Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finding Mary Kelly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Jurriaan Maessen View Post

    It has been argued, and perhaps rightly so, that even if Mary only assumed the Kelly-name áfter her departure from Wales (which I, personally, find more than plausible), the particulars from the rest of the story- such as the husbands name- would have rung some bells in the minds of any family members of the deceased Welsh collier, as the name 'Davies' was widely publicized throughout the Kingdom in the days and weeks following the murder. On the other hand: the connection would not necessarily be obvious, especially since the papers circulating in the South Wales area (and specifically South-East wales, where there was by far the most mining employment) would carry the name of Carmarthen and/or Carmarthenshire from the Barnett inquest testimony as possible places where the deceased might have resided before her husband's death. It would not only explain why no family members would have come forward to claim kinship, it would also explain why queries by reporters and the police to locate family members failed to produce results. They would really only have had Barnett's statements to work with. There is also the possibility that her Irish parents (or mother) had already moved back to Ireland by the time of the murder in Miller's Court, if we choose to lend any credence to the statements by John McCarthy as well as the unnamed city misionary, who both mentioned that Kelly corresponded with her mother in Limerick, although the very person who would be most likely to know (Barnett) mentioned nothing about any correspondence.
    Interesting post. Just to note the Irish newspapers reported as much on the East End murders as the English papers did. It was all part of the same union at the time.

    It does raise an interesting point I think it is worth noting based on the above. Kelly may not have been a name invented until Cardiff or even London. She could have been called entirely something else, which is why none of the related mining family came forward or even her own.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jurriaan Maessen
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post

    I would guess that considering the other canonical victims did, in a sense, use their real names, or as close as possible enough to be positively identified, Mary Kelly would do the same, except they found no family and no one ever came forward as family. But for most of what we know she didn't use a different name that I recall. Barnett calling her Marie Janette I thought was him playing up the Paris trip she said she took and made her sound a little more respectable.

    It's doubtful Barnett killed her. Not impossible but given the circumstances we know of, I don't see him capable of inflicting that kind of mutilation on her. Maybe I'm naive?

    Columbo
    It has been argued, and perhaps rightly so, that even if Mary only assumed the Kelly-name áfter her departure from Wales (which I, personally, find more than plausible), the particulars from the rest of the story- such as the husbands name- would have rung some bells in the minds of any family members of the deceased Welsh collier, as the name 'Davies' was widely publicized throughout the Kingdom in the days and weeks following the murder. On the other hand: the connection would not necessarily be obvious, especially since the papers circulating in the South Wales area (and specifically South-East wales, where there was by far the most mining employment) would carry the name of Carmarthen and/or Carmarthenshire from the Barnett inquest testimony as possible places where the deceased might have resided before her husband's death. It would not only explain why no family members would have come forward to claim kinship, it would also explain why queries by reporters and the police to locate family members failed to produce results. They would really only have had Barnett's statements to work with. There is also the possibility that her Irish parents (or mother) had already moved back to Ireland by the time of the murder in Miller's Court, if we choose to lend any credence to the statements by John McCarthy as well as the unnamed city misionary, who both mentioned that Kelly corresponded with her mother in Limerick, although the very person who would be most likely to know (Barnett) mentioned nothing about any correspondence.
    Last edited by Jurriaan Maessen; 08-04-2021, 10:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post

    Hi
    it is also possible that the killer of Kelly, was not the Ripper, just a copycat, and the killer of the other women, either killed himself , or wes committed after Mitre square. If Mary was killed by a jilted lover , he would have no reason to kill again.
    When commenting on the Stride murder, Coroner Wynne Baxter thought the Eddows murder was also a copycat : "There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator". The Eddows and Kelly murders have in common the facial lacerations absent from the previous murders. Profilers suggest that facial attacks indicate that the purpetrator knew the victim. Eddows claimed to have known the identity of JtR and was using the name "Mary Kelly" at the time.

