Can Mary-Jane Kelly ever be found?!

[richardnunweek]

Hello Coral,
That is excellent news, not only for those[ including myself] that are intrested in that family, but also shall we say a 'Kick up the backside' for the many casebook members who more or less drummed her off the site, with the same old 'Hoaxer' attitude.
Thats made my day.
Regards Richard.

[coral]

For any of you that are GENUINELY interested in the the history of the McCarthy family, the aforementioned lady, Fiona McCarthy-Kendall will be our guest speaker at the Whitechapel Society meeting on the first Saturday of August:

"The McCarthy's and Kendall's Uncovered" - a talk about the little-known background info regarding family members- Jack, Steve, Shaun McCarthy and Marie, Terry, Kay & Kim Kendall.

Fiona has also promised to bring along some family memorablia.

I should point out that this will NOT be a talk about JTR or MJK. Very little is really known about McCarthy, so maybe some little gems will be revealed.

Coral

[Graham]

Hi Guys,
Refering to letters sent to Mjk via McCarthy, we had a possible avenue for research some months ago from a elderly lady that many people dismissed as fake.
Coral was the only person she talked to after that, but alas she has now vanished from our mists.
I for one was intrested in her albeit oral history, but gone I am afraid.
Regards Richard.

Richard,

By God, you're right! Forgotten all about that! Wasn't she a claimed descendant of McCarthy? I believe she took umbrage when her statements were doubted by certain posters, and slung her hook in high dudgeon.

I wonder if she reappeared on JTRForums?

Cheers,

Graham

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
Refering to letters sent to Mjk via McCarthy, we had a possible avenue for research some months ago from a elderly lady that many people dismissed as fake.
Coral was the only person she talked to after that, but alas she has now vanished from our mists.
I for one was intrested in her albeit oral history, but gone I am afraid.
Regards Richard.

[Chava]

I think we can say with some certainty that the name Mary Jane Kelly was an invented or assumed name, as the amount of alleged detail in the account and the number of researchers who have sought her out make the complete lack of any verifiable trace an impossibility.

Chris, why would we assume that? I'm prepared to believe that everything about Kelly's story might be bogus, but I'm not going to dismiss her name out-of-hand because I don't see any reason to do that. Mary Jane Kelly is a very common name. Add that to all the other things she may have lied about, and it would be almost impossible to find her. She may have lied about her age--I'll bet she did! So to do a census search +/- 1 year might not help. She may have lied about her place of birth--not impossible. So searching in one particular area that she says she was born in isn't going to help either. She may have lied about her marriage--I'll bet that was a whopper! So you won't find her or him.

I don't think it's impossible that she changed her name as well, but given the letters which were apparently from her family, I think it's less likely.

[Observer]

Hi Chris

With regard to the version of Kelly's life that has come down to us via the accounts of Barnett et al., the problem is one of the degree of invention. I think we can say with some certainty that the name Mary Jane Kelly was an invented or assumed nameChris Scott

This has in all likelyhood been mooted before. Presuming Kelly did receive letters from her family, while she lived in Miller's Court, who were the letters addressed to? The ones that were posted to her via McCarthy that is.

Observer

[Graham]

ah okay, then I understand. On the other hand, would Kelly's life and death be as enticing if all the facts were known?

Hellrider,

Probably not, but it's her almost total anonymity that's fired imaginations over the years. The chances are that she was just another no-one, one of millions of faceless (in her case literally) and voiceless human-beings who have come and gone. However, it would be hugely interesting actually to put an identity to this unknown person who suddenly acheived fame and notoriety in a way that she doubtless never imagined. We get the very occasional tiny chink of light in the darkness, but never enough to lead us off into any fruitful direction.

Same as the i.d. of the Ripper himself - chances are that if he is ever identified (and what are the odds of that occurrence!) he'll be another nobody, and even if a name could ever be put to him the chances are it'll be a name no-one on these boards has ever heard. Again, it's what makes the Ripper Crimes so tantalising.

Oops, me copy of Sickert's 'Jack the Ripper's Bedroom' just fell off the wall...

