MKJ murder, NOT mjk?

[Chava]

I agree with you, Chava...and have trawled the same darned lists and followed all sorts of wild hunches. I suppose, though, that some of the need, such as it is (at least in my case), to put some ticks next to some basic information about Mary comes simply from a desire to give her something of a life, rather than just a barbaric death. At the very least, we know some basic facts about the others of the C5, and most of the other possible victims--I don't like the romanticisation of Mary any more than you, but I do wish we could offer her something definite to remember her for than her murder alone.

That's an excellent post and a very good point. We do know more about the others and we know nothing about her. I believe it's because she was living under an alias and had done so for a while. I don't know her reasons for this, but it means that her family probably had no idea that she was dead. The letters she appears to have received from a soldier may have been from a former lover rather than a brother, so that may go nowhere either.

Sadly, she is remembered for who she said she was. I suspect that some family somewhere has a tradition of a cousin or an aunt who ran off and was never heard of again and who was thought to have gone to America or whatever. And that will be MJK.

[claire]

I agree with you, Chava...and have trawled the same darned lists and followed all sorts of wild hunches. I suppose, though, that some of the need, such as it is (at least in my case), to put some ticks next to some basic information about Mary comes simply from a desire to give her something of a life, rather than just a barbaric death. At the very least, we know some basic facts about the others of the C5, and most of the other possible victims--I don't like the romanticisation of Mary any more than you, but I do wish we could offer her something definite to remember her for than her murder alone.

[Chava]

The other possibility is that she told, mainly, the truth--but that these things are just extraordinarily hard to trace. There are things that she said that seem to play out (2nd Btn Scots' Gds in Ireland, for eg.), and others that we can't definitively link her to. Personally, I don't think her account of herself was that glamorous; whereas it's possible she invented or embellished some elements of it, I don't think we should take it for granted with this attitude of, oh come on, a poor Irish/Welsh whore, how would she go to France? The fact is, much of what she described is perfectly plausible, just as it is plausible that an attractive woman in her mid-twenties could fall for the drink and not be fit for work anywhere other than the East End.

No, we haven't found the definitive answer on who Mary Kelly absolutely is, as far as we know. But there are candidates aplenty, and we shouldn't excuse our failings, or the paucity of records, by suggesting that MJK's account of herself was all BS.

MJK is someone who may or may not have invented herself when she left Cardiff. (That's if she ever lived in Cardiff!) Absent the ability to cross-examine her in person, we will never know if the name she lived under was the name she was born with or married into. I've been over and over that Welsh minding disaster and can't find any candidates, but that's not to say her young love didn't fall down a shaft or got banged on the head or caught an infection in a wound acquired in an explosion. Or maybe he did indeed die in one of the terrible mining accidents that killed so many men, and we've missed him. Or Barnett got the name wrong. Or whatever.

I'll live with never knowing more about MJK than I do now. But I don't like the tendency to the romantic that I see here and in other places. No one seems to shed tears over the blighted lives of the other, older, less attractive victims. They are accepted as the low-level prostitutes and drunks that they appear to be. Yet MJK is perhaps someone who loves to sing! Who gets into character in order to belt out her ditty to poor and perhaps murderous Blotchy Face. I can't remember anyone writing about how good poor Catherine Eddowes was at imitations. But I imagine her turn as a fire-engine was at least as accomplished as MJK's rendition of Victorian parlour songs.

[Abby Normal]

hi,
given that at least two witnesses claimed to have conversed with MJK from 8am onwards and that there were reports of people hearing someone scream 'murder' how likely is it that MJK let another prostitute use her room? MJK could of been the one to scream 'murder' upon finding the scene, she also may of recognised an oportunity to vanish? While i doubt that the identity of the victim has much bearing on the case I do wonder if it was indeed MJK at all. I'd be very surprised if anyone could seriously identify the body after such extreme mutilations.

I thought I read somewhere that the 2 witnesses in the morning may have been talking about a different mary kelly?

