Kellys in the Scots Guards

[PaulB]

Hello Mr. Begg. "Miss Worth" was one of Sir Ed's agents. She worked out of Soho. When her partner, Llewelyn Winter, was about to be pinched, he fled to France. Perhaps she fled with him.

Wish I knew who she REALLY was.

Cheers.
LC

Ah, you rang bells. I couldn't get Mr Ed out of my mind. But Sir Ed and his network is a mystery in desperate need of historical elucidation. I'll dig a little, but I guess digging has been done already..
Paul

[PaulB]

It's a pity the main post mortem records didn't survive as that would probably answer the question.

Indeed, but it's odd that no papers about Kelly worth mentioning have survived. Maybe it was just a nice big file that offered itself for pulping or something.

[Debra A]

Indeed, but it's odd that no papers about Kelly worth mentioning have survived. Maybe it was just a nice big file that offered itself for pulping or something.

I hope it was 'or something' then it might turn up again somewhere.

[Garry Wroe]

It's not only odd that no member of her family turned up for her funeral, it's strange that her family wasn't identified in the local press and that we don't even have reports of people mistakenly thinking Kelly was their daughter or sister.

Agreed, Paul. Stranger still, to my way of thinking, is the total absence of non-familial informants. Whilst it might be argued that the family remained silent in order to avoid the disgrace of a wayward daughter or sister, friends and associates from Kelly’s pre-London existence would have had no such qualms. And yet not a single one of these people came forward. This fact alone ought to be telling us something.

And I would have thought that the police would have made inquiries with the 2nd Battalion Scots Guards, and, if they did, it must be assumed that they failed to identify Kelly's brother in its ranks.

According to several news reports this was indeed the case.

I'd have thought, too, that the police would have searched out Mrs Carthy, Mrs Buki, Fleming and Morganstone, and done all they could to establish Kelly's background, it being conceivable that her murderer was someone from her past.

Agreed. But then the problem is that the preponderance of information possessed by these individuals had emanated from Kelly herself. If Kelly had lied to them, any information they did have would have been false.

I therefore feel that we must allow for eventualities such as Kelly's family having written her off - it happens - or that by 1888 were dead or infirm or untraceable or emigrated.

But we can’t have it both ways, Paul. We can’t on the one hand cite the father and brother’s visits and the mother’s Irish correspondence as proof of Kelly’s claimed antecedents, whilst on the other concluding that the family’s failure to come forward is indicative that she had been discarded. The two positions are mutually exclusive.

Or maybe everything Kelly said was true, but that her name wasn't Kelly. Aliases appear to have been far from uncommon.

True. But the Irish correspondent knew her as Mary Kelly – which is why I have long been arguing that this person could not have been a family member.

The possible permutations are many, and whilst it is perfectly understandable if some people think some or all are over-stretching reasonableness or even straying into fantasy, they leave open the possibility that the story of Kelly being visited by her brother, of her father searching for her, of her receiving letters from Ireland, should not be too quickly dismissed.

With respect, though, Paul, perhaps the real problem is that such elements have been too readily accepted, irrespective of the reality that they fail to withstand critical scrutiny.

[Garry Wroe]

Huh? There's no way of telling, and there's a lot of meat on that table.

Stout women tend to have larger calves and fleshy upper arms, Michael, neither of which are evident from the crime scene photograph.

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks, Garry. I wasn't aware that Prater had given a description of Mary, too.

The Star's edition of 10 November contained this, Debra: 'Elizabeth Prater, a married woman, who has been deserted by her husband, knew Kelly well, she told a Star reporter, "She lived in No. 13 room, and mine is No. 20, which IS ALMOST OVER HERS. She was about 23 years old. I have known her since July - since I came to lodge here. She was tall and pretty, and as fair as a lily."'

There are others besides, though I can't direct you to them at present.

[Garry Wroe]

I'm not sure but I noted that the papers that didn't mention false teeth in the description were all worded exactly the same, probably from the same source? But, there appear to be two differently worded reports that mention false teeth? One says "two false teeth in her upper jaw" but doesn't mention the protrusion, and then I'm sure there's a version that says something like 'two false front teeth that protruded over her lip.' it's an odd thing for a journalist (or two) to invent?

