Was MJK really Mary Thomas?

[erobitha]

I am aware there are some excellent researchers and geneology buffs here - and I am just a mere amateur. I want to share my theory and initial findings so that someone far more expert and qualified than I can tell me to stop wasting my time. I think at this stage I'm going down more rabbit holes than a champion beagle.

The Theory

• Mary Jane Kelly is in actual fact Mary Thomas born in 1864 (according to 1871 census Carmarthan, Wales)
• Her father was John Thomas born in 1839 (according to 1871 census)
• Mother Phoebe Thomas nee Lloyd (born in 1836)
• She had only one brother as far as I can tell and his name was John Thomas (I believe is Johnto) and he was born in 1862
• A John Thomas from Carmarthenshire join the Welsh Guards in 1903 aged 39
• Mary had a number of sisters Elizabeth (born 1860), Hannah (1867) and Jane (1869)
• There is a marriage between Mary Thomas & William Davies in 1879 in Chepstow witnessed by Lizzie Jane Thomas (sister I hope) and John Thomas (father or brother) but strange it was in Chepstow where it doesnt appear where either the Bride of Groom lived there from what I can tell. She would have been around 16 and he would have been around 33. Marriage on a Thursday - is that usual?
• William Davies was killed in the 1880 Risca mine explosion and many assumed James Davies would be the more likely candidate but the newspapers in South Wales the following days claimed he was single
• There maybe some kind of Irish connection as a John Thomas was arrested for being drunk in Limerick City in 1872 who claimed his residence was South Wales - haven't investigated anything beyond that so far

This where I am at with it so far, and whilst there are a few interesting threads to pull I have no idea if I am wasting my time here.

Any expert opinion on this will be most welcome.

[c.d.]

Hello Erobitha,

I would say go for it but I would also wonder as to the purpose and what could be gained. Even if you could show that MJK was in fact Mary Thomas can you make any sort of connection showing that her killing was not random but in fact had to do with her background?

Seems like you have your work cut out for you.

c.d.

[erobitha]

Should we try and see if we can adequately identify her first and go from there?

[c.d.]

Should we try and see if we can adequately identify her first and go from there?

By all means.

c.d.

[Kattrup]

I am aware there are some excellent researchers and geneology buffs here - and I am just a mere amateur. I want to share my theory and initial findings so that someone far more expert and qualified than I can tell me to stop wasting my time. I think at this stage I'm going down more rabbit holes than a champion beagle.

The Theory

• Mary Jane Kelly is in actual fact Mary Thomas born in 1864 (according to 1871 census Carmarthan, Wales)
• Her father was John Thomas born in 1839 (according to 1871 census)
• Mother Phoebe Thomas nee Lloyd (born in 1836)
• She had only one brother as far as I can tell and his name was John Thomas (I believe is Johnto) and he was born in 1862
• A John Thomas from Carmarthenshire join the Welsh Guards in 1903 aged 39
• Mary had a number of sisters Elizabeth (born 1860), Hannah (1867) and Jane (1869)
• There is a marriage between Mary Thomas & William Davies in 1879 in Chepstow witnessed by Lizzie Jane Thomas (sister I hope) and John Thomas (father or brother) but strange it was in Chepstow where it doesnt appear where either the Bride of Groom lived there from what I can tell. She would have been around 16 and he would have been around 33. Marriage on a Thursday - is that usual?
• William Davies was killed in the 1880 Risca mine explosion and many assumed James Davies would be the more likely candidate but the newspapers in South Wales the following days claimed he was single
• There maybe some kind of Irish connection as a John Thomas was arrested for being drunk in Limerick City in 1872 who claimed his residence was South Wales - haven't investigated anything beyond that so far

This where I am at with it so far, and whilst there are a few interesting threads to pull I have no idea if I am wasting my time here.

Any expert opinion on this will be most welcome.

Looks interesting, ticks quite a few boxes if the people turn out to be the same individuals.

