as their murderer is often in that collection of people after all - which is why they would have investigated Joe Barnett in the first place for example. Therefore, it's not quite "absence of evidence" in this case, it's a case of looking for connections and not finding them, which then becomes a case of "evidence of absence" rather than a case of "absence of evidence."

Anyway, nothing is entirely impossible, of course, but personally I see it as something to note, but an incredibly shaky foundation to build upon.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Chris,
Elizabeth Jackson's undergarments were actually bought for her by Faircloth in a lodging house while they were in Ipswich. They originally belonged to a girl who was in service at Kirlkley bear Lowestoft and her mother sold them on as rags on a visit to her daughter. The family were from Byker near Newcastle and her father, who had written in the underwear recognised his own handwriting. This story is given in The Times of July 26, 1889. So no connection to London or anyone that knew Elizabeth. It was the coat Elizabeth wore that was given to her by a friend in London.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Back to the drawing board, haha!


RD

[Debra A]

The name L E Fisher was also stencilled into Elizabeth Jackson's underwear when her torso was found.

However; L E Fisher can apparently be traced back to someone who gave Elizabeth Jackson her undergarment.

Would make it interesting if that had been a mistake.



RD

Hi Chris,
Elizabeth Jackson's undergarments were actually bought for her by Faircloth in a lodging house while they were in Ipswich. They originally belonged to a girl who was in service at Kirlkley bear Lowestoft and her mother sold them on as rags on a visit to her daughter. The family were from Byker near Newcastle and her father, who had written in the underwear recognised his own handwriting. This story is given in The Times of July 26, 1889. So no connection to London or anyone that knew Elizabeth. It was the coat Elizabeth wore that was given to her by a friend in London.

[The Rookie Detective]

The name L E Fisher was also stencilled into Elizabeth Jackson's underwear when her torso was found.

However; L E Fisher can apparently be traced back to someone who gave Elizabeth Jackson her undergarment.

Would make it interesting if that had been a mistake.



RD

[Sam Flynn]

Lizzie Fisher seems like a name pulled from memory.

True... but whose memory? Someone who knew the Miller's Court victim, or a stranger who mistakenly gave the press the name of the wrong woman?

[etenguy]

So every reason for these women to keep using different names.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dear Trevor

Thank you. I agree. It is the names that are reached for in the circumstances you describe that make me wonder about a relationship, Mary ann Jane and Kelly are all explainable in the manner described by Jeff. But Lizzie Fisher seems like a name pulled from memory.