Tweet
Originally posted by DVV
View Post
-
Thanks
-
keep hoping
Hello Debs. Thanks. I completely agree. Hopefully something will turn up. A woman died and someone HAD to know whom she really was.
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Earlier this year I obtained a copy of a marriage certificate, dated 8 February 1880, between 25 year-old William Williams and 20 year-old Mary Jane Kelly. William was a blacksmith residing in Cmwavon. His father, Daniel, was an overman in an ironworks. Mary's father, Edward Kelly, was a fisherman. The marriage took place at the Neath registry office.
They are probably the couple listed at 13 Furnace Row, Michaelstone with a baby, Evan, in the 1881 census. Mary's place of birth is given as Cwmavon. However they appear again in the 1891 census, with five additional children.Comment
-
A woman died and someone HAD to know whom she really was.
I don't follow the logic of that comment.
"MJK" (whether that was her real or an assumed name) indeed must have had a family - but they might not have seen her for years, and have believed her dead. In 1888 there were even fewer ways of tracking doen a missing person than today, and even today people can disappear without trace.
MJK's parents might have died, she could have had only a mother (if illegitimate) and no siblings. She might have been an orphan and brought up those with no real interest in her or her fate.
Those around her in Whitechapel could have been entirely ignorant of her own origins, background and story - dependent on what she told them So for everyone from Mrs "Buki" to those - if they existed - who took her to France.
If we have any facts it appears to be these:
a) she had a brother serving in a Guards regiment who wrote to her and who may have been Jonto, Ianto or John too. I say this because it appears people saw/handled these letters and may have read them to MJK;
b) on the same grounds her mother might have been alive - I seem to recall some mention of communications from her mother. However, can we be certain that these letters, from both "mother" and "brother" were what they appeared to be and not (for instance) coded instructions? As far as I am aware no one mentiones meeting her relatives.
c) her "Irishness" (or Welshness) might have been indicated by a residual or habitual accent/brogue but I don't recall anyone mentioning it - though maybe her surname "Kelly" was thought to say it all.
Beyond that I cannot safely go. I do not believe that it is necessary that ANYONE knew who she really was. On the other hand all she said may have been basically true (as filtered through Barnett and others) but I cannot prove that.
If only the Met Police file on MJK would re-emerge - it is possible then that we might see what leads or information the authorities had then.
Phil HComment
-
errata
Hello Phil. Thanks.
“I don't follow the logic of that comment.”
Logic? Reasoning perhaps? Let’s try it this way. A body was found at #13 Miller’s Court. We assume that the philosophical problems of knowledge and the external material world have been solved (they haven’t), and that the instantiate of homo sapiens sapiens was of chromosomal arrangement XX (not a bad guess, given certain anatomical indicators). Hence, given the truth of the premises, the conclusion “A woman died” follows.
Moreover, being before the days of in vitro fertilisation—and barring, of course, miracles—we assume she was recipient of the usual means of conception, gestation and birth (C-section was, of course, possible—cf. MacDuff, “who was from his mother’s womb, untimely ript”). Hence, this seems to imply a mother and a father. In consequence, they must have known her identity at some point (of course, this does not touch a possible claim that both were dead. In which event, I should emend my statement to, “Someone had to know whom she was, AT SOME POINT OR OTHER.”
"’MJK’ (whether that was her real or an assumed name) indeed must have had a family - but they might not have seen her for years, and have believed her dead."
Indeed. Vide supra--emendation.
“In 1888 there were even fewer ways of tracking down a missing person than today, and even today people can disappear without trace.”
Correct on both counts. But not sure it falsifies my thesis.
“MJK's parents might have died, she could have had only a mother (if illegitimate) and no siblings. She might have been an orphan and brought up those with no real interest in her or her fate.”
All readily granted. Vide supra. Yet, I presume you will grant my inference above (in upper case)?
“Those around her in Whitechapel could have been entirely ignorant of her own origins, background and story - dependent on what she told them So for everyone from Mrs "Buki" to those - if they existed - who took her to France.”
Heartily concur. Indeed, if my “conjections” be correct, this is PRECISELY what happened.
“If we have any facts it appears to be these:
a) she had a brother serving in a Guards regiment who wrote to her and who may have been Jonto, Ianto or John too. I say this because it appears people saw/handled these letters and may have read them to MJK;”
I appreciate your qualifying word, “seems.” Yes, IF someone saw the letter and it was from whom the viewer purported it to be, the inference follows. But I wonder just how much of that information were explicit, how much inferred?
“b) on the same grounds her mother might have been alive - I seem to recall some mention of communications from her mother. However, can we be certain that these letters, from both "mother" and "brother" were what they appeared to be and not (for instance) coded instructions? As far as I am aware no one mentions meeting her relatives.”