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    A Limerick telegram states that inquiries made in that city had failed to identify the latest Whitechapel victim as a native of that town. The Limerick police were reported to have been communicated with by the London police regarding Kelly's antecedents, but the report was unfounded. It is believed that if Kelly belonged to the city, she left it with her people many years ago.
    Morning Advertiser, 12 Nov. 1888.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post

    I didn’t know this either. Very interesting. So can we extract from this info that her real name was Mary Kelly since family was contacted? And she must’ve had something like a letter with their information in order for them to be contacted.
    We don't know if the family was contacted. If the press heard that the police had reached out, they may have assumed they had been contacted.
    There's nothing in the press to indicate the family had received any communication.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    There is another press report that her family is expected to arrive in Liverpool, but nothing further happened.

    There is also a press report that Scotland Yard had communicated with Limerick police, but they knew nothing about anyone named Mary Jane Kelly.
    I never saw anything about police communication to Wales.


    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    Yes, it is puzzling. Here are the snippets I was thinking of;

    Daily News 14 Nov
    "The funeral of the deceased woman Kelly will not take place till after the arrival from Wales of some of her relatives and friends who are expected to reach London this evening."

    15 Nov
    "The relatives of the murdered woman, who were expected yesterday, have not yet arrived.-The funeral has been again postponed, and may not take place until Monday."

    Morning Advertiser 14 Nov
    "The funeral of the murdered woman Kelly will not take place until after the arrival from Wales of some of her relatives and friends, who are expected to reach London this evening. If they be unable to provide the necessary funeral expenses, Mr. H. Wilton, of 119, High-street, Shoreditch, has guaranteed that the unfortunate woman shall not be buried in a pauper's grave"

    15 Nov
    "Mr. Alabaster said he understood that the funeral expenses would be defrayed by the relatives and friends of the deceased, and that consequently there would be no necessity to appeal to the parochial authorities."

    Perhaps the thought of paying the funeral expenses was enough to change their minds about attending?
    I didn’t know this either. Very interesting. So can we extract from this info that her real name was Mary Kelly since family was contacted? And she must’ve had something like a letter with their information in order for them to be contacted.

    I still find it interesting no legends have come down a family tree about her. Other victims have living relations. I believe Polly Nichols does?

    columbo.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    Yes, it is puzzling. Here are the snippets I was thinking of;

    Daily News 14 Nov
    "The funeral of the deceased woman Kelly will not take place till after the arrival from Wales of some of her relatives and friends who are expected to reach London this evening."

    15 Nov
    "The relatives of the murdered woman, who were expected yesterday, have not yet arrived.-The funeral has been again postponed, and may not take place until Monday."

    Morning Advertiser 14 Nov
    "The funeral of the murdered woman Kelly will not take place until after the arrival from Wales of some of her relatives and friends, who are expected to reach London this evening. If they be unable to provide the necessary funeral expenses, Mr. H. Wilton, of 119, High-street, Shoreditch, has guaranteed that the unfortunate woman shall not be buried in a pauper's grave"

    15 Nov
    "Mr. Alabaster said he understood that the funeral expenses would be defrayed by the relatives and friends of the deceased, and that consequently there would be no necessity to appeal to the parochial authorities."

    Perhaps the thought of paying the funeral expenses was enough to change their minds about attending?
    Interesting, those are new to me. There were large crowds on her funeral parade, reported in the 1000's. Quite possibly the family did not wish to have their grief on such public display, particularly as there would be some amount of shame and stigma associated with Mary Jane being involved in prostitution. Perhaps they were provided with a more private farewell ceremony on some day prior to the actual burrial, although in The Times it is reported that "...The car (hearse) was followed by two coaches containing mourners, among whom was Joseph Barnett...." There may be more details about who the mourners were, which may rule out her family, but perhaps we don't know who those mourners were, making it possible it was her family and somehow they were afforded privacy, even to the point the press did not mention them at all other than in this cryptic way?