[Robert]

There is yet another possibility, and that is that it wasn't the real Miller's Court - just a cardboard replica.

[claire]

The other possibility is that she told, mainly, the truth--but that these things are just extraordinarily hard to trace. There are things that she said that seem to play out (2nd Btn Scots' Gds in Ireland, for eg.), and others that we can't definitively link her to. Personally, I don't think her account of herself was that glamorous; whereas it's possible she invented or embellished some elements of it, I don't think we should take it for granted with this attitude of, oh come on, a poor Irish/Welsh whore, how would she go to France? The fact is, much of what she described is perfectly plausible, just as it is plausible that an attractive woman in her mid-twenties could fall for the drink and not be fit for work anywhere other than the East End.

No, we haven't found the definitive answer on who Mary Kelly absolutely is, as far as we know. But there are candidates aplenty, and we shouldn't excuse our failings, or the paucity of records, by suggesting that MJK's account of herself was all BS.

[Rubyretro]

[

QUOTE=Bob Hinton;140191]Or it was just another drunk singing a maudlin song

.

AAww..poor Mary ! It can be sincere and romantic and maudlin drunk at the same time : We can be generous.

The main thing is -yes, I agree that she probably wove fantasies, which make it nigh on impossible to trace her from the MJK end (but traces might exist somewhere , if ever we could guess where to begin looking, and then could link the ends).

[Bob Hinton]

[



Call this an 'insight' if you want..

I have always been very touched by Mary looking forward to singing ballads to Blotchy whilst enjoying a few beers ; Lots of people enjoy a singalong in a group with musicians in a pub environment, but singing alone in front of an audience (even one man), implies that she particularly enjoyed singing - and people that enjoy singing alone are usually good at it..

Being good at singing that type of ballad means being an actress and getting into 'character' and 'living' those stories -so many of which involve
dead husbands, disasters, rural Ireland and exotic luxurious 'french' details..
all with a florid melancholic romanticism.

I think that she was inspired by the ballads that she sung to weave fantasies
that would give her 'performances' even more power and pathos..

Or it was just another drunk singing a maudlin song. How many times has
Danny Boy ( The Londonderry Air) been sung by drunks in pubs? I would suggest more times than sung on a stage.

The fact is that there were an awful lot of children in those days who literally slipped through the cracks, you can compare them with children in places like Somalia today.

One day they wake up with no parents, no relatives nothing. Now given a choice in years to come don't you think that they would fabricate for themselves a life of tragedy and pathos to explain their present situation. Much better than simply admitting that sometimes horrible things happen to nice people.

Who has not constructed for themselves a more glamorous past when dissalusioned with reality? Look at Charles Hawtrey!

[Rubyretro]

[

You say “. Should we not, by now, have found something out about the disaster that killed her husband to give just one example”. Yes possibly IF the story she told was true – which in all likelihood was not but simply a “sympathy getter”.

Call this an 'insight' if you want..

I have always been very touched by Mary looking forward to singing ballads to Blotchy whilst enjoying a few beers ; Lots of people enjoy a singalong in a group with musicians in a pub environment, but singing alone in front of an audience (even one man), implies that she particularly enjoyed singing - and people that enjoy singing alone are usually good at it..

Being good at singing that type of ballad means being an actress and getting into 'character' and 'living' those stories -so many of which involve
dead husbands, disasters, rural Ireland and exotic luxurious 'french' details..
all with a florid melancholic romanticism.

I think that she was inspired by the ballads that she sung to weave fantasies
that would give her 'performances' even more power and pathos..

[Bob Hinton]

Is that so?

It seems to me - and I am no genealogical researcher - that a great deal HAS been found out about a HUGE range of Eastenders of the 1888 period. OK, there may be confusion between a couple of contenders for a named individual - such as Barnett; or we may be surprised by what we find (Joe Fleming) but we find something.

With MJK almost everything seems to run up against a blank whether one researches the Welsh or Irish sources. Should we not, by now, have found something out about the disaster that killed her husband to give just one example.

