The Legend Of Mary Jane Kelly

[mpriestnall]

Legend:
"A spy's claimed background or biography, usually supported by documents and memorized details".

Kelly, though not a spy, was given a "legend" by the authorities through the vehicle of Joseph Barnett's testimony
at Kelly's inquest. The reason for the legend was to hide the connection between Kelly and Astrakhan Man and Jack the Ripper.

The following points do not prove that Kelly's backstory was a legend but are nevertheless are all consistent with such a legend:

1. Numerous people have searched for Kelly for decades using the Irish/Welsh backstory and all have failed to find any trace of Kelly. This fact alone should throw doubt on the veracity of her backstory.

2. All her early backstory originates from only one source, namely Joe Barnett.

I find it particularly incredible that the dramatic death of her husband was not separately reported by any of Kelly's Miller's Court cohorts. It would be natural to expect Kelly to share some of her history with her neighbours. She would have plenty of opportunity to do so, since she had been living in Miller's Court since the early spring. However no one, apart from Barnett, reported this most dramatic event.

3. The surnames for maiden name (Kelly) and married name (Davies) are two of the most common surnames found in Ireland and Wales. These names would make it difficult for any contemporary effort to disprove her fake identity.

4. Kelly's birth place Limerick could have been chosen for her because of it's ambiguity, namely it's not clear if it refers to the town or county, thus again making difficult to disprove. Kelly would have reported to Barnett her town rather than the county as her place of birth, yet there was no contemporaneous confirmation that Kelly had any connection to Limerick town.

Martyn

[Kattrup]

out of curiosity, does this "theory" of yours explain whether Barnett was duped or an accomplice in the cover-up?

[mpriestnall]

5. According to "https://www.casebook.org/victims/mary_jane_kelly.html", "Cardiff police at no record of her."

[mpriestnall]

out of curiosity, does this "theory" of yours explain whether Barnett was duped or an accomplice in the cover-up?

Barnett clearly had a deep affection for Kelly, demonstrated by him trying to support her even when out of work and went along with the fake background for the sake of Kelly.

Barnett's stuttering performance at the inquest was a result of the stress he was under, because he knew he was lying, albeit to help Kelly, not the authorities.

Kelly was not the Miller's Court victim. Assisting the authorities in the deception, was his way of helping Kelly start a new life.

[Kattrup]

I see. Thanks. So what was the connection between MJK, Astrakhan man and JtR that was so secret that the authorities would do anything to prevent it known?

[mpriestnall]

I see. Thanks. So what was the connection between MJK, Astrakhan man and JtR that was so secret that the authorities would do anything to prevent it known?

The police eg Anderson, McNaughton portrayed these killings as random killings by a madman. However I believe the motive for the murders was of a personal nature eg blackmail of Astrakhan by one or more of the victims. There was no great state secret for the authorities to protect.

Astrakhan and JTR were protected by the authorities only because of their connections (masonic, personal whatever) to the top people of the day e.g. the P.O.W., the PM whoever.

Martyn

[Wickerman]

A similar topic was raised on JTRForums a few days ago.

I have been persuaded in recent years that the name Mary Kelly, or Mary Jane Kelly, was not the real name of the victim.
I avoid conspiracy theories like the plague, so this deception in my view was merely a means of one person avoiding being identified, by whom, and for what reason is another matter.

On the very first day of the murder, 9th Nov., witnesses were suggesting the name Mary Jane Kelly was not her real name.
The more time passes, the longer we spend looking for her, the more I feel assured this was more than likely true.
This being the case, every Mary Kelly will turn out to have nothing to do with the case. Even those who might have several brothers in an 1881 census, will more than likely still be around in a 1891 census.
So if the above hypothesis is correct, then what was the real name of the victim?

The name Lizzie Fisher was associated with the victim from very early on. Christopher Scott identified a good number of Lizzie/Elizabeth Fisher's throughout the census forms, but because they were not born in Ireland, he dismissed them.
The problem here is, only one theory is being addressed. That someone named Elizabeth Fisher adopted a fake persona as Mary Kelly, and everything we have learned about Mary must be the biography of an Elizabeth Fisher.
I think there's another way of looking at the same evidence.

One of the stories we are told is that - 'it is not true the victim (MJK) was Welsh, she was born in Ireland'. Another story say's the victim 'could speak Welsh fluently', that she had 'spent some time in Cardiff', that she had a 'cousin in Cardiff' who led her into disreputable ways. These stories of an association with Wales may provide a clue. If we are looking for a 'Lizzie Fisher', maybe we should look in Wales.