    I'm sure it's clear I have no idea if that's true, but it's a tantalizing suggestion that her family may actually have been located in Wales. If those mourners have been identified elsewhere, though, then that would shut down this line of thought. Given the attention at the time, we shouldn't exclude the possibility that only one family member went to the burial site, so unless we're sure of the identities of all of the mourners alluded to above, ... (and I note no number is put to that; all we know for sure is one of them was Joseph Barnett).

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post

    I believe he was playing cards at his new lodgings. Abberline seemed to have verified his alibi and didn't think he was responsible. I don't recall family being reported from the papers as even being notified. You would think that if family knew she was a JTR victim, there would be at least some anecdotal stories coming down the generations.
    Yes, it is puzzling. Here are the snippets I was thinking of;

    Daily News 14 Nov
    "The funeral of the deceased woman Kelly will not take place till after the arrival from Wales of some of her relatives and friends who are expected to reach London this evening."

    15 Nov
    "The relatives of the murdered woman, who were expected yesterday, have not yet arrived.-The funeral has been again postponed, and may not take place until Monday."

    Morning Advertiser 14 Nov
    "The funeral of the murdered woman Kelly will not take place until after the arrival from Wales of some of her relatives and friends, who are expected to reach London this evening. If they be unable to provide the necessary funeral expenses, Mr. H. Wilton, of 119, High-street, Shoreditch, has guaranteed that the unfortunate woman shall not be buried in a pauper's grave"

    15 Nov
    "Mr. Alabaster said he understood that the funeral expenses would be defrayed by the relatives and friends of the deceased, and that consequently there would be no necessity to appeal to the parochial authorities."

    Perhaps the thought of paying the funeral expenses was enough to change their minds about attending?

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    Interestingly, there are reports in various papers that say her family were expected to arrive in London for the funeral, but they don't appear to have attended. Whether they had a change of heart, or this was just paper talk we'll probably never know.

    Wasn't Barnett playing cribbage in his new lodgings?
    I believe he was playing cards at his new lodgings. Abberline seemed to have verified his alibi and didn't think he was responsible. I don't recall family being reported from the papers as even being notified. You would think that if family knew she was a JTR victim, there would be at least some anecdotal stories coming down the generations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post

    I would guess that considering the other canonical victims did, in a sense, use their real names, or as close as possible enough to be positively identified, Mary Kelly would do the same, except they found no family and no one ever came forward as family. But for most of what we know she didn't use a different name that I recall. Barnett calling her Marie Janette I thought was him playing up the Paris trip she said she took and made her sound a little more respectable.

    It's doubtful Barnett killed her. Not impossible but given the circumstances we know of, I don't see him capable of inflicting that kind of mutilation on her. Maybe I'm naive?
    Interestingly, there are reports in various papers that say her family were expected to arrive in London for the funeral, but they don't appear to have attended. Whether they had a change of heart, or this was just paper talk we'll probably never know.

    Wasn't Barnett playing cribbage in his new lodgings?

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by Jurriaan Maessen View Post
    In one of the rippercast-episodes about Mary Jane Kelly, Chris Scott concluded that the possibility Mary Jane Kelly was an assumed name is "almost a damn certainty".
    Scott being one of the foremost researchers into the last of the Canonical Five, I can't think of anyone more authoritative than him to make such a statement. Indeed: it almost goes without saying that the use of nom de plumes by unfortunates plying their trade is the rule rather than the exception. The mere fact that Mary was apparently known under several different names might be regarded as an unequivocal indicator that she was no different. What appears fairly certain is an unmistakable reluctance on the part of her contemporaries to swear by the name Mary Jane Kelly.
    Maria Harvey, for example, “knew the deceased as Mary Jane Kelly” while Julia Venturney said: “I knew the deceased for some time as Kelly; Mary Ann Cox said that “she was called Mary Jane”, a sentiment echoed by Mrs. Phoenix who stated: “At the time she gave her name as Mary Jane Kelly.”
    It could be just me, but these statements do not sound like acquaintances fully convinced the deceased name was actually Mary Jane Kelly, and they would be in a position to know. The glaring exception to the rule, of course, is Joseph Barnett, who seemed quite adament that 'Kelly' was her maiden name, 'Marie' and 'Jeanette' being her Christian ones.
    I can't help feeling that Barnett was a bit naïve, and I also think Mary was quite aware of his naivety, which perhaps was the reason why she entrusted to Julia Vanturney that she (Mary) “(...) could not bear the man (Joe) that she was living with, although he was very good to her."