Further, not one member of her family is recorded as attending her funeral or commenting on her death. That was not so with other victims.

Even with Liz Stride, who may have been a serial liar (the Princess Alice disaster, fate of her husband, children etc) and may also have assumed various alternative identies to make money, this has been uncovered.

On which basis, I believe it is reasonable to assume that there is something "odd" about MJK's story, even her identity. Until we know more, it is safe to assume that others will use the vacuum as a place to weave yet more conspiracy theories - making her a nurse to this person, or a friend of that, a model for Sickert or a Fenian agent (my "tipple" where MJK is concerned).

So while there may be mysteries in the East End, I think that there is something exceptional about MJK in the context of the investigations and researches in which we are interested - and that's all that matters, isn't it?

Phil

I quite accept the fact you are not a genealogical researcher. Your statement that “that a great deal HAS been found out about a HUGE range of Eastenders of the 1888 period.” is simply not so. A very few facts have been found out about a minute amount of people. These facts have been discovered in the main because they had family or close friends who could provide leads.

You are basing your statement on the lack of information about MJK by saying all leads seem to come to a dead end. What leads? We have absolutely nothing at all on MJK other than what came from her in the first place. So if she was a fantasist, which does seem very likely, then you have absolutely nothing to go on.

Let me give you an example. If you go on my Facebook page you have a load of information about me, my name, age, birth date, where I went to school etc. However if you tried to research me through that information you would get nowhere because it is all completely false. There’s nothing mysterious about me, I’m not the subject of some great conspiracy, it’s just that the information I have given the world is wrong.

How many John and Jane Does end up in morgues all over the world every day simply because we have no information to establish their identity – even with all the massive technology we have at our disposal. There’s nothing sinister in that it’s simply we don’t know where to start.

You say “. Should we not, by now, have found something out about the disaster that killed her husband to give just one example”. Yes possibly IF the story she told was true – which in all likelihood was not but simply a “sympathy getter”.

Just imagine MJK was an orphan, brought up in a workhouse and on the streets at 13. She may not even know her own real name or story so constructs one for herself. How much would you find out about her if she was alive? Now think how much more difficult it would be if she were dead.

[Bob Hinton]

Wth

I am well aware of the damn title bob, i was just stating my opinion sheesh, there was no need to come down on me like that. forgive me for stating my opinion yeesh.

You need to lighten up a bit dear. My post, at least the first part was what they call 'tongue in cheek'.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]I think that (as someone already pointed out) there is something in the human psychology that likes a mystery, and wants historical characters( that they have put a face to) to have survived the worst..

Two examples would be Anastasia, daughter of the last Russian Tsar
(a great debate in my childhood, and now definitely proved to be false), and
the Princes in the Tower ('they were moved to Burgundy under an assumed name'). There are many more examples but, for me, they fall into 'Urban Myth' category.

If the body of MJK was identified by Joe, a man who knew her intimately, as well as other people -then I think that they were most PROBABLY right.

Imagine for a few horrible minutes that your beloved child or partner had been hacked about by JtR in the same way as MJK had been -wouldn't YOU be able to identify them by their eyes/ears/hair etc ?? I'm sure that I could.

The next question is -why were there no members of Mary's family at her funeral, nor relatives who came forward to claim her to the Press ? Well perhaps it would have been a monumental effort for them to have left animals or crops (if they were rural) and to have found the money and wherewithal to have got to London and back ,from Wales or Ireland ?

They might also have not wanted to 'besmirch the Family', if Mary had been described as indulging in alcohol and prostitution, by the papers.

Also, as to the traceability of 'ordinary East Enders' - I think that it all depends on wher e you begin. I know that my cousin, whose hobby is the genealogy of my Mother's family, has unearthed an awful lot of information (working from New Zealand) on the ordinary people in our family (including some East Enders). She had family information and the family information supplied by other members of our 'Tree' (that she met through her research)as clues. So it all depends on your point of departure.

I know that, concerning the Welsh family members, there was an awful lot of info written into Bible fly leaves.

