Kellys in the Scots Guards

[Debra A]

Hi Debs,
The reference to the teeth is only mentioned in one newspaper though, isn't it? Otherwise, what descriptions do we possess of Mary Kelly?

Hi Paul.
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 just thought that if it was what was said, it's odd that Barnett didn't identify Mary by something that must have been quite distinctive that couldn't have been damaged by the knife.

[The Good Michael]

Very interesting post, Debra. I only wish that I had the time to address the issues raised in more depth. As for the descriptions of Kelly, Mrs Prater said that she was tall, slender, blue-eyed, lily white, with beautiful long hair. Tellingly, the Phoenix description of Kelly had her as 'stout', a morphology that is not borne out by the Miller's Court crime scene photograph.

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

Mike

[PaulB]

Paul

I have to keep replying to your posts and some may think its a personal but I can assure you its not.

Many posters on here have been trying to prove or disprove everything connected to Kelly and they have come up with virtualy nothing to show that Kelly was her real name and that what she told Barnett was the truth or even near the truth. Now to me and many others that must tell us something.

Yet again though you keep saying that she could have been telling the truth. You have done the same with many other issues and suspects discussed on here over the past few months.

You seem to readily accept what was said written etc way back in 1888 and in the ensuing years was the truth. Can you not accept that what was written,spoken or suggested then may not have been the truth because since then many people have been able to negate much of this. Yet you seem to not want to accept changes to the now old outdated theories.

I thought I had stated very clearly that I am advocating caution before dismissing Kelly's story as a lie by Barnett or by Kelly herself.

[lynn cates]

groups

Hello Mr. Begg. Well, actually the Fenians had their glory years in the 1860's. I prefer to think in terms of "The Irish National Invincibles"--a breakaway group from the "Irish Republican Brotherhood." Another interesting group is "The Triangle"--a breakaway group from the "Clan-na-Gael." The latter are the ones who did Dr. Cronin with an ice axe.

Besides Simon, Norma Buddle is the authority on this subject.

By the way, would you happen to know the true identity of Sir Ed's "Miss Worth"?

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

Hello Mr. Begg.

"Although I have to say that the police may have been following a different line of inquiry as there are peculiarities such as the offer of a reward, the truncated inquest, and so on which collectively might be suggestive, though of what remains to be seen."

Could they possibly suggest her status as a police informer, or one of Sir Ed Jenkinson's offbeat troupe? If she were, and subsequently recognised by someone at the Met, that would explain:

1. The reward.

2. The truncated inquest.

3. The RIC presence.

4. Her fear before the event.

5. Why she needed an elaborate cover story.

6. Why she settled in Whitechapel after West London (Soho).

7. Why Special Branch began listing JTR suspects in their ledger.

8. Why a man answering the description of Red Jim McDermott came to see her. (Blotchy)

9. Why a man answering the description of General Francis Millen came to see her. (A-Man)

As you say, suggestive.

Cheers.
LC

Indeed.

Once upon a time, in a curry house far, far away, a small group which included Simon Wood, idled the time by working out a scenario which connected Mary Kelly with the Fenians. A novel along those lines came a lot later. Funny how idle moments can come circle...

[lynn cates]

suggestive

Hello Mr. Begg.

"Although I have to say that the police may have been following a different line of inquiry as there are peculiarities such as the offer of a reward, the truncated inquest, and so on which collectively might be suggestive, though of what remains to be seen."

Could they possibly suggest her status as a police informer, or one of Sir Ed Jenkinson's offbeat troupe? If she were, and subsequently recognised by someone at the Met, that would explain:

1. The reward.

2. The truncated inquest.

3. The RIC presence.

4. Her fear before the event.

5. Why she needed an elaborate cover story.

6. Why she settled in Whitechapel after West London (Soho).

7. Why Special Branch began listing JTR suspects in their ledger.

8. Why a man answering the description of Red Jim McDermott came to see her. (Blotchy)

9. Why a man answering the description of General Francis Millen came to see her. (A-Man)

As you say, suggestive.

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

Very interesting post, Debra. I only wish that I had the time to address the issues raised in more depth. As for the descriptions of Kelly, Mrs Prater said that she was tall, slender, blue-eyed, lily white, with beautiful long hair. Tellingly, the Phoenix description of Kelly had her as 'stout', a morphology that is not borne out by the Miller's Court crime scene photograph.

So, Mary Kelly was Mary something else, was tall and slender and short and stout and had chameleon hair which changed colour to suite - sounds about par for the course as far as witness descriptions are concerned

[PaulB]

Hi all.
I wonder why there was no official police description given of Mary? Perhaps they weren't that interested in tracing her family after all.
Mrs. Phoenix said the woman who stayed with her brother in law was 5 ft 7 in., had long hair down to her waist, blue eyes and two false front teeth that protruded over her lip. If this were the case why did Barnett have to identify Mary by her ears and eyes? Why not her false protruding teeth?
It seems like it's not the same woman in this case?
Is Mrs Phoenix' description also the sole source of Mary having extremely long distinctive hair? I can't recall if there were others.

