mjks real name

[ianincleveland]

There could be another reason whyn they dont appear in census records.MJKs parents if Marys age in 1888 is right(even roughly) would have been alive during the Famine.They could have easily seen half their families killed.

Many of the survivors retained a hate of the British Crown and certain politicans,though in general they managed to seperate ordinary people from the rulers.

In Ireland to not fill in a census form was a form of quiet protest at British rule.My Grandmothers Father was Irish and he never filled one in either,though i believe my great gran filled in her details and rest of the family bit not her husband.

So maybe the Kellys as survivors of the Famine years avoided the Crowns census,and maybe this was something a young MJK in 1881 carried on.

Its just my theory and have no definite proof of it but its a suggestion

[DVV]

Hi Ian,

that's an excellent suggestion.
At least, you just show that the problem we have re the censuses doesn't necessarily mean MJK was an assumed name.

Amitiés,
David

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Ian!

A great piece of info indeed, thank you!

All the best
Jukka

[evilina]

Of course, it could be that her real name was Marie Jeanette not Mary Jane and her husband's name was Davie (ie David) anything you like??

[evilina]

what a pity that the Jeannette Davies i found in Camarthanshire Wales (daughter of John) was still alive in 1891 - not a pity for her of course!

[Suzi]

Thanks for your support Chris and some good points there Ian.
Have got this dark idea lurking in the back of my mind- which I reckon to be the truth though- All we have is what Joe spluttered out at the inquest- and all we have I must stress is what HE said that Mary (!) told HIM- To be honest at the very best it's 'Hearsay' Can you imagine how this would sit in a court today!

If there's anyone in history who had the ability to disappear- 'M.J.K' did it- big time!!!

[Suzi]

what a pity that the Jeannette Davies i found in Camarthanshire Wales (daughter of John) was still alive in 1891 - not a pity for her of course!

I know
- all this MJK- Mary-Marie-Jeannette Davis- Davies -Mine accidents etc etc is just sadly without credence-- possibly all the Ireland/Carmarthen/Cardiff stuff may be equally dubious.

But when we get to the Breezers Hill/Mrs Buki etc etc things start to fall into 'some' sort of place but still it doesn't feel right to me-

Now when the Mc Carthys- a STRONG Irish family- even today- (all of them- and there were a LOT!) get involved ( and they seem to get 'involved' a LOT! ) there appears to be some sort of cohesion to the later parts of the story- she seems to have no problem getting involved with them in one way or another- (accomodation with no questions asked/lodgings etc etc ) and then we get what she allegedly told Joe- that he spouted at the cut short inquest (if you believe any of that!).
At the end of the day it is only Barnett's account!

'Read to me Joe'- really???.... something from the creature who was allegedly 'well educated and could speak Welsh and paint' etc etc Hmmmmm

Off on one now! (sorry!)

Come in Chris!!

Lizzie Fisher ....I may be 'fishing' at this point- but I still can't dismiss her or Lizzie Albrook et al (excuse the puns please! :/)

Even today if I moved to another town and called myself Mary Kelly moved into the community and re-made myself etc etc who would know any difference? (I'd choose another name though!)

I she was Mary Jane Kelly -She may as well be Sweet Fanny Adams -who's buried 20 miles up the road from me here in Alton!!

[jason_c]

Thanks for your support Chris and some good points there Ian.
Have got this dark idea lurking in the back of my mind- which I reckon to be the truth though- All we have is what Joe spluttered out at the inquest- and all we have I must stress is what HE said that Mary (!) told HIM- To be honest at the very best it's 'Hearsay' Can you imagine how this would sit in a court today!

If there's anyone in history who had the ability to disappear- 'M.J.K' did it- big time!!!

I do believe that Kelly likely told Barnett what he subsequently told the inquest. He was first on the stand at the inquest, and he had no idea if Kelly's acquaintances would tell a different story from him altogether.

Wether Kelly told Barnett the truth is another matter entirely.

[Suzi]

Hi Jason-

I'm sure Joe said just what Mary had told him- what else could he have said?- He had nothing else in his head re the woman he'd lived with for 18 mnths (Odd in itself but if there was such a large secret I reckon 'Mary' (!) would have kept that for EVER and never mentioned a word- she wanted to keep that Joe- and probably have the odd visit from the Flemming boy!!!)...

