Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[John Bennett]

I believe the possibility of a written message has been pondered before...
Interestingly, in reviewing the Horrors of Whitechapel written in Dec. 1888, the writer stated, "Having butchered and mutilated the Kelly woman, he walked a dozen blocks from the scene, when he threw away the piece of the victim's apron, and stopped to write a message on the wall. He had provided himself with a piece of chalk for this purpose, as was the case in the Chapman affair, when he scribbled on the shutter that this made four, and that when he had killed sixteen he would surrender himself to the police."

Your Dec.1888 author here clearly has his victims mixed up and is describing events after the Eddowes murder (apron, writing).

I believe the Hanbury Street shutter story appeared in the press at the time, though I'm not sure if it was a shutter that was referred to.

Where did you get this info, by the way?

[Mrs.Bucket]

The Eddows graffiti was the one that was about the "Juwes." This writer states an all together different message for graffiti related to Kelly.

The Horrors of Whitechapel is available in full-text through the Casebook media files.

You can see the page I'm referencing below:

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mrs B,

Catherine Eddowes went by the name of "Kate Kelly" on occasion. The fact that the final sentence of the preceding paragraph refers to the "Mitre Square murder" seems to point in that direction.

[Suzi]

Great to see those pics 'in situ ' Jon- I'm tantalised to know where the rest of that album went.....

Suz x

[Mrs.Bucket]

Good point Sam. It does seem the writer is refering to Eddowes as Kelly (in some instances Kelley), the message is completely different from the records. Stating this was the fourth murder and he would turn himself in after 16 is completely different from the "Juwes" message.

[John Bennett]

Hi Mrs B,

Catherine Eddowes went by the name of "Kate Kelly" on occasion. The fact that the final sentence of the preceding paragraph refers to the "Mitre Square murder" seems to point in that direction.

Yes, indeed.

On the next page the author says that 'Kelly' was released from police custody at 1.00am so he's obviously referring to Eddowes under her self-given alias.

Needless to say, I can't see a reference to writing based around the real Kelly murder (not on this page anyhow). I've perused this document before and despite being a fascinating curio from the very time of the crimes themselves, is full of 'oddities' (to put it politely).

[jmenges]

Great to see those pics 'in situ ' Jon- I'm tantalised to know where the rest of that album went.....

Hi Suzi,

Of course, Mary wasn't returned alone...




Rush on out an' buy yourself a copy of The Diary of Jack the Ripper by Shirley Harrison, as these are scans from that.

But yes, a nice album. I wonder how many were made? And how many pages were there?

PS- Thanks Stewart! That's what I thought.

JM

[Nemo]

Hi all

Doesn't it say Mary JANNETTE Kelly on the photo?

If this was her real name it would be acceptable for her to be known as Mary Jane. Has she been searched for genealogically under this variation?

[Supe]

At the time of the Mary Jane Kelly murder at least one newspaprer ran a map of the murders that identified the Mitre Square victim as Kelly, doubtless because of the pawn ticket. They just couldn't be bothered to update the woodcut.

As for the Hanbury Street message, at the same time the Manchester Guardian and Irish Times were reporting that "Five! 15 more and I give myself up" was written on a fence the Pall Mall Gazette and Daily Telegraph were reporting the story was a hoax.

And Nemo, she preferred Marie Jeanette Kelly, but no one called her that save Barnett--or even seemingly heard of that affectation. But if Barnett is right she liked that and he used it then it would seem just another bit of evidence that the couple had their tender moments.

Don.

[Simon Wood]

And Abberline preferred Jeneatte.

Check out his handwritten 12th November report.

Regards,

Simon

[Brenda]

Nemo, I think Chris Scott has researched every variation of Mary Jane Kelly that anyone has been able to dream up! And I know others have done their own research too. Unless some new information is found, I don't think we'll ever find her.

[Suzi]

Hi John-
Thanks for that- quite an album 'eh- not a single one of me,Mum and Dad on the beach at Sandbanks ,My first snowman in 1955 (!!!!!!!!!!!)which mine seem to contain. (Sadly I've lost those- but still have the Poly photos!!!)

Seriously an amazing album isn't it - I'd love to get my mitts on that for just 5 mins for a look

Suz xx

See you on Sat

[Midnyte]

Hi all:
Thank you to Jonathan for posting those wonderful pictures from the album. The Eddowes shot seldom showed the whole body so that we can see the condition of the feet and legs.

I also can see more of the top of Mary's hair and head, and what looks like a bottle shape or candle in the farthest right edge of that shot.

By looking at the original MJK 3 shot, I can now see the origin of the much debated "stripes" that have been attributed to being part of a print on a fabric, however , we can now see that the stripes are over the whole area of the photo, and are from the condition of the photo, not actually being on the surface of one area.

I have been examining the MJK photos minutely, even microscopically, for many years. I was the first, and only, poster who believed that the large object on the table was the saddle of flesh taken from Mary, and posed upon the table. Other than moral support from Dan Norder on that matter, the subject became one of ridicule and was dismissed out of hand by everyone.

I can match every cut on the body with one on the flesh, and incidentally, I have also picked out a pattern on the table of a crocheted doily or table runner that starts in the center of the table and to the right, slightly bunched up.

Never, in any newspaper report, police report, or corner's findings, has the word "bolster" been used or alluded to.
This word first came up as a description of the roll of material on the bed, not on the table. This took off into flights of fancy about bolsters on the table, what they looked like, what they were used for etc.etc.

To miss the vulgar posing of the thighs and genitals, (including the calf muscle) that Jack left for all to see, is to miss the whole point of his exercise and considerable work. His point is lost on us because we refuse to see.

Like Richard Nunweek, with his morning murder theory, I have my convictions about the flesh posing as the climax of Jack's night.

SO , thanks again, JM, and I hope to contribute more soon, if they are not too hard on me!
All the best,
Midnyte (Joan O'Liari)

[Stewart P Evans]

The Victim Photographs

Just a few observations on some of the comments passed above.

These album photographs have been available to researchers since 1988, they are nothing new. The full length Eddowes photograph, showing the feet, has been available since the 1960s and first appeared publicly in Farson's 1972 book.

The full Kelly images have been published many times in the past and the only difference in the album page shots in the Harrison book is that they are shown still mounted on the album pages.

The 'stripes' on the album page image reproduced here are due to scanning from a book image and are not on the original photograph. (Examination will show that here they extend beyond the actual photograph).

As this should not develop into another nonsensical 'bolster debate' I shall leave it to others to see what they think.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Ah but Stewart, there is nothing like a good old bolster debate.

All the best