Maurice Lewis, who seems to have known what Mary looked like as he gave a statement that he saw her drinking with Dan [Barnett] and Julia on the Thursday night which seems to have been corroborated by Joseph Barnett himself, says she was short, stout and had dark hair.

Hi Debs,
The reference to the teeth is only mentioned in one newspaper though, isn't it? Otherwise, what descriptions do we possess of Mary Kelly?

[Garry Wroe]

Is Mrs Phoenix' description also the sole source of Mary having extremely long distinctive hair? I can't recall if there were others.

Very interesting post, Debra. I only wish that I had the time to address the issues raised in more depth. As for the descriptions of Kelly, Mrs Prater said that she was tall, slender, blue-eyed, lily white, with beautiful long hair. Tellingly, the Phoenix description of Kelly had her as 'stout', a morphology that is not borne out by the Miller's Court crime scene photograph.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
When attempting to put a face/figure to Mary Kelly, we should take into account numerous accounts ie, Maurice Lewis, Caroline Maxwell, and the illustrated police news sketch from people that ''knew the victim''.
It would appear that she was 5'4'' maximum, and stout, with a fair complexion, and distinctive red hair, and not the 5'7'' with waist length hair as portrayed by an alleged ex landlady, the latter most certainly had the wrong person]
It would appear that she was quite attractive, the young Dew, and McCarthy's 14 year old son were of that opinion, and we should not forget she was only in her mid twenties.
As for her brother in the army, it would appear that this indeed was the case, and the police knew where to forward any personal effects, via Mrs McCarthy, so the question remains why can't the recipient be traced?
The wrong name.. possibly, but we clearly have the name Henry, and the surname must have been known, for him to have been found.
I appreciate this is taking the view that Ms Kendall Lane is accurate in her knowledge of this case , handed down directly from descendants that were involved .
She clearly has stated in her small contribution to Casebook, that her great-grandmother[ McCarthy's wife] parcelled up personal belongings of Mary Kelly, and forwarded them on to her army brother, so obviously had a name and address, it is also claimed that a passport was seen[ belonging to the victim] therefore leaving no doubt to the identity that was resident in that room.
So is it not possible that the identity of the brother became extinct from army records, from a compassionate request?
Regards Richard.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Gary,
I agree with you, in principle at least.

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.

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.

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. (Although I have to say that the police may have been following a different line of inquiry as there are peculiarities such as the offer of a reward, the truncated inquest, and so on which collectively might be suggestive, though of what remains to be seen).

Sadly, the official papers relating to the Kelly investigation are practically non-existent (itself a little odd) press interest was waning, speculation exhausted and further diminished by the truncated inquest, so we actually have far less source data to work with than in the previous murders.

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. It is odd that we don't have reports of anyone coming forward from England, Wales or Ireland, fearful that Kelly was their daughter. Didn't anyone with an attractive, buxom, troubled, 25-year-old, and missing daughter think she might have adopted an alias? The silence, understandable given the above, might nevertheless suggest that the family was located and couldn't or didn't want to have anything to do with the daughter who had shamed them.

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

Or maybe it's all true, but Barnet misunderstood and that Kelly was Mary's married name, her husband's forename being Davis (don't forget that Davis can be a forename and a surname in Wales, Davis Davis not being unknown). So if she married a Davis Kelly and Kelly is her married name then we don't have the foggiest idea what her maiden name was (There were a few Davis Kellys around, though none leap out as Mary's husband).

And when all the foregoing is taken into consideration, there are a few vague reports of her family being expected to arrive in London for the funeral. These may have been spurious, or maybe there was something we don't know about.

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.

Paul

I have to keep replying to your posts and some may think its a personal but I can assure you its not.

Many posters on here have been trying to prove or disprove everything connected to Kelly and they have come up with virtualy nothing to show that Kelly was her real name and that what she told Barnett was the truth or even near the truth. Now to me and many others that must tell us something.

Yet again though you keep saying that she could have been telling the truth. You have done the same with many other issues and suspects discussed on here over the past few months.

You seem to readily accept what was said written etc way back in 1888 and in the ensuing years was the truth. Can you not accept that what was written,spoken or suggested then may not have been the truth because since then many people have been able to negate much of this. Yet you seem to not want to accept changes to the now old outdated theories.

[Debra A]

..It is odd that we don't have reports of anyone coming forward from England, Wales or Ireland, fearful that Kelly was their daughter. Didn't anyone with an attractive, buxom, troubled, 25-year-old, and missing daughter think she might have adopted an alias? The silence, understandable given the above, might nevertheless suggest that the family was located and couldn't or didn't want to have anything to do with the daughter who had shamed them.

Hi all.
I wonder why there was no official police description given of Mary? Perhaps they weren't that interested in tracing her family after all.
Mrs. Phoenix said the woman who stayed with her brother in law was 5 ft 7 in., had long hair down to her waist, blue eyes and two false front teeth that protruded over her lip. If this were the case why did Barnett have to identify Mary by her ears and eyes? Why not her false protruding teeth?
It seems like it's not the same woman in this case?
Is Mrs Phoenix' description also the sole source of Mary having extremely long distinctive hair? I can't recall if there were others.

