'Johnto'

[Prosector]

I think what really stands out from all this recent and very interesting discussion is that MJK, whether she really was MJK or someone else (including, possibly, Elizabeth Weston Craig), is that she did not want to be identified and took a lot of trouble to ensure that, including muddying the water by talking about her brother Henry being in the Scots Guards and being known to his comrades as Johnto. If she had really wanted Joe Barnett to know the truth she would have spelled it out less ambiguously. That in turn begs the question of why was she keeping her identity secret? The obvious reason is that she believed that someone bore her a grudge. It could have been a client who she might have short changed or a jealous lover which seems to narrow it down to Francis Craig (but only if she was his wife Elizabeth), Joe Barnett or Joseph Fleming (or Flemming or Evans) who seems to have been a bit neglected recently. And if she was deliberately spreading half truths about Henry/Johnto/Kelly/Davies, no amount of searching the records is likely to reveal the complete truth. I believe that the identity of MJK holds the key to the whole Ripper mystery. Her killing was so different to the others and so brutally targeted that I find it difficult to accept that it was the random work of a demented lunatic.

[MrBarnett]

I think what really stands out from all this recent and very interesting discussion is that MJK, whether she really was MJK or someone else (including, possibly, Elizabeth Weston Craig), is that she did not want to be identified and took a lot of trouble to ensure that, including muddying the water by talking about her brother Henry being in the Scots Guards and being known to his comrades as Johnto. If she had really wanted Joe Barnett to know the truth she would have spelled it out less ambiguously. That in turn begs the question of why was she keeping her identity secret? The obvious reason is that she believed that someone bore her a grudge. It could have been a client who she might have short changed or a jealous lover which seems to narrow it down to Francis Craig (but only if she was his wife Elizabeth), Joe Barnett or Joseph Fleming (or Flemming or Evans) who seems to have been a bit neglected recently. And if she was deliberately spreading half truths about Henry/Johnto/Kelly/Davies, no amount of searching the records is likely to reveal the complete truth. I believe that the identity of MJK holds the key to the whole Ripper mystery. Her killing was so different to the others and so brutally targeted that I find it difficult to accept that it was the random work of a demented lunatic.

At the moment I’m viewing everything through the prism of Alice McKenzie. She had lived with John McCormack for 6/7 years, but he knew very little about her. He didn’t know her real name or whether she had ever been married - her maiden name was in fact Alice Pitts and she had married a carpenter named Joseph Kinsey in Leicester. He thought she’d had a son who was now living in America, when in fact it appears that her only child had died in infancy in Leicester shortly before her husband had died there.

That she had originally come from Peterborough and that her father had been a postman there was all he knew.

What was Alice hiding? A slightly chaotic early life, perhaps?

[Wickerman]

Thanks Jon.
I understand your family's experience and explanation but I guess I'm finding it difficult to understand why Henry being known 'amongst his comrades ' should necessarily be connected to his family and being the son of someone named John, as in 'John too.' I can't imagine someone being nick named named 'John' because there was another Henry in the company....

I was attempting to show that, in my view, Henry was known by his second name? (an assumption) by his comrades.
The context of Barnett's statement is 'family relations', which begins with: "The deceased told me on one occasion that her father named John Kelly"....etc. Then, he introduces Henry, who was also known as John, like the person previously named.
The whole paragraph concerns family members, not Henry's comrade's, that is a side-line note.
Barnett is only indicating Henry was known as John (like his father) in some small quarter's.

Trying to find a Henry Kelly (or John Kelly?) in the SBSG may be fruitless because the surname was not Kelly.
I suspect the victim adopted the name Mary Kelly, so the surname of her brother was probably not Kelly.

[Debra A]

Trying to find a Henry Kelly (or John Kelly?) in the SBSG may be fruitless because the surname was not Kelly.
I suspect the victim adopted the name Mary Kelly, so the surname of her brother was probably not Kelly.

I agree that's a real possibility. I found it interesting that near neighbour and friend Elizabeth Prater really had a sister named Mary Jane and a brother named Henry who was in uniform, albeit the navy. Maybe there was a bit of borrowing of back stories going on? Maybe Barnett's memory was at fault.

[erobitha]

I was attempting to show that, in my view, Henry was known by his second name? (an assumption) by his comrades.
The context of Barnett's statement is 'family relations', which begins with: "The deceased told me on one occasion that her father named John Kelly"....etc. Then, he introduces Henry, who was also known as John, like the person previously named.
The whole paragraph concerns family members, not Henry's comrade's, that is a side-line note.
Barnett is only indicating Henry was known as John (like his father) in some small quarter's.

Trying to find a Henry Kelly (or John Kelly?) in the SBSG may be fruitless because the surname was not Kelly.
I suspect the victim adopted the name Mary Kelly, so the surname of her brother was probably not Kelly.

To narrow down the Henry’s in the Scots Guards around that time (some records do not confirm the battalion) I have found no Irish Henry’s, a few Welsh ones and there were a fair few English ones. Question is, which one would be the right Henry and why?

[MrBarnett]

To narrow down the Henry’s in the Scots Guards around that time (some records do not confirm the battalion) I have found no Irish Henry’s, a few Welsh ones and there were a fair few English ones. Question is, which one would be the right Henry and why?

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

[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?

[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]

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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.