Kellys in the Scots Guards

[Wickerman]

Assuming untruth is an awfully easy way of getting past things we don't like or find awkward, and, of course, folk can dismiss any verification of anything Mary said as them being lied to too, which gives one a clear playing field on which to build any edifice one likes.

All too easy, and an extremely unsatisfactory but growing tendency on Casebook.
In some cases it is a very obvious ploy to paving the way for some personal theories (events in Berner St. & "Hutchinson" come to mind).

In other cases it might be born of frustration stemming from the lack of positive results, but in some of these cases the research has apparently not been exhaustive.

What I am actually suggesting is that one looks very carefully at Mary's story in its totality, all its various parts, to see whether it appears true or not.

We all have aspects of our lives we have understated and some we have overstated. Some details we might have altered and some we have completely kept quiet about.
Why should Mary be regarded as any different?

Your suggestion Paul, is perfectly sensible and absolutely reasonable, not that you need anyone to condone it.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Chris Scott]

Very much appreciated Chris (sorry about the Cris).
Now as I dig a little deeper I noticed the old thread where you provide five extremely detailed posts on the subject.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=312

These may have been what I remembered.

Thanks again, Jon S.

Jon
Thanks for reposting that link - I had forgotten those listings!
Chris

[Bridewell]

the unidentified Mrs Buki

I think Mrs Buki is a type-setter's misreading of a journalist's hand-writing and should be Mrs Buke.

In the 1881 census there is a Mrs Caroline Buke living with her husband at 9, Gilston Road, Brompton & married to a Master Boot Maker.The only women living with her at that time who are not family members are domestic servants:

Marie Rapston. Unfortunately this girl is already 25 and was born, according to the census, in Hounslow.

Lizzie Kirby (transcribed by Ancestry as Risby) aged 17, born in Chalford, Gloucestershire - the Welsh Borders - there's a Lizzie M Kirby still around in 1891 though, although shown as born in Chalfont, who may, or may not, be the same girl.

Regards, Bridewell.

[curious]

If that includes seeing nothing wrong with wanting to extend their own personal research to include other possibilities, like the idea that Johnto is a nickname used in conjunction with the surname John(s)ton, then, yes, I guess I am!

Hi, Debra,
My brain has been fuzzy for about a month now, so I'm not sure what you are saying here.

I think this idea has merit that MJK's brother might be enlisted as a Johnston.

However, that does not necessarily mean he was lying.

Has anyone searched for the death of a John Kelly in the 1860s within a year or two of Mary Jane's birth?

Then, if something is found, the next thing to look for would be a remarriage of the widow -- to a Johnston.

Don't know if this would work or not. I don't have any way to research it and it might not make sense to anyone else.

I know, there were rumors that Mary's father came to visit her, but a stepfather might have considered himself that.

Anyway, just thinking.

[lynn cates]

caution

Hello Mr. Begg. Thanks. Caution is always in order. And checking for a lie? Only when ALL avenues for truth are exhausted.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

Very much appreciated Chris (sorry about the Cris).
Now as I dig a little deeper I noticed the old thread where you provide five extremely detailed posts on the subject.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=312

These may have been what I remembered.

Thanks again, Jon S.

Ah, now I am understanding why you think the research has not been exhaustive, Jon.
Okay, there might still be mileage in checking the pit deaths, but as far as the marriage goes; although Chris posted a huge list of men named Davis (and variants) married at the right time and in the right areas, on the link you posted, it is now possible to search for both spouses names in a marriage entry and as Chris has noted in an earlier post, there is only one marriage for a Mary Kelly and a Davies for the right time period.

It's Chris' kind of extensive research that has made me think we might have exhausted quite a lot of the avenues available.

[lynn cates]

reading

Hello Chris. Yes, and I just reread your book. I figure if you and Debs and Chris Phillips can't find it, it's not there.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

Hi, Debra,
My brain has been fuzzy for about a month now, so I'm not sure what you are saying here.

I think this idea has merit that MJK's brother might be enlisted as a Johnston.

However, that does not necessarily mean he was lying.

Has anyone searched for the death of a John Kelly in the 1860s within a year or two of Mary Jane's birth?

Then, if something is found, the next thing to look for would be a remarriage of the widow -- to a Johnston.

Don't know if this would work or not. I don't have any way to research it and it might not make sense to anyone else.

I know, there were rumors that Mary's father came to visit her, but a stepfather might have considered himself that.

Anyway, just thinking.

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.

[curious]

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.

If I ever get retired, and IF you all have not figured it all out yet, perhaps I can help.

But I feel that progress is being made and more will be made as more and more records become accessible online.

Great work all around!

[curious]

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.

It has occurred to me that is MJK's mother did remarry that might account for a number of things in her life story:

Perhaps as MJK matured, she caught stepdaddy's eye and had to leave home. One of my great-grandmothers left when her father remarried and she did not like her stepmother. My g-grand lived with two maternal uncles until she married.

So, MJK could have gone to live with an uncle, hence the story of the cousin who led her astray.

After MJK and her siblings all left home, Mama left the good-for-nothing second husband and returned to Ireland. She wrote to her daughter in London.

So, when stepdad showed up wanting to talk to MJK, she avoided him for very good reasons.

Pure speculation, I know . . . . but possibilities, I think.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.