When you write for instance “a John Thomas” it’s clear you don’t know if it’s the same guy.
but does the lack of “a” mean you’ve ascertained that the individuals are the same, e.g. is the Davies marrying the same as the guy dying?

[erobitha]

Looks interesting, ticks quite a few boxes if the people turn out to be the same individuals.

When you write for instance “a John Thomas” it’s clear you don’t know if it’s the same guy.
but does the lack of “a” mean you’ve ascertained that the individuals are the same, e.g. is the Davies marrying the same as the guy dying?

...which is why I need some expert help :-)

[Kattrup]

...which is why I need some expert help :-)

Ah, ok

Sorry. I can only be an expert if you propose Danish origins for MJK. Maybe try finding a Marie Jensine Knudsen who moved to Wales? Then I can help!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Should we try and see if we can adequately identify her first and go from there?

Well, it's often said that she's out there somewhere. Good luck with the research, let us know if you find anything interesting.

[peg&pie]

Excellent work, a very good candidate there. I doubt you could go further without said expert genealogy.

Let's face it, ultimately you need MJK's DNA profile. You only need it once. With that, a living descendent then needs to be identified and tested.

Unless there are unlimited funds for this many questions will remain unanswered sadly.

With all the millionaires in the world you'd think at least one would be a ripperologist lol!

[Michael W Richards]

Excellent work, a very good candidate there. I doubt you could go further without said expert genealogy.

Let's face it, ultimately you need MJK's DNA profile. You only need it once. With that, a living descendent then needs to be identified and tested.

Unless there are unlimited funds for this many questions will remain unanswered sadly.

With all the millionaires in the world you'd think at least one would be a ripperologist lol!

At Least one is.....Patricia Cornwell. In the broadest interpretation of Ripperologist anyway.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

At Least one is.....Patricia Cornwell. In the broadest interpretation of Ripperologist anyway.

I thought we were all millionaires? Isn't that why we keep the gravy train rolling along despite numerous successful conclusions to the case? I only got into the game for the money!

[erobitha]

For anyone interested I have established that Mary Thomas's father John was a labourer in the 1871 census. Labourers were being used in iron and tinplate work being paid 15-18 shillings per week. There was a tin plate works 15 minutes walk from Cambrian Place (their listed address) at that time in the town of Carmathern where they were living. I dont think there is anyway I can 100% confirm he worked there due to the works being long gone. But it is another coincidence in favour of this theory. Mary Kelly may have believed (or embelished) that her father was an Iron worker, but he could have easily been a labourer at a tin plate firm.

It would also appear from the 1881 census that Mary Thomas may have returned back to Carmarthen after her husband William Davies died in the 1880 Risca explosion and may have become a domestic servant. By 1881 the family had moved to 8 DARE ROAD, MERTHYR TYDFIL. No further listing of Mary or her sister Elizabeth with the family but two new sisters were born in between last census. John Thomas the son became a coal miner along with his father. By 1891 census John was no longer listed by the family were still on DARE ROAD.

If this was Mary Jane's family it would seem they may have been estranged from her since 1880/1881. When the news broke of the murder in London in 1888, they simply would not have put two and two together or simply had no desire to find out if it was her. The more I am digging the more coincidences are emerging. She told Joseph Barnett she had 6 brothers and 1 sister, but it appears this Mary Thomas had 5 sisters and 1 brother.

[Michael W Richards]

For anyone interested I have established that Mary Thomas's father John was a labourer in the 1871 census. Labourers were being used in iron and tinplate work being paid 15-18 shillings per week. There was a tin plate works 15 minutes walk from Cambrian Place (their listed address) at that time in the town of Carmathern where they were living. I dont think there is anyway I can 100% confirm he worked there due to the works being long gone. But it is another coincidence in favour of this theory. Mary Kelly may have believed (or embelished) that her father was an Iron worker, but he could have easily been a labourer at a tin plate firm.