It must be said, I found at least three Elizabeth Fisher's in the East End of London. One in Bethnal Green, one in Whitechapel, and another I think it was Southwark.
If the early association of the victim with a Lizzie Fisher was merely a case of mistaken identity, that a real Lizzie Fisher was a local woman, then this name is a dead end.

On the other hand, the real Elizabeth Fisher may have been born and lived in Wales. And, because she gave so many details of her adopted life as Mary Kelly, perhaps she knew a Mary Kelly as a childhood friend. It is a known fact in certain circles that if you intend to adopt a false identity, choose one you know off by heart, if that is possible.
Far less possibility of you forgetting an address, a name or an age you had already told someone. Therefore, in this hypothesis there is a real Mary Kelly, who was born in Ireland, who did move to Wales, who did have seven brothers & one sister. And, as expected in this hypothesis, she is still alive in 1891.

So, who was the victim in Miller's Court?
Was she some Welsh Elizabeth Fisher who had been a childhood friend of the Mary Kelly described above?

Or, perhaps, on a different angle, was the victim the cousin we are told lived in Cardiff, and she adopted the name & identity of her own cousin, and it was she who moved to London.

[Trevor Marriott]

The police eg Anderson, McNaughton portrayed these killings as random killings by a madman. However I believe the motive for the murders was of a personal nature eg blackmail of Astrakhan by one or more of the victims. There was no great state secret for the authorities to protect.

Astrakhan and JTR were protected by the authorities only because of their connections (masonic, personal whatever) to the top people of the day e.g. the P.O.W., the PM whoever.

Martyn

If you look at the story surrounding Alice Carroll using the name of Mary Kelly then you have a clear motive for her murder

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

If you look at the story surrounding Alice Carroll using the name of Mary Kelly then you have a clear motive for her murder

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor

I think the post below by Debra Arif from 2014 (sorry don't know how to link to other threads) adds some useful information about Alice Carroll - making it unlikely this was MJK, I think.

03-07-2014, 02:44 PM
Alice Carroll

Alice Carroll was a witness in the case relating to the conspiracy to murder a special juror named Field.
Alice was born April 26 1866 in Eccles lane and would have been 22 at the time of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly ( I was the person who supplied Michael Fanning with the genealogical data on the family)
Alice was reportedly in Dublin as late as September 1887 when she was fined for using abusive language.The newspaper reports mention that this is the same Alice Carroll involved in the 1883 trial.
Here is the first problem-Barnett states he met Mary Jane Kelly on 8th April 1887 and they agreed to live with one another the day after.
Research by Jenni and Neal Shelden have shown that Kelly's claims, via Barnett, that she arrived in London in 1884 , have some foundation in the records. Morganstone, Mrs Felix (Phoenix) and Mrs Bukki all existed at exactly the time and place they should have and were all connected to each other-corroborating Barnett's story somewhat.
It has been claimed that perhaps Alice Carroll flitted between Dublin and Whitechapel 1884-1888 but this seems highly unlikely if Alice was supposedly relocated for her own safety.
Alice spent time in Grangegorman prison (the address given is the same as her address given in the Field trial) and a description of her survives in those records. She was 5ft 4in with a fresh complexion, brown hair and blue eyes.
Claims that Alice is untraceable in the census records after 1883 is misleading. The Irish census records before 1901 have not survived.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

I think the post below by Debra Arif from 2014 (sorry don't know how to link to other threads) adds some useful information about Alice Carroll - making it unlikely this was MJK, I think.

With the greatest respect to Debra and her research I dont think her results are conclusive enough to totally negate the suggestion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

With the greatest respect to Debra and her research I dont think her results are conclusive enough to totally negate the suggestion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Indeed, but sufficient to suggest it is unlikely - especially if the descriptions of MJK and Alice Carroll are reasonably accurate.

[mpriestnall]

If you look at the story surrounding Alice Carroll using the name of Mary Kelly then you have a clear motive for her murder

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have heard of Alice Caroll and knew that Debra had looked into her but didn't really pay too much attention
of her (Alice not Debra). I'll remedy that now, so thanks for the suggestion.

Martyn

[mpriestnall]

A similar topic was raised on JTRForums a few days ago.

I have been persuaded in recent years that the name Mary Kelly, or Mary Jane Kelly, was not the real name of the victim.
I avoid conspiracy theories like the plague, so this deception in my view was merely a means of one person avoiding being identified, by whom, and for what reason is another matter.

