Relatives

[Limehouse]

From my own family research on my mum's side, I have found Mary Jane and Mary Anne cropping up quite frequently and they were not Catholics. As for three first names, I found the boys quite frequently had three first names. The older boys tended to be named after their father, then the next two boys after each grandfather, and then after parent's brothers or uncles and so on. My great grandfather, the eleventh and last child, was named Samuel George Joseph whereas his older brother was named George Samuel Henry. Crazy!

[Archaic]

Saint Jane

Hi Bridewell.

I know of at least one Catholic saint named Jane: Saint Jane de Chantal. My family is Catholic, and my great-great Aunt Sadie born in the 1880's was christened "Sarah Jane", so I don't think the middle name "Jane" would have been precluded in Mary Kelly's day. (By the way, my Aunt Sadie lived to be 107 years old- just think what she must have seen! There are so many questions I wish I could ask her now.)

Mary Jane Kelly may well have lived under an assumed name. Maybe she used her real first name and an assumed last name, or maybe the entire name was assumed; who knows?

In my experience confirmation names are seldom used except on church-related documents, such as marriage certificates. I've also seen them on diplomas from Catholic universities.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Bridewell]

Jane?

Hi Kat.

It's actually at Confirmation that Catholics take on an additional name. But I agree with you, that's the most likely reason that a Catholic would seem to have two "middle" names.

Best regards,
Archaic

MJK had (supposedly) only one middle name though - & an unlikely choice for a saint's name in Jane? Wouldn't Jane Mary make more sense in this context? It sounds more and more like an alias to me.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Archaic]

Hi Kat.

It's actually at Confirmation that Catholics take on an additional name. But I agree with you, that's the most likely reason that a Catholic would seem to have two "middle" names.

Best regards,
Archaic

[KatBradshaw]

Just wanted to add my two penneth worth about Henry John Joseph's name. Lets not forget that Catholics take on a saints name when they recieve their first holy communion. He may have been Henry John for family and Joseph added after his communion.

[KatBradshaw]

I have that the picture of Mary's alleged sister certainly looks like an Irish woman to me.

[Chris Scott]

Events have moved quickly today - I have received the OK to post the alleged Kelly image and have started a new thread
I have told you all that I know as provided to me - the only material still held back is the full image of the Kelly family at the sender's request
I hold no commitment to the truth or otherwise of the claims made and that is why I wanted to post it openly even if it means that it transpires that I have been hoaxed or my informant is genuinely mistaken.
My apologies to the handful of people I sent the image to earlier but having been given the OK to post openly I thought it best to do so as qucikly as possible.
Chris

[Chris Scott]

It's like Willy Wonka! Whoever has the Golden ostrich plume gets to see the oompa loompas.

Mike

Nobody is getting to see my oompa loompas!!!

[The Good Michael]

It's like Willy Wonka! Whoever has the Golden ostrich plume gets to see the oompa loompas.

Mike

[Chris Scott]

I was contacted today by the lady who sent me the alleged Kelly pic and she has agreed that - although she absolutely does NOT want the image posted on a public forum - I can send it to a small number of people to see and get their reaction.
I hate to do things this way - all this cloak and dagger stuff is alien to me and I like to be open with material - but I do feel obliged to honour her wishes in this as she was under no obligation to send the image to me.
I am sending the image to 3 people ( a completely arbitrary figure) and will be interested to see their reactions which I have asked them to post here.
As I emphasised to the people I sent this to I hold no brief for the authenticity of this image for or against - if I had my way I would post it openly and let folks make of it what they would.
Please bear with me in this protracted business.
Chris

[Robert]

We have here a woman with a deformed ear, remarkable hair, and possibly buck teeth and remarkable eyes. Yet she's a mystery. Oh well.

[lynn cates]

confirmation

Hello Miss Marple.

"With her background I find that impossible to believe."

Well, have we confirmation as yet regarding any of Barnett's story about MJK?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Maybe Barnett said "her rear"...?

Fisherman

[Debra A]

Joseph Barnett could not possibly identified Mary by her ears as in Dr Bond's post mortem report.
Her ears had been partly cut off. This is fact.
Barnett probably said 'air' instead of in a cockney accent. Her hair was her most identifiable feature.

I was thinking a bit about this last night after I posted a link to SPE's post.
It was officially recorded at the inquest that Barnett said ear, there's no doubt about that we can see it in the document posted by SPE, and official documentation should take precedence over newspaper reports as Stewart rightly says. But, I must confess, I did wonder myself if it could still have been misheard and recorded wrongly, even by an official?Was inquest testimony written down by someone listening to the evidence and taking it down as it was given?
It must have been difficult to distinguish what Barnett said otherwise we wouldn't get the same mistake being made in the newspaper inquest reportings would we? Some reporters heard ear, some hair.

On the other hand, Mary's hair, according to one source, was supposedly a distinguishing feature because of it's extraordinary length. Stewart also posted an account given by someone who attended the inquest who says Barnett elaborated on the ear identification by saying Mary's ears were a peculiar shape. So we have two similar anecdotal sources about two different features of Mary's?

[jason_c]

Joseph Barnett could not possibly identified Mary by her ears as in Dr Bond's post mortem report.
Her ears had been partly cut off. This is fact.
Barnett probably said 'air' instead of in a cockney accent. Her hair was her most identifiable feature.
Beyond that, concentrate on Mary's history, she died in 1888 age 25, She came from a poor working class Irish family who moved to Wales to find work. Her father worked in a mine, she maybe married a miner. If she moved to Cardiff in the early 80s and was in London by 1884. That photo would have to date from very early 80s before her breach from her family when she was a teenager.
So a very poor teenager has a photo taken, wearing fashionable middle class clothes of a fashion some 15 years in the future, loaded down with expensive jewellery.

With her background I find that impossible to believe.
Miss Marple

PS fashion was much slower in Victorian times, women wore the same clothes for years and sometimes' turned' their dresses, which meant when they faded on the outside were resewn with the fabric reversed outside.A working class women from the early eighties would not be wearing those clothes.

The ears being partly cut off does not mean they could not have been recognized by Barnett. We now seem to have multiple sources for this claim.

The rest of your post may be correct. The clothes appear to be a bit out of date at first glance.
We should also remember though Kelly's economic circumstances were more comfortable in the mid-eighties than they were in 1888. Would a high class photographer own certain "outfits" for his clients to wear?