It would also appear from the 1881 census that Mary Thomas may have returned back to Carmarthen after her husband William Davies died in the 1880 Risca explosion and may have become a domestic servant. By 1881 the family had moved to 8 DARE ROAD, MERTHYR TYDFIL. No further listing of Mary or her sister Elizabeth with the family but two new sisters were born in between last census. John Thomas the son became a coal miner along with his father. By 1891 census John was no longer listed by the family were still on DARE ROAD.

If this was Mary Jane's family it would seem they may have been estranged from her since 1880/1881. When the news broke of the murder in London in 1888, they simply would not have put two and two together or simply had no desire to find out if it was her. The more I am digging the more coincidences are emerging. She told Joseph Barnett she had 6 brothers and 1 sister, but it appears this Mary Thomas had 5 sisters and 1 brother.

Thanks for the above research Ero, quite interesting. The part I highlighted struck me as particularly interesting because 18 or 19 might just be around the age that Mary started her, less palatable for the family, means of employment.

The woman who apparently identifies herself by a name which has been untraceable for a great many researchers is vexing, and, if the story is accurate, it would appear that "Mary" herself created the illusion. Why? I can see making up a persona that gives her complete anonymity if she begins soliciting, but why have so many specific details that are almost within research like yours above. Lies break down in the details. Broad strokes would have been much safer and kept her hidden. But she apparently told Barnett some specifics. Do lies require embellishment from time to time to keep up the pretense? Since almost no-one could prove their identity by documents alone, why the elaborations?

IMHO, she used details that were true to her in order to structure her story, she would always be able to recall things that were real memories. I think a profile like the one drawn above is the kind of thing that may reveal her.

That aside, the Why still puzzles me. She could have made up any name, given any story, but why do we come across details that seem to match, like this Mary Thomas above. Is it because as I suggest she needed to have real foundations... not inventions.... to be more convincing?

[erobitha]

Thanks for the above research Ero, quite interesting. The part I highlighted struck me as particularly interesting because 18 or 19 might just be around the age that Mary started her, less palatable for the family, means of employment.

The woman who apparently identifies herself by a name which has been untraceable for a great many researchers is vexing, and, if the story is accurate, it would appear that "Mary" herself created the illusion. Why? I can see making up a persona that gives her complete anonymity if she begins soliciting, but why have so many specific details that are almost within research like yours above. Lies break down in the details. Broad strokes would have been much safer and kept her hidden. But she apparently told Barnett some specifics. Do lies require embellishment from time to time to keep up the pretense? Since almost no-one could prove their identity by documents alone, why the elaborations?

IMHO, she used details that were true to her in order to structure her story, she would always be able to recall things that were real memories. I think a profile like the one drawn above is the kind of thing that may reveal her.

That aside, the Why still puzzles me. She could have made up any name, given any story, but why do we come across details that seem to match, like this Mary Thomas above. Is it because as I suggest she needed to have real foundations... not inventions.... to be more convincing?

Her marriage to William Davies has all the hallmarks of a ‘shotgun wedding’. The church they married in rarely held marriages and doesn’t appear to be a pariah either of them are from. Banns were in effect a special licence for couples to marry and usually granted in special situations. My guess at 16/17 she was pregnant and became ‘Wiilliam’s Problem’. This is my next line of research. Mary Jane Kelly told her landlady prior to her last landlord she had a daughter - there might be some truth here.

The next leg of the research will focus on whether Mary Thomas has links to Cardiff from 1881 and to try and establish whether there is any correlation to her story of being trafficked to Paris via the West End. Details of that will become much harder to gather I’m sure.

In answer to your question Michael, why Mary changed her name and in effect identity I believe is buried in what happened between 1881 - 1887. From then we can then trace her movements in East London. I believe she realised that by adjusting some of the facts to twist her new identity she could easily recall info that was important without tripping herself up. Using a mix of facts and embellishment allows her to be hidden but still be appear real.

[erobitha]

A Mary Thomas was born in Limerick in 1865.