So the biographical details of MJK may still be there, just waiting to be unearthed....

[harry]

I would agree with Bob Hinton that in those days,the majority would leave little in the way of who and what they had been.Take the Victoria Home.Hundreds might have passed time there,but except maybe for a few lists of names,there would be nothing.Thats just one example,and Whitechapel alone had many,if smaller establishments of that kind.Even today,a person may know little of his neighbours.Had Kelly been born and lived most of her life in the district,there would have been more who were familiar with her,but she wasn't.

[Limehouse]

I am well aware of the damn title bob, i was just stating my opinion sheesh, there was no need to come down on me like that. forgive me for stating my opinion yeesh.

Take no notice Sara. We all make typing errors and in most cases we can read around them and understand what was intended. You must keep on posting as your ideas and views are valuable and interesting.

Julie

[Limehouse]

Basically I have come to perceive a close similarity between the murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes - outdoors, almost identical mutilations - perhaps growing slightly worse - always against wooden fencing or gates where the victim appears to have led him. The type of woman too - faded, drunk, desperate is very much the same.

Stride I have come to see as a domestic - the murder much more readily explained if Kidney killed her because she had left him for another man - probably Jewish. Her murder scene was too public, she was not drunk (for once in her life) and she was assaulted and thrown to the ground in the presence of witnesses. Dutfield's Yard was too open, potentially too busy. Also the murder was the wrong side of Whitechapel Road.

Finally, I had never been happy with the idea of a frantic Ripper seeking another victim and finding Eddowes.

So the idea that not all the "canonical" killings were the work of JtR was familiar to me when I came to look at MJK afresh.

I find a different sort of victim (age, type, looks), a different scene (a room) different mutilations, and a long gap from Eddowes. I think MJK's killer could have been "inspired" by Jack, and perhaps tried to emulate him without knowing what Jack had done.

To my mind, the killer of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes would never have allowed himself to be "trapped" in a room - there was no other way out except the door. I have always thought that Hanbury St was risky for him - potentially hemmed in, but just possibly he might have been there before, and cased the joint, as it were. I don't think that was true of Miller's Court.

Also, if Barnett is to be believed, MJK was frightened of something or someone. (I don't think, on the evidence I have seen so far, that Barnett killed her, by the way - it just does not convince me.)

My mind is open to the idea that MJK might have been caught up in something "political" (Fenian probably) and even that she might have lived and another been killed in her place - accidentally or purposefully.

So - while my current state of mind might not persuade others - I am open to the possibility that more than one killer was at work (indeed, if you reckon the parallel torso murders and the stabber of Tabram etc, there were probably multiple killers at work in late 1888) and indeed to other possibilities in regard to MJK.

I rest my case,

Phil

Food for thought indeed Phil, but it's worth considering that Peter Sutcliffe, to my mind a similar type of attacker, attacked women from the age of 16 to 47. He attacked most women outdoors but one of his vicitms was killed in her own flat. Most of his victims were killed by hammer blows to the head but one was strangled. In some cases he mutilated victims but not in all cases and the mutilations seemed quite randome (possibly because he did not always have the same tools with him and he may have sometimes had opportunities to attacke presented to him that were unexpected.

Killer cannot always follow a pattern because vicitms do not always present themselves at the time and place suited to the attacker.

JtR was, I believe, working with the opportunities as they presented themselves. It is generally right to conclude that the severity of the attacks increased from Nicholls to Chapman to Eddowes. This could be because the attacker's confidence and 'skill' were increasing (it is difficult to drag a knife through skin, muscle etc) but also because the murder locations of Chapman and Eddowes were 'somewhat' isolated compared with Bucks Row (although still enormopusly risky for what he achieved).

However, I agree to some extent that Kelly's room was risky in that if cought, he was trapped. However, compared with other the other locations, Kelly's room presented considerable opportunity to perform the extreme level of mutilation that the attacker aspired to.

Stride? I have mixed feelings but I am more inclined these days to conclude that it was a domestic-type attack, probably not ripper related.