'Johnto'

[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...

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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 .

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?