The Legend Of Mary Jane Kelly

[erobitha]

I might have something.......

[JeffHamm]

I might have something.......

Hopefully you can get a prescription for it? Sorry, couldn't resist, looking forward to anything you may have.

- Jeff

[erobitha]

I might have something.......

[JeffHamm]

I'm glad you wrote this, my first take was 'are we talking about two different Mr Rees here?', something did not quite jive. I thought I'd get back to it later. Yes, something is either garbled or there has been a misunderstanding by reporters.
It might be worth a second look, though I do recall Deb's commenting on the Rees case several years ago, that it didn't lead anywhere, I just can't recall why.

Thanks Wickerman. I'm not surprised to hear that Deb has had a look at this, and would be very interested in her conclusions. I know her work to be very solid and sound. That first article, though, really either has to be filled with blatent fabrications on someone's part (either Mr. Ree's or the reporter's), or as you say the MJK isn't the same MJK of Dorest Street. The first article indicates that the MJK of Mr. Ree's left his service and went to Swansea, so Mr. Ree's at that time appears to have lived elsewhere when MJK was with him. So the 2nd article, which indicates that Mrs. Rees only moved to Swansea 3 years ago is irrelevant, given that the first indicates MJK had left them and herself "went to Swansea". Seems a coincidence that they too eventually moved to Swansea, but regardless, by the time they did MJK was no longer with them. So, if there's any chance of tracking that MJK, given she's not been located in Swansea, the other place to look would be whereever Mr. Rees lived prior to that move.

Still, with all the names given, and the occupation of MJK's father, I'm sure Deb would have been able to track that family down, and perhaps that has led to the conclusion that the information is simply unreliable?

It does, however, feel to me that it is the best starting point and that there has to be something of truth in there, garbled as it may be. Perhaps worth revisiting even. It's such an information rich article that it could just be we're missing the one bit that unravels the whole thing. As you say, though, the whole thing might mean that we're talking two different MJK's here, but even to know that would be useful as this is such a sparkly it needs to be identified as either a beacon or will-o-the-wisp. Perhaps it already has and I'm just getting overly excited.

- Jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

[QUOTE=mpriestnall;n761950]

I took it lightly. I wasn't being sarky and I meant it in complimentary way.
Also I realized I should be more au fait with the details with the coroner inquests. I found them now under main menu item "Official Documents".

I'll take a look a 1887 Coroner's Act. Thanks for the heads up.

Martyn

Hi,
The Coroner's Act can be found online, for a look at how it was or was not put into practice I'd recommend a read of David Barrats article found here: https://www.orsam.co.uk/thebiginquiry.htm

He's specifically referring to the Stride inquest, but there's lots of useful info there.

[Wickerman]

So from this can we assume that MJK was calling herself MJK when she was still living in Cardiff and not a moniker she adopted when she arrived in London. Proof that MJK was her real name?

If you believe that this individual is the Millers Court victim, then yes. If you don't think it's her (like me) then we have to keep on looking. That said, I suspect the Rees article has more to it than has been published, what we read doesn't quite sit right.
By the way, I don't think anyone suggested she adopted the name after arriving in London, she could have done that earlier.
The way I look at that aspect is, we have a woman born in Ireland, moved with her family to Wales where she grew up.
Left home but moved to another Welsh city and fell into the bad life, then moved to London. So the earliest time for a name-change could occur after leaving home, but before arriving in London

Even though I feel reasonably sure the victim's real name was not MJK, I'm still interested in anyone named Mary Jane Kelly, Mary Ann Kelly or just Mary Kelly.

[Losmandris]

This was published in the Western Mail, 13 Nov.





If I recall, this lead turned out to be a dead end.

So from this can we assume that MJK was calling herself MJK when she was still living in Cardiff and not a moniker she adopted when she arrived in London. Proof that MJK was her real name?

[mpriestnall]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;n761941]

Martyn, I hope you realize I only saw the opportunity to make a joke....




It's actually not new, it is there in writing in the 1887 Coroner's Act.



It was a minimum standard.

I took it lightly. I wasn't being sarky and I meant it in complimentary way.
Also I realized I should be more au fait with the details with the coroner inquests. I found them now under main menu item "Official Documents".

I'll take a look a 1887 Coroner's Act. Thanks for the heads up.

Martyn

[Wickerman]

Interesting. In the previous article (post #172), Mr. Rees appears to have been spoken to and to verify that MJK was in his service, and that he even saw her in London and spoke with her. The article in 172 indicates he had been previously married, and that MJK was in his service at that time. The article in #175, says that Mrs. Rees only moved to Swansea 3 years ago, but surely that must be the current Mrs. Rees (I don't know if he divorced or was widowed; if the latter then it must be the wrong Mrs. Rees who has been spoken to in the article shown in post 175).

