'Johnto'

[MrBarnett]

So this is premised on the fact you believe that Tabram, Coles and McKenzie were JTR victims whereas I was focused on the canonical five. I could argue the simple research time invested in tracing the history and families of the canonical five far outweigh that of the others so it stands to reason we know more about them. With the exception of MJK who has probably had the most research conducted and time invested and yet we are effectively none the wiser.

Only McKenize you can safely say the family denied her because of shame. So that is 1 out of 8.

Stride’s family did not attend her burial this is true, but they were in Sweden. Doesn’t mean they didn’t acknowledge her - but I’ll concede to 2 out 8.

Based on actual data there is effectively a 25% chance that MJK’s family did not make themselves known because of shame. Not impossible - but I’m plumping for the other 75% of it not being that.

Another way of looking at it is that of the victims whose ID’s weren’t as plain as a pikestaff and therefore undeniable by their families, none of their families came forward.

[Aelric]

It's funny that Julia Vanturney tells of MJK & partner paying Mrs M'Carthy two shillings for a room for the night and then we have Hutchinson claiming to have given MJK a few shillings on occasion. For the record, I fall down on the disbelieving all of Hutch's story side of things, but I wonder if MJK's fella that night could have been Georgie Boy and that was the nugget of truth he built his tale upon?

[MrBarnett]

In doing some reading yesterday I came across the inquest report in the South Wales Daily News for 13th November. It mentions Julia Vanturney's testimony that MJK had another admirer that she preferred to Joe Barnet who had visited her frequently in Miller's Court (nothing new about that) but then goes on to mention that Mrs M'Carthy in Pennington Street had said that MJK turned up at her door 'some short time ago' and took a room for the night with another man for which she paid two shillings. That didn't come out at the inquest. Who do people think this man was and is it relevant? Mrs M'Carthy did know Joseph Fleming from a couple of years earlier so presumably it wasn't him.

Just another punter, I’ve always thought.

[Prosector]

I totally agree. EWD, whether or not she was MJK made a deliberate choice and was already getting on the wrong side of the law when she was mixed up with some local boys in salmon poaching and assaulting water bailiffs in 1874. If she was the 'genuine' MJK and daughter of the gaffer in an ironworks, she too seems to have made a deliberate choice. All the more reason why their families may have wished to distance themselves from them. EWD, although younger than the other canonicals was not 25 as stated at the inquest but 32. Several people including her landlord said that she looked about 30 although she understated her age in both the 1881 census and her marriage certificate.

[Wickerman]

Yet all the other victims had family members who did reveal themselves.

The most significant difference between Kelly, and the rest was her age.
Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, etc. had only turned to prostitution because they fell on hard times. They had been wives, mothers, raised a family, like all respectable people. But, due to circumstances beyond their control, mostly, they had no alternative but to turn to the streets.
A sympathetic few might view them as "poor things", having no choice left in life, but this sympathy is hard to apply to a young attractive female like Kelly.

Mary Kelly apparently, made a conscious choice, and any neighbors or people who knew the family would have concluded the same. This would be very damning in Victorian society, to make a choice to walk the streets is even worse than falling on hard times.

[Prosector]

In doing some reading yesterday I came across the inquest report in the South Wales Daily News for 13th November. It mentions Julia Vanturney's testimony that MJK had another admirer that she preferred to Joe Barnet who had visited her frequently in Miller's Court (nothing new about that) but then goes on to mention that Mrs M'Carthy in Pennington Street had said that MJK turned up at her door 'some short time ago' and took a room for the night with another man for which she paid two shillings. That didn't come out at the inquest. Who do people think this man was and is it relevant? Mrs M'Carthy did know Joseph Fleming from a couple of years earlier so presumably it wasn't him.

[Prosector]

I agree with Wickerman. If MJK was either Elizabeth WD or the daughter of John Kelly, a gaffer (manager) in an ironworks, the families would be Welsh (at least by residency) and firmly lower middle class and deeply respectable (or 'tidy' as the Welsh put it). In the former case I know that E W D's family were aware of her descent into prostitution even before the events of 1888 because my grandfather, her brother Johnto, told his son. my father, that. Whether they connected her to the Ripper events I don't know but, if they did, knowing a lot about my own family and its mores, I doubt if they would have made the fact of their connection public - with the possible exception of Johnto who was very close to his sister Elizabeth. When Elizabeth was living, briefly, with her husband Francis Craig in Argyll Square she was only a few hundred yards from where Johnto was lodging in Leigh Street and I think they were probably in touch then and after she disappeared (I think to the East End).

As far as the letters MJK received in Miller's Court are concerned, They may have been from parents (or mother in EWD's case as her father died in 1875) but I am puzzled about how they were thought to have come from Ireland except from the postmark which were often blurred and illegible. The stamps would have been identical whether they came from London or Ireland or anywhere else in Britain.

My bet is that whether MJK was who she said she was or EWD, it was deeply ingrained Welsh respectability that prevented either family from coming forward. And if she was neither, then who knows?

[erobitha]

All?

Only those who had family in London and whose ID was fairly straightforward - Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Mylett and Coles.