On the very first day of the murder, 9th Nov., witnesses were suggesting the name Mary Jane Kelly was not her real name.
The more time passes, the longer we spend looking for her, the more I feel assured this was more than likely true.
This being the case, every Mary Kelly will turn out to have nothing to do with the case. Even those who might have several brothers in an 1881 census, will more than likely still be around in a 1891 census.
So if the above hypothesis is correct, then what was the real name of the victim?

The name Lizzie Fisher was associated with the victim from very early on. Christopher Scott identified a good number of Lizzie/Elizabeth Fisher's throughout the census forms, but because they were not born in Ireland, he dismissed them.
The problem here is, only one theory is being addressed. That someone named Elizabeth Fisher adopted a fake persona as Mary Kelly, and everything we have learned about Mary must be the biography of an Elizabeth Fisher.
I think there's another way of looking at the same evidence.

One of the stories we are told is that - 'it is not true the victim (MJK) was Welsh, she was born in Ireland'. Another story say's the victim 'could speak Welsh fluently', that she had 'spent some time in Cardiff', that she had a 'cousin in Cardiff' who led her into disreputable ways. These stories of an association with Wales may provide a clue. If we are looking for a 'Lizzie Fisher', maybe we should look in Wales.

It must be said, I found at least three Elizabeth Fisher's in the East End of London. One in Bethnal Green, one in Whitechapel, and another I think it was Southwark.
If the early association of the victim with a Lizzie Fisher was merely a case of mistaken identity, that a real Lizzie Fisher was a local woman, then this name is a dead end.

On the other hand, the real Elizabeth Fisher may have been born and lived in Wales. And, because she gave so many details of her adopted life as Mary Kelly, perhaps she knew a Mary Kelly as a childhood friend. It is a known fact in certain circles that if you intend to adopt a false identity, choose one you know off by heart, if that is possible.
Far less possibility of you forgetting an address, a name or an age you had already told someone. Therefore, in this hypothesis there is a real Mary Kelly, who was born in Ireland, who did move to Wales, who did have seven brothers & one sister. And, as expected in this hypothesis, she is still alive in 1891.

So, who was the victim in Miller's Court?
Was she some Welsh Elizabeth Fisher who had been a childhood friend of the Mary Kelly described above?

Or, perhaps, on a different angle, was the victim the cousin we are told lived in Cardiff, and she adopted the name & identity of her own cousin, and it was she who moved to London.

Thanks for your thoughts, Wicks.

My take was Kelly was London born, whose parents were Welsh, Irish or even Scottish. This may mean she spoke with a mixed accent, influenced by the locals plus the native accents of her parents. This might explain the varying stated origins of Kelly.

Martyn

[mpriestnall]

Just for info: I started this thread with the intention of trying to pick apart Kelly's "legend".

This was in lieu of posting on the recently continued Mary Thomas thread and stating it was waste of time looking for Kelly with Barnett's supplied criteria. I thought that would have been unwelcome as it might seem negative and a bit snarky. I thought a separate thread to pick apart the legend was a more positive idea.

Katrup's questions was useful because it it made me realize that the two local authorities associated with the earlier Kelly, Limerick and Cardiff, both stated they didn't know of Kelly, which is interesting, if not telling.

Martyn

[rjpalmer]

"Alice was reportedly in Dublin as late as September 1887 when she was fined for using abusive language. The newspaper reports mention that this is the same Alice Carroll involved in the 1883 trial."

The newspaper report does indeed say this, but I've wondered whether it is accurate.

As far as one can judge from her testimony, Alice Carroll was a respectable and reasonable person. It was even reported that she was going steady with a constable on the Dublin Police Force.

While this doesn't make it impossible that she was later fined for using abusive language, it seems a little out of character, and I wonder if some journalist & wag, noting the woman's name, wasn't pulling our legs. The Irish look down on informers, to say the least, and he might have found it amusing to report that this was the same Alice Carroll of Phoenix Park infamy.

Of course, I have no proof of this, but it might be noted that there appears to have been another Alice Carroll, born around 1868, (two years later than 'our' Alice) who is listed in Mountjoy Prison in 1899. (A women's prison in Dublin). It gives her age as 31, born in The Coombe, which is district in Central Dublin, but one I **don't think** would encompass Eccles Lane, St. Michan's Parish. So it looks like there may have been two Alice Carrolls, roughly the same age, bouncing around Central Dublin in the 1880s.

Just a guess--