I recall yet another version in which it was stated that the false teeth were wooden!

[PaulB]

Agreed, Paul. Stranger still, to my way of thinking, is the total absence of non-familial informants. Whilst it might be argued that the family remained silent in order to avoid the disgrace of a wayward daughter or sister, friends and associates from Kelly’s pre-London existence would have had no such qualms. And yet not a single one of these people came forward. This fact alone ought to be telling us something.

Well, of course, what's being batted about here is that the descriptions of Kelly are many and varied, so it's questionable whetheranyone, firends or family alike, would have recognised her!

According to several news reports this was indeed the case.


Agreed. But then the problem is that the preponderance of information possessed by these individuals had emanated from Kelly herself. If Kelly had lied to them, any information they did have would have been false.

Indeed. That's what we're trying to figure out though.

But we can’t have it both ways, Paul. We can’t on the one hand cite the father and brother’s visits and the mother’s Irish correspondence as proof of Kelly’s claimed antecedents, whilst on the other concluding that the family’s failure to come forward is indicative that she had been discarded. The two positions are mutually exclusive.

Yes, if they are strictly the case. Maybe there were reasons - if the family emigrated to Dodge City then the father may have come looking for her to let her know. Or maybe that visit was the last throw of the dice before he wiped his hands of her completely. Or maybe he was dying and wanted concilation. Or maybe...

True. But the Irish correspondent knew her as Mary Kelly – which is why I have long been arguing that this person could not have been a family member.


With respect, though, Paul, perhaps the real problem is that such elements have been too readily accepted, irrespective of the reality that they fail to withstand critical scrutiny.

I don't think they have, though, Gary. Accounts of Kelly's life are always prefaced by saying that it's all second-hand, derived from what she told Barnett and other associates. And we've all spent considerable chunks of our lives struggling to identify her, in my case since the 1970s. We've all come to the conclusion that Kelly's story is highly questionable and even an invention, but the over-riding question is how much and which bits. Once it is accepted that it is all a fabrication, that'll be it as far as Kelly's past is concerned. It'll be a closed book. Darkness. The end of speculation and theorising, not a blank canvas onto which any imagined new background can be drawn. Her past will be a nothing, a blank.

[Garry Wroe]

Well, of course, what's being batted about here is that the descriptions of Kelly are many and varied, so it's questionable whetheranyone, firends or family alike, would have recognised her!

But that's my point, Paul. They would have recognized her had they known her to have been living in the East End under the name of Mary Kelly. And that would have been the case if her father and brother had managed to find her, and her mother was corresponding with her.

[Garry Wroe]

Yes, if they are strictly the case. Maybe there were reasons - if the family emigrated to Dodge City then the father may have come looking for her to let her know. Or maybe that visit was the last throw of the dice before he wiped his hands of her completely. Or maybe he was dying and wanted concilation. Or maybe...

But such criteria do not apply to the friends and associates from Kelly's pre-London existence, Paul.

[PaulB]

I recall yet another version in which it was stated that the false teeth were wooden!

That's the answer then. She was George Washington in drag...

[Garry Wroe]

Accounts of Kelly's life are always prefaced by saying that it's all second-hand, derived from what she told Barnett and other associates.

Er, maybe you need to conduct a review of the literature, Paul. Not everyone is as even-handed as your good self.

[Garry Wroe]

That's the answer then. She was George Washington in drag...

Well, the wooden teeth might explain the roaring fire as described by Abberline ...

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Mrs Buki, a former landlady of Mary Kelly who lived off the Ratcliffe Highway and helped retrieve Kelly's box containing numerous costly dresses from a French lady's house in Knighsbridge, remains elusive, with not one census entry under this name, nor any birth, marriage or death.

It was therefore concluded some time ago that either Mrs. Buki and her involvement with Kelly was a complete invention by the apparently well-informed Mrs Phoenix [who was not called to the inquest], or her name as reported had been misspelt.

However, could Mrs Buki have been married to this chap?





Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

But such criteria do not apply to the friends and associates from Kelly's pre-London existence, Paul.

No, it doesn't. But would they have recognised her from the published descritpions, such as they are?