Smith was never properly ID’d was she? I don’t think any of Stride’s Swedish family acknowledged her (I could be wrong), and as for Alice...

Here’s how the Peterborough Advertiser concluded its investigation into her background:

“A connection of the Pitts family, still residing in Peterborough, wishes us to state that the murdered woman had no connection with the family of the Peterborough postman of that name, but our readers can form their own conclusions on the facts given above.”

A daughter named Alice, by then in her 40s, had gone AWOL from the Pitts family. They either believed ‘McKenzie’ to be theirs but refused to acknowledge the fact, or buried their heads in the sand and refused to consider the possibility.

So this is premised on the fact you believe that Tabram, Coles and McKenzie were JTR victims whereas I was focused on the canonical five. I could argue the simple research time invested in tracing the history and families of the canonical five far outweigh that of the others so it stands to reason we know more about them. With the exception of MJK who has probably had the most research conducted and time invested and yet we are effectively none the wiser.

Only McKenize you can safely say the family denied her because of shame. So that is 1 out of 8.

Stride’s family did not attend her burial this is true, but they were in Sweden. Doesn’t mean they didn’t acknowledge her - but I’ll concede to 2 out 8.

Based on actual data there is effectively a 25% chance that MJK’s family did not make themselves known because of shame. Not impossible - but I’m plumping for the other 75% of it not being that.

[MrBarnett]

Yet all the other victims had family members who did reveal themselves.

All?

Only those who had family in London and whose ID was fairly straightforward - Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Mylett and Coles.

Smith was never properly ID’d was she? I don’t think any of Stride’s Swedish family acknowledged her (I could be wrong), and as for Alice...

Here’s how the Peterborough Advertiser concluded its investigation into her background:

“A connection of the Pitts family, still residing in Peterborough, wishes us to state that the murdered woman had no connection with the family of the Peterborough postman of that name, but our readers can form their own conclusions on the facts given above.”

A daughter named Alice, by then in her 40s, had gone AWOL from the Pitts family. They either believed ‘McKenzie’ to be theirs but refused to acknowledge the fact, or buried their heads in the sand and refused to consider the possibility.

[DJA]

I'm not here for an argument

Shame is not part of my equation.

There was an enormous crowd at Shoreditch Church, much of which followed on to the cemetery.

Mary's sibling's being aware of the real story,no doubt wished to remain incognito.

[erobitha]

The family would know what transpired,with her siblings quietly attending the funeral.

Higher social status might mean more to lose,lower social status means risking the lot!

Hmm. I’m struggling with this argument I admit. We know who attended the burial don’t we?

My point remains - if we assume Mary’s class was the same as the other victims and yet their family came forward despite the inference of the victims being prostitutes, is it not highly odd that NO-ONE showed for Mary except for Barnett?

I can accept the argument of higher social standing or even that she may have came from an extremely religious family - but I just don’t see how your working class family has more shame than the other victims families who were of the same ilk.

[DJA]

The family would know what transpired,with her siblings quietly attending the funeral.

Higher social status might mean more to lose,lower social status means risking the lot!

[erobitha]

Mary Ann Kelly's father John, was off the scene from the 1850s. Possibly taken by disease.

Her mother Emma was 63 and in the Holborn Workhouse in 1879.Probably on her last legs.

Her sister Emelia married William Barrage in 1877.
John the was 50 in 1888,Edward 42.
James was a tobacconist and Henry a hawker,both in Bethnal Green.

Mary shows up in the 1881 Census being treated for VD in the Whitechapel Infirmary,Bakers Row.

Six children in all and only one Henry

Let’s go with this for a moment. This family are of poor means so why would they have more morality over not revealing themselves than say Polly or Annie’s family? Nothing in your theory suggests they would.

if the reason Mary’s family didn’t show themselves due to shame, it would most likely be a family with higher social standing or religious links.

I can’t see why all four of the other canonical victims had family that revealed themselves when prostitution could have been alluded to (and was) for those victims .

[erobitha]

In Victorian England, to have a daughter who was a prostitute would be a shameful admission, especially if the family was of some standing at home. We cannot easily relate to the strict class system that existed 130 years ago.

Yet all the other victims had family members who did reveal themselves.

[DJA]

If Mary's mother knew her assumed name and was sending her letters, why did she not also reveal herself when news broke of MJK's murder?

I personally cannot believe that family memebrs who knew her assumed name (or even if wasn't assumed) would simply not reveal themselves after her death. Which leads me to believe that Barnett was partly telling truth - she actaully had no contact with them. Henry is a red herring.

Mary Ann Kelly's father John, was off the scene from the 1850s. Possibly taken by disease.

Her mother Emma was 63 and in the Holborn Workhouse in 1879.Probably on her last legs.

Her sister Emelia married William Barrage in 1877.
John the was 50 in 1888,Edward 42.
James was a tobacconist and Henry a hawker,both in Bethnal Green.

Mary shows up in the 1881 Census being treated for VD in the Whitechapel Infirmary,Bakers Row.

Six children in all and only one Henry