Kellys in the Scots Guards

[Debra A]

Hi All,

Which group indeed?

The Times, 16th October 1888 -

"Up to yesterday the efforts of the detectives had been at fault, owing, as was suggested by the City Solicitor at the inquest, to the fact that Conway had drawn his pension from the 18th Royal Irish Regiment under a false name, that of Thomas Quinn."

Regards,

Simon

We've already had the stats from Wickerman on this, Simon.
1 in 100 gave a false name.
I've actually seen one in the records of the scots Guards, he was found out and his real name recorded in the file.
I bet we can switch those figures for a Whitechapel unfortunate.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

I have absolutely no idea. But please note that I did write "if true".

We choose to believe Barnett about Johnto, yet dismiss his story about MJK having a child in tow.

Are both statements true? Are both statements false? Why should one be true and the other false?

I have a sneaky feeling here that somebody will point blame at the Star newspaper.

Ripperology's a funny old game.

Regards,

Simon

HiSimon.
The bit about the brother in the Scots Guards is part of his sworn testimony though? Mary having a child is not.
Why wasn't it repeated in the press that her brother was called Johnto by his comrades, though?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Which group indeed?

The Times, 16th October 1888 -

"Up to yesterday the efforts of the detectives had been at fault, owing, as was suggested by the City Solicitor at the inquest, to the fact that Conway had drawn his pension from the 18th Royal Irish Regiment under a false name, that of Thomas Quinn."

Regards,

Simon

[Garry Wroe]

Which of these two groups- a Whitechapel unfortunate, or a soldier, is more likely to have given a false name?

Whoah, there, Debra. This is straying dangerously close to common sense. You'll be suggesting next that Carrie Maxwell's Kelly sighting was mistaken.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

I have absolutely no idea. But please note that I did write "if true".

We choose to believe Barnett about Johnto, yet dismiss his story about MJK having a child in tow.

Are both statements true? Are both statements false? Why should one be true and the other false?

I have a sneaky feeling here that somebody will point blame at the Star newspaper.

Ripperology's a funny old game.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

Its perhaps not so much a question of Barnett lying its a question of how many lies Kelly told to him.

In the absence of anyone being able to prove anyhting she is alleged to have told him it seems she had fed him a real good old yarn.

Our posts crossed.
Simon seems to think Barnett lied though? That's different to what you are saying.

[Debra A]

I agree totally

Hi Trevor.
You also think Barnett lied?

[Trevor Marriott]

What would be Barnett's motive for lying, Simon? Fun?

Its perhaps not so much a question of Barnett lying its a question of how many lies Kelly told to him.

In the absence of anyone being able to prove anyhting she is alleged to have told him it seems she had fed him a real good old yarn.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Debra,

A needle in a haystack.

I agree with you, except that I doubt the presence of a needle.

Like so many other aspects of the Ripper mystery, the quest for Henry/John/Johnto Kelly is a fool's errand.

Regards,

Simon

I agree totally

[Debra A]

Hi Paul,

Barnett lied? Why not? And, if true, should we really be surprised?

What characterizes the WM is its overwhelming number of dead ends, red herrings, obvious lies and evasions, misrememberings, contradictions, confusions and conflations.

Regards,

Simon

What would be Barnett's motive for lying, Simon? Fun?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

Barnett lied? Why not? And, if true, should we really be surprised?

What characterizes the WM is its overwhelming number of dead ends, red herrings, obvious lies and evasions, misrememberings, contradictions, confusions and conflations.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

Hi Debra,

A needle in a haystack.

I agree with you, except that I doubt the presence of a needle.

Like so many other aspects of the Ripper mystery, the quest for Henry/John/Johnto Kelly is a fool's errand.

Regards,

Simon

Why do you think it is a fool's errand? Barnett lied?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

A needle in a haystack.

I agree with you, except that I doubt the presence of a needle.

Like so many other aspects of the Ripper mystery, the quest for Henry/John/Johnto Kelly is a fool's errand.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

C'mon, wake up Debs...

Do you remember if this line of enquiry was ever pursued?



It is one of the oldest results we've had on Casebook but for the life of me I cannot remember who sourced it out.

Thanks, Jon S.

Wasn't it the Parlours who did that research originally? Not sure, but I think they mention it in their book.

What people seem to be forgetting is, if we are sticking to Mary's story as the absolute 'truth' then we must find a brother in the 2nd Battalion Scots Guards, and there is no Kelly who fits the bill. So, he gave a false name they cry, but why is it more believable that Henry Kelly gave a false name to join up rather than MJK gave a false name?
Which of these two groups- a Whitechapel unfortunate, or a soldier, is more likely to have given a false name?
And if her name was false then looking for the family is like looking for a needle in a haystack, evn if the rest of the story is true. They could be called anything!

[Debra A]

Hi All,

Barnett's original witness statement—

"The deceased told me on one occasion that her father named John Kelly was a foreman of some iron works at [sic] lived at Carmarthen or Carnarvon, that she had a brother named Henry serving in 2nd Battn. Scots Guards, and known amongst his comrades as Johnto, and I believe the Regiment is now in Ireland . . ."

Barnett mentioned Henry Kelly immediately after John Kelly.

Did he actually say "and known amongst his comrades as John, too" [also known as John]?

Merely a thought.

Regards,

Simon

Hi all.
Does anyone else wonder why this specific bit of Barnett's statement- 'known among his comrades as 'Johnto', does not appear to have been mentioned at the inquest or reported in the papers? That there was a brother in the Scots Guards was well reported and all the other bits and bobs Barnett gave information on, but this is missing.

It can't just be because Abberline got it wrong and mistakenly wrote 'Johnto' for 'John too' while taking Barnett's statement because none of the papers reported that Mary had a brother in the Scots Guards known by his comrades as John, either.
Was this info deliberatley not reported or mentioned at inquest?