'Johnto'

[MrBarnett]

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.

Exactly so, Jon.

A lot more recently than 1888, a woman who merely conceived an illegitimate child might be ostracised by her family. The social implications of standing up and admitting to the world that the latest prostitute to have been slaughtered in the East End slums was your daughter/sister would have been enormous.

A private prayer or a visit to the priest, if they were religiously minded, might have seemed adequate in the circumstances.

[DJA]

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.

Crikey,Melbourne in the 1950s and 60s was bad enough.

If anyone seeks an insight into Victorian era London,two of Gordon Rattray Taylor's books ...... "Sex in History" 1954 and "Sex in Religion" which has completely disappeared ,are worth a read.
The hypocrisy of the time is stunning.

From my experiences on a Hari Krisha farm,if anyone holds a significant office,they can get away with anything. Right under everyones' noses.

Quite frankly,religious orders are a perfect home for paedophiles.

If one is a also a well connected doctor ..... and along comes one of his victims from 20 years ago ...... again! Especially in 1885 ..... and 1888.

[Wickerman]

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.

[erobitha]

It's puzzling because in the reports where Barnett is said to have mentioned a brother in the Scots Guards who visited MJK once, Barnett also went on to say she wasn't in contact with her family.

Which makes the fact that this mysterious "Henry" never revealed himself to the police or press at any stage. If he truly was family would he not want to ensure Mary had the burial she deserved? Abberline had this information, I trust he also followed the line of enquiry. The fact he also hit a dead end would suggest that Henry was most likely a client that MJK lied to Barnett about.

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.

Johnto may also be too, but there is something with Johnto that makes him feel partly real to me.

[Wickerman]

It's possible that both incidents; the visiting brother & the searching father, were stories Kelly told to McCarthy which had happened when she lived in Pennington St.

If 'Kelly' owed money she might have changed her name, or if she was being looked for by police.
It's just that the more people who came forward from her past (Liz. Foster, Mrs. Phoenix, Mrs Carthy, Mrs Buki, the City Mission), means the longer she must have been using that name for.
So if anything happened to cause the change of name, it happened many years ago, even while she lived in the West End?

[MrBarnett]

It's puzzling because in the reports where Barnett is said to have mentioned a brother in the Scots Guards who visited MJK once, Barnett also went on to say she wasn't in contact with her family.

Yes, that is contradictory, but perhaps he thought a one-off visit from her brother while he was stationed in London and an occasional letter from her mum didn’t count?

It’s just occurred to me that a few shillings may have occasionally come her way from her family which she didn’t reveal to Joe.

The possibilities are endless...

[Debra A]

Yes, I was considering that aspect earlier. Perhaps she had a poste restante elsewhere. McCarthy mentions the letters from her mother in Ireland, but doesn’t explicitly say they were received by him. Or perhaps her mother knew the name she had adopted and was happy to go along with the subterfuge.

There are all sorts of possibilities that would fit with her story being a mix of truth, half-truth and lie. And that don’t require her to have been in hiding from a violent ex.

It's puzzling because in the reports where Barnett is said to have mentioned a brother in the Scots Guards who visited MJK once, Barnett also went on to say she wasn't in contact with her family.

[MrBarnett]

Yes, I was considering that aspect earlier. Perhaps she had a poste restante elsewhere. McCarthy mentions the letters from her mother in Ireland, but doesn’t explicitly say they were received by him. Or perhaps her mother knew the name she had adopted and was happy to go along with the subterfuge.

There are all sorts of possibilities that would fit with her story being a mix of truth, half-truth and lie. And that don’t require her to have been in hiding from a violent ex.

[Wickerman]

Because she had drifted into prostitution and wanted to conceal the fact from her family, or from those who knew her family. And so she assumed a false name and tinkered about with her back story a bit. That’s all it would have taken to make her untraceable. That’s one possibility that doesn’t require a mystery pursuer.

Yes, that's generally the view I had. Except, her mother had to know her new pseudonym or Kelly couldn't have received letters from home.
I'm assuming any mail would have been delivered to the McCarthy's as the rooms in No.26 likely had no recognised mailing address. The McCarthy's would then see the name of the addressee which must surely have been 'Mary Kelly'.
And then there's the father, how would he know where to look if he didn't have a name?

[MrBarnett]

All perfectly plausible but if MJK didn't want her brother to be identified then, he's unlikely to be now after this passage of time unless she herself is identified. And the question remains, why didn't she want to be identified?

Because she had drifted into prostitution and wanted to conceal the fact from her family, or from those who knew her family. And so she assumed a false name and tinkered about with her back story a bit. That’s all it would have taken to make her untraceable. That’s one possibility that doesn’t require a mystery pursuer.

If John McCormack hadn’t picked up the word ‘Peterborough’, Alice McKenzie’s ID would probably have remained a mystery forever.

[Trevor Marriott]

All perfectly plausible but if MJK didn't want her brother to be identified then, he's unlikely to be now after this passage of time unless she herself is identified. And the question remains, why didn't she want to be identified?

Now there is a plausible answer to that !!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Prosector]

All perfectly plausible but if MJK didn't want her brother to be identified then, he's unlikely to be now after this passage of time unless she herself is identified. And the question remains, why didn't she want to be identified?

[MrBarnett]

These are probably all red herrings, but I was getting the impression that it was extremely unlikely that an Irish Henry would have joined the SG in the timescale implied by MJK.

These are by no means the only examples.

[MrBarnett]

Or Henry McAleer from Tyrone who joined the SG in London in October, 1885?

Then there’s Henry Pearson from Armagh who joined the SG in London in August, 1887.

[MrBarnett]

How about Henry McGroerty from Donegal who joined the SG in London in August, 1886?

Or Henry McAleer from Tyrone who joined the SG in London in October, 1885?