Maurice Lewis, who seems to have known what Mary looked like as he gave a statement that he saw her drinking with Dan [Barnett] and Julia on the Thursday night which seems to have been corroborated by Joseph Barnett himself, says she was short, stout and had dark hair.

[PaulB]

With respect, Paul, we have no corroboration that the man who visited Pennington Street was Kelly’s father, no corroboration that Kelly received letters from her mother or brother, and no corroboration that her brother visited her. What we do have is a series of claims, an overwhelming majority of which emanated from Kelly herself.

This might not be a problem were it not for the fact that Kelly’s biographical claims are seemingly at odds with subsequent events. If, for example, her mother, father and brother each knew her to be living in the East End under the name of Mary Kelly, why did not one of them come forward on realizing that she had been murdered? And if her name really was Mary Kelly, how is it that not a single pre-London family member, friend, teacher, neighbour, shopkeeper, inlaw, publican or priest made the connection between ‘their’ Mary Kelly and the woman who was butchered in Miller’s Court?

On this basis, Paul, I have to disagree with you. The only logical conclusion to my mind is that Kelly misrepresented her personal history and almost certainly her family name, presenting a life story that was so transmuted it proved unrecognizable even to those with whom she had grown up. Sometimes one has to apply good old-fashioned common sense. This, I would suggest, is just such an instance.

Hi Gary,
I agree with you, in principle at least.

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.

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.

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. (Although I have to say that the police may have been following a different line of inquiry as there are peculiarities such as the offer of a reward, the truncated inquest, and so on which collectively might be suggestive, though of what remains to be seen).

Sadly, the official papers relating to the Kelly investigation are practically non-existent (itself a little odd) press interest was waning, speculation exhausted and further diminished by the truncated inquest, so we actually have far less source data to work with than in the previous murders.

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. It is odd that we don't have reports of anyone coming forward from England, Wales or Ireland, fearful that Kelly was their daughter. Didn't anyone with an attractive, buxom, troubled, 25-year-old, and missing daughter think she might have adopted an alias? The silence, understandable given the above, might nevertheless suggest that the family was located and couldn't or didn't want to have anything to do with the daughter who had shamed them.

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

Or maybe it's all true, but Barnet misunderstood and that Kelly was Mary's married name, her husband's forename being Davis (don't forget that Davis can be a forename and a surname in Wales, Davis Davis not being unknown). So if she married a Davis Kelly and Kelly is her married name then we don't have the foggiest idea what her maiden name was (There were a few Davis Kellys around, though none leap out as Mary's husband).

And when all the foregoing is taken into consideration, there are a few vague reports of her family being expected to arrive in London for the funeral. These may have been spurious, or maybe there was something we don't know about.

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.

[Garry Wroe]

Given the rest of the slight confirmatory detail, he father trying to find her, possible letters from her mother/brother in Ireland, and the brother coming to see her... I dunno, the balance seems to tip in favour of Kelly.

With respect, Paul, we have no corroboration that the man who visited Pennington Street was Kelly’s father, no corroboration that Kelly received letters from her mother or brother, and no corroboration that her brother visited her. What we do have is a series of claims, an overwhelming majority of which emanated from Kelly herself.

This might not be a problem were it not for the fact that Kelly’s biographical claims are seemingly at odds with subsequent events. If, for example, her mother, father and brother each knew her to be living in the East End under the name of Mary Kelly, why did not one of them come forward on realizing that she had been murdered? And if her name really was Mary Kelly, how is it that not a single pre-London family member, friend, teacher, neighbour, shopkeeper, inlaw, publican or priest made the connection between ‘their’ Mary Kelly and the woman who was butchered in Miller’s Court?

On this basis, Paul, I have to disagree with you. The only logical conclusion to my mind is that Kelly misrepresented her personal history and almost certainly her family name, presenting a life story that was so transmuted it proved unrecognizable even to those with whom she had grown up. Sometimes one has to apply good old-fashioned common sense. This, I would suggest, is just such an instance.

[Livia]

Hi Curious. That's all plausible, I agree. I will try and have a closer look at that if I can. Livia has also been looking at a Kelly/Johnstone connection, she sent me the details but I still haven't managed to track through it properly yet.

Two more interesting discoveries on that front, Debs.

On Sarah Johnstone Kelly's baptismal record of November
8, 1880, Mary Kelly is listed as the mother, but no father
is listed. I haven't found any marriage record between Mary
Johnstone Douglas and a Kelly. There was a very large Kelly
family with several sons living nearby in Frizington, though.
Mary Kelly appears as a widow on both the 1881 census and
on her marriage record to William Quayle.

and

William Quayle died 23 July 1888 and is buried in St Paul's
Frizington, Cumberland. He's the right age to have been
Mary J Douglas' husband.


At the risk of heads exploding, there is no apparent link
between the Douglas Johnston families and Ireland and/or
Wales.

There's quite a bit of history on this family, so after giving
it a bit more thought, I'll post what I have on the "mjk's
real name" thread, rather than derailing this one.

Liv