In that case at the inquest he told what he thought was his 'truth'-I guess he had no reason to think otherwise- if he believed her- well that's another story- they rowed over a few weeks/months- a few broken windows etc etc but hey....

All he could speak of at the short inquest was what he was told in the story Mary (!) told him

Odd tho....

[Maggyann]

How definite can we be on e.g. when MJK turned up in Whitechapel/London. I know there is the 'tale' of her being in a brothel - going to France - picking up dresses - etc but the people who came forward to agree this part of the story did they actually view the body? Do we have proof that they are talking about the same female?
Is it not possible that the furthest back we can look with any real certainty is to her meeting with Joseph Barnett and again do we only have his word for when they met? Is it possible that the story of the time prior to that was someone else's life that MJK adopted? Just like her name is an adopted one.

A female in a new area with an adopted name and a basically unverifiable history seems to point to a female with a lot to hide. This makes working out who she was a real conundrum she could have been anybody.

[Chris Scott]

My own opinion is that in outline the orthodox version as we have it from Barnett and, marginally, from others has come down to us as it was told to him by Kelly. My reason for thinking this is that the outline of the story is there in the police statement that Barnett made on the day of the murder. If Barnett made up the story (and what motive would he have for doing so? why not just say he did not know about her past and she would have remained as obscure as Mckenzie, for example?) then he did a remarkably detailed and inventive job at a very harrowing time. If, like me, you believe that not only did Barnett play no part in Kelly's murder, but he was genuinely fond of her, maybe even in love with her - then 9 November would certainly have been a day when his miond was not functioning normally to put it mildly.
So my opinion is that the story we have has come, certainly in its major part, from Kelly herself. That brings us no nearer to verifying or disproving any of it, of course.
My opinion, again for what it is worth, is that every detail of the story bar one may be true - and that "bar one" if, of course, her real name. Change that one feature and the whole story becomes - evidentially - not worth the paper it is written on as none of it can be checked.
The ONLY feature which, if true, would offer a very feeble gleam of hope would be her legal marriage. But that would entail following the marital history of every Davies who died in a mining explosion in (roughly) 1881 or 1882 and being able to trace the subsequent lives of their young widows.
I do not want to deter anyone from trying to trace some detail about Kelly and I am not saying that, to quote, "that way madness lies!" I am simply saying that any putative identification of the woman who died in Millers Court is not only unproven but, in the light of presently available information, unprovable. But who knows what lies around the corner??? Perhaps very soon...

[Suzi]

Thanks for coming in here Chris!

Exactly- all we have is Barnett's comments- all of which allegedly came from Mary- again all we have is his word for this- I imagine this is what happened though- as you say he wouldn't have been in the frame of mind to be making stuff up at that point!
As to alleged marriage- IMHO it's going to be all but impossible to track 'Mary' through any sort of marriage/mining disaster or whatever-even if she ever originated from Limerick and followed the Carmarthen/Cardiff trail etc to London- she could have been anyone!!!.......Seriously infuriating I know- but reckon it's going to stay that way- unless they 'have up' those bones in Leytonstone- whoever they may belong to ! Can we even be sure that they belong to our 'Mary'- (Going to start them all off now I know! ).....and if they do 'get 'em up- will it prove anything??- who they going to match them against??.....ah! there's a point... The Mc Carthy grave close by....hmmmmm

Exactly- That way madness lies......

[Chris Scott]

Many thanks for the message Suzi and in response to the PM I had, the quote - "that way madness lies" comes from Shakespeare's "King Lear."

[Suzi]

He he I know- Could have been 'Casebook' though 'eh!!!

Mind you- Hamlet-' Though this be madness,yet there be method in't'

Great 'eh! There again we have the good book (!) telling us ( She says with The 'Oxford book of Quotations' on her knees!) - 'Too much learning doth make thee mad'!!.. Never stops us though 'eh!!!

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris, Suzi, all,

But who knows what lies around the corner??? Perhaps very soon...

I saw that little hint... I really hope you get this sorted out once and for all Chris, as you, before many, deserve to be the one who finally traces this elusive lady...IF she existed that is..

And I agree with you when you say..

...any putative identification of the woman who died in Millers Court is not only unproven but, in the light of presently available information, unprovable.

Sadly, that is exactly where we lie.

best wishes

Phil