Cheers,

Graham

[Hellrider]

ah okay, then I understand. On the other hand, would Kelly's life and death be as enticing if all the facts were known?

[Sam Flynn]

To assume that Kelly's identity is of any importance is to embrace the fact that her murderer (and thus probably the Ripper) was a shadow of her past who came back to haunt her.

I've no doubt that she wasn't murdered by a shadow of her past, HR, but I'd still like to find out who the heck she really was nonetheless! I've enjoyed learning the (true) histories of the other victims, not least because it makes them somehow more 3-dimensional, and I wish we could say the same about Kelly.

[Hellrider]

very interesting thread to follow...I really enjoyed reading it.

To assume that Kelly's identity is of any importance is to embrace the fact that her murderer (and thus probably the Ripper) was a shadow of her past who came back to haunt her. What if she was a randomly chosen victim after all?

[Graham]

Hi Chava!

At last - someone who is also tired of the endless romanticising of MJK. Who was, when all is said and done, a common prostitute. I don't think there is any doubt that she created a 'legend' for herself, maybe basing some aspects of that 'legend' upon things that really did happen to her; maybe basing other aspects courtesy of a fertile imagination. She might have sunk pretty low in life, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she was thick. And I suspect a good deal of her 'legend' was designed to arouse the sympathy of good ole Joe Barnett (and perhaps other admirers) to keep her in the manner to which she was accustomed. I really don't think there is anything to be gained by wading through Welsh mining disasters until you're blue in the face. However, I'll say it again - I would be extremely interested to learn more of Allan E. Jones and his story that she had a daughter, etc. No smoke without fire, and I'd love to know how he came by this.

With respect to her identity, you're right, Chava, in suggesting that this is secondary to finding out who her killer was, but at the same time her identity may well hold the key to locating her killer (see below). For example, I believe it was Barnett who stated that Mary Jane had mentioned to him that she was very much afraid of the Ripper, which to me straightaway suggests that for whatever reason she felt he was after her. Of course, this may well be total nonsense, but worthy of note I think. There was also some tale knocking around that the man who took her to France was on her track.

Over the years there has built up an enormous interest in the woman at 13 Miller's Court, for obvious reasons. In my view much of this has to do with the numerous nose-tapping sages of old who counselled, 'It was all to do with Mary Kelly. Her murder holds the key to Jack the Ripper' and so forth. The Dr Stanley story is an example of this. Maybe there is a spark of truth in these stories, but it's difficult to see how we can extend our knowledge of her idenity without something new to go on. Like bricks without straw.

Cheers,

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

And in my opinion, finding out who she was isn't important.

True, in the scheme of things - but if we ever find Kelly we'd at least be solving one puzzle.

[Chava]

Sam, I think she probably came from Wales somewhere, because she does mention Carmarthen. But I think the rest of it is a sob-story and nothing more.

And in my opinion, finding out who she was isn't important. It's finding out who killed her that's important. The only way her identity comes into play is if the woman murdered in Millers Court isn't Mary Jane Kelly at all. Which I'm not suggesting is the case.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

Long Liz had a similar sob story to Kelly's. She'd lost her husband and golden haired little children in the Princess Alice. Do we give that a second's worth of credibility? Do we hell.

The Princess Alice incident was a disaster that occurred on a named vessel in London, and was well known at the time. Kelly's story is of an accident at an unnamed mine - but that may well have been a typical "down on me luck" sob-story.

As to the wider picture - whilst I have little doubt that Kelly's story is riddled with fabrication - why on earth does she mention Carmarthen/Caernarfon (or something like it) in the first place? It's not as if such places were "up there" in working-class consciousness at the time - at least, not to the extent that London, Liverpool or even Cardiff would have been... or Paris, for that matter.

It is the very banality of Carmarthen/Caernarfon that might lend her story at least a little credence. And it ain't because I'm Welsh - if she'd said "Walsall" or "Scunthorpe" I'd think the same.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Simon!

Yes, it is a fiction. And probably it was a cover-up.

But - I don't know, who said this, but it's a brilliant sentense anyway - "the best lie is almost true!"

All the best
Jukka