By the sounds of it, MJK might have been a bit on the wild side in Swansea, but I don't get the impression it was to such an extent as she would have come to the police's attention.

Anyway, I've not delved into archival research, nor am I skilled in geneology, so I'm only giving my impression of how those two articles pair up together. It strikes me, though, either the first article is entirely fabricated by the reporter, or the reporter tracked down Mr. Rees who verified MJK as being MJK, and that she indeed worked for him at some point. I'm not sure the 2nd article is really enough to conclude that the lead in post #172 is a dead end. Is there more behind that decision?

- Jeff

I'm glad you wrote this, my first take was 'are we talking about two different Mr Rees here?', something did not quite jive. I thought I'd get back to it later. Yes, something is either garbled or there has been a misunderstanding by reporters.
It might be worth a second look, though I do recall Deb's commenting on the Rees case several years ago, that it didn't lead anywhere, I just can't recall why.

[Wickerman]

[QUOTE=mpriestnall;n761926]

Martyn!, that should have been your first port of call, not your last.

As usual your'e right! Primary sources and facts just get in the way...

Martyn, I hope you realize I only saw the opportunity to make a joke....

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles...s-and-inquests states:
Quote
An inquest is an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding a death. The purpose of the inquest is to find out who the deceased person was and how, when and where they died and to provide the details needed for their death to be registered.
Unquote

How well does this modern day definition apply to the inquests for the WMs?

It's actually not new, it is there in writing in the 1887 Coroner's Act.

I'm just wondering why certain matters were included in Kelly's personal history and others were not.

It was a minimum standard.

[mpriestnall]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;n761863]

Martyn!, that should have been your first port of call, not your last.

As usual your'e right! Primary sources and facts just get in the way...

Newbie stuff I know, but it's important to my response. I need to be clear in my own mind as to the purpose of an inquest into a death.

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles...s-and-inquests states:
Quote
An inquest is an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding a death. The purpose of the inquest is to find out who the deceased person was and how, when and where they died and to provide the details needed for their death to be registered.
Unquote

How well does this modern day definition apply to the inquests for the WMs?

I'm just wondering why certain matters were included in Kelly's personal history and others were not.

Thanks,

Martyn

[erobitha]

Some Swansea Marriage candidates for the Rees's:

Charles Rees married Annie Hopkins in 1871.
David Rees married Catherine Hopkins in 1866.
Rees Rees married Janet Hopkins in 1869.
Rowland Rees married Alice Hopkins in 1869.
William Rees married Mary Hopkins in 1868
William Rees married Elizabeth Hopkins 1870.

Next step, which I don't have time now is to cross-reference the 1871 censuses to see if we get a match for occupations where the couple could keep service staff. The first one is too late but the rest are worth checking.

[erobitha]

I tried looking for a Mary Kelly being born in Lallenlly around 1860-1868 - couldn't find any.

Found one born in Swansea. Parents are Irish. The only time this family appear on any census together. A Cornelius Kelly was registered as a patient in an Abergavenny lunatic asylum in 1891 and 1901 census, but the age and place of birth seem to be off. On this census, the original record shows he was a Labourer.

[JeffHamm]

With reference to post 172 above...


South Wales Daily News, 13 Nov.

Interesting. In the previous article (post #172), Mr. Rees appears to have been spoken to and to verify that MJK was in his service, and that he even saw her in London and spoke with her. The article in 172 indicates he had been previously married, and that MJK was in his service at that time. The article in #175, says that Mrs. Rees only moved to Swansea 3 years ago, but surely that must be the current Mrs. Rees (I don't know if he divorced or was widowed; if the latter then it must be the wrong Mrs. Rees who has been spoken to in the article shown in post 175).

By the sounds of it, MJK might have been a bit on the wild side in Swansea, but I don't get the impression it was to such an extent as she would have come to the police's attention.

Anyway, I've not delved into archival research, nor am I skilled in geneology, so I'm only giving my impression of how those two articles pair up together. It strikes me, though, either the first article is entirely fabricated by the reporter, or the reporter tracked down Mr. Rees who verified MJK as being MJK, and that she indeed worked for him at some point. I'm not sure the 2nd article is really enough to conclude that the lead in post #172 is a dead end. Is there more behind that decision?

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

With reference to post 172 above...


South Wales Daily News, 13 Nov.