    But now what? How does one go about searching for Kelly if indeed the name will not help us along? Do we just take the story Joe Barnett told the inquest and reconstruct her on the basis of the alleged facts of her life? Or do we employ a more generalized approach, by which we take the alleged details as relayed by Barnett and put them into some kind of supercomputer?
    I would guess that considering the other canonical victims did, in a sense, use their real names, or as close as possible enough to be positively identified, Mary Kelly would do the same, except they found no family and no one ever came forward as family. But for most of what we know she didn't use a different name that I recall. Barnett calling her Marie Janette I thought was him playing up the Paris trip she said she took and made her sound a little more respectable.

    It's doubtful Barnett killed her. Not impossible but given the circumstances we know of, I don't see him capable of inflicting that kind of mutilation on her. Maybe I'm naive?

    Columbo

    Leave a comment:


  • richardnunweek
    replied
    Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

    I am not repeating as gospel Wick, by any means. I think it has some value and there have been a few cases with serial killers who have reached a peak and then stopped. I am thinking the BTK killer here but more notably Ed Kemper who gave himself up after murdering his mother. I think there is certainly a possibility that after MJK the killer either killed himself or was committed.
    Hi
    it is also possible that the killer of Kelly, was not the Ripper, just a copycat, and the killer of the other women, either killed himself , or wes committed after Mitre square. If Mary was killed by a jilted lover , he would have no reason to kill again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Losmandris
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    You seem to be repeating a common belief - that finale in Millers Court must have sent him insane, etc.

    So, how did he get away?
    I'm no psychologist, but I'm intrigued why anyone would think this. I know Macnaghten used this line, it may have been a popular phrase in the 19th century, but was it used for dramatic effect, or is there some science behind it?

    If the killers brain didn't give way while he was indulged in the mutilations, or the next day, or a week later, possibly a month - when & why?

    Or, maybe his next would have been even worse?

    Who draws the line, and why, what is the justification for that comment?
    I am not repeating as gospel Wick, by any means. I think it has some value and there have been a few cases with serial killers who have reached a peak and then stopped. I am thinking the BTK killer here but more notably Ed Kemper who gave himself up after murdering his mother. I think there is certainly a possibility that after MJK the killer either killed himself or was committed.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    You seem to be repeating a common belief - that finale in Millers Court must have sent him insane, etc.

    So, how did he get away?
    I'm no psychologist, but I'm intrigued why anyone would think this. I know Macnaghten used this line, it may have been a popular phrase in the 19th century, but was it used for dramatic effect, or is there some science behind it?

    If the killers brain didn't give way while he was indulged in the mutilations, or the next day, or a week later, possibly a month - when & why?

    Or, maybe his next would have been even worse?

    Who draws the line, and why, what is the justification for that comment?
    Victorian knowledge of psychiatry was in its infancy. Freud is often cited as the founding father of psychoanalysis.

    Our understanding now is obviously far greater. Back then even suicide was regarded as a bout of insanity - severe depression was not understood. I think you could even be charged with attempted suicide if you failed.

    What many detectives are describing is something like episodes of psychosis. There has undoubtedly been violence and murder by those suffering bouts of psychosis. It’s easy to assume the sheer brutal nature of the ripper murders could only be done by such an individual. As we know, a perfectly ‘sane’ psychopathic serial killer can do these things. Especially under an intoxicant like alcohol or drugs.

    Barnett from the little we know of him would not present as someone that was suffering from any obvious conditions. Due to his echolalia, he may have had some high functioning autism traits or even possibly Tourette’s. There is an outside chance it is symptom of schizophrenia, but many other symptoms would also present for that.
    Last edited by erobitha; 08-03-2021, 06:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X