All reasonable. I wonder whether coded instructions assumes a good deal? My main concern is whether the contents were perused or whether assumptions were made—based upon what “Mary” decided to give out?
“c) her "Irishness" (or Welshness) might have been indicated by a residual or habitual accent/brogue but I don't recall anyone mentioning it - though maybe her surname "Kelly" was thought to say it all.”
There is one story that circulated, which seemed to indicate a slight speech impediment. Given the accuracy of the report, I wonder whether such an impediment were not contrived on “MJK’s” behalf to cover the fact of an accent/brogue?
“Beyond that I cannot safely go. I do not believe that it is necessary that ANYONE knew who she really was.”
Possibly her killer? And, at some point, at least her mum.
“On the other hand all she said may have been basically true (as filtered through Barnett and others) but I cannot prove that.”
Nor can anyone else. What intrigues me is whether or not Barnet were complicit in any possible fabrication.
“If only the Met Police file on MJK would re-emerge - it is possible then that we might see what leads or information the authorities had then.”
It may well yet. I daresay Monro had some very good leads here. If so, it might explain the haste and venue of the inquest, not to mention the Met’s offer of a reward for accomplices.
Cheers.
LCLast edited by lynn cates; 10-08-2012, 12:24 PM.Comment
-
You had me on the edge of my chair right up until this bit, Paul! Thanks for posting those details though.Originally posted by PaulWilliams View PostComment
-
Lynn - if someone knew who MJK was in say 1865, when she was a girl, it has almost NO RELEVANCE (except in some universal truth, hypothetical realm) to 1888.
I believe that given the state of administration in 1888, it was quite possible for a member of the lower orders to go wholly unrecorded for much of their lifetime. I don't think that the "system" meant that the illiterate or the meanest of the mean would have understood that births had to be registered etc.
If MJK's mother died in a workhouse as a stranger, unknown (like the mother of Oliver Twist!) anyone would have known or cared about her antecedents.
But for all your acceptance of conditions on your original statement, I don't see how it helps us. Even a mother who read about the murder might not have associated with a daughter not seen for 10 or more years.
Finally, my comment re codes in letters was a (slightly cheeky) reference to the supposed Fenian connection - where it might have been of relevance.
Phil HComment
-
points
Hello Phil. Thanks.
“Lynn - if someone knew who MJK was in say 1865, when she was a girl, it has almost NO RELEVANCE (except in some universal truth, hypothetical realm) to 1888.”
Very well. Yet, that NO ONE knew who she was at any time seems incomprehensible to me.
“I believe that given the state of administration in 1888, it was quite possible for a member of the lower orders to go wholly unrecorded for much of their lifetime.”
Quite possible. Maybe that happened in one or more of the torso murders?
“I don't think that the "system" meant that the illiterate or the meanest of the mean would have understood that births had to be registered etc.”
No argument here.
“If MJK's mother died in a workhouse as a stranger, unknown (like the mother of Oliver Twist!) anyone would have known or cared about her antecedents.”
Of course, this would not preclude someone having a later knowledge of her. In particular, if she were targeted and not randomly slain, her assassin would have known her.
“But for all your acceptance of conditions on your original statement, I don't see how it helps us.”
We are helpless then? I hope not.
“Even a mother who read about the murder might not have associated with a daughter not seen for 10 or more years.”
Yes, but there was supposedly a family beside. Of course, that may be false. So also, the tale about various correspondents.
“Finally, my comment re codes in letters was a (slightly cheeky) reference to the supposed Fenian connection - where it might have been of relevance.”
Well, I hardly ever use the word “Fenian” as they were hardly players into the 1880’s. The IRB, UB and Clan-na-Gael were players—as were the breakaway groups, Irish National Invincibles and the Triangle Faction.
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Me too...I was actually holding my breath at one point...You had me on the edge of my chair right up until this bit, Paul! Thanks for posting those details though.
All the best
Dave
PS I genuinely wasn't having a dig earlier...just trying to find my sensitive side (wherever the hell it might be)...I knew I'd be in trouble though, no matter whatever I wrote!
All the best
DaveComment
-
Hi Debs. The article is from 1927, which might be why it didn't get much initial comment. But I like the nickname the journalist gave Annie Chapman...'Happy Boss'. Neither of those words come to mind when thinking of poor ol' Annie.
Yours truly,
Tom WescottComment
-
Dave, I obviously need to work on something....I thought I was being nice there.Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
Comment
-
-
Mary Williams is really worth some more research.
The identification by an old sailor may sound picturesque, but it doesn't matter.
What matters is that a Welsh name have surfaced.Comment
Comment