Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finding more out about MJK

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

  • Natasha
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello Natasha. Thanks.

    The first and last look good. Merely masking prostitution seems not sufficient for an elaborate scheme.

    Cheers.
    LC
    Hi Lynn

    I am taking this suggesting down another route.

    I am not 100% commited to my conspiracy theory, I will comment and suggest other information in regards to it, but I am also looking at different reasons for MJK s death

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    crumb

    Hello Jon. Thanks.

    If only research would turn up a crumb.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    scheme

    Hello Natasha. Thanks.

    The first and last look good. Merely masking prostitution seems not sufficient for an elaborate scheme.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Natasha
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    I would be interested in seeing if it is possible to trace that so-called cousin who lived in Cardiff, said to be responsible for leading Mary astray.

    If the cousin was a female, is she the one who used Mary's identity and disappeared in 1888?
    Yes I can see that as a possibility.

    What if this cousin was male? Could he be responsible of her death? Could he be the one MJK was scared of?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello Jon, Natasha.

    An essential question (as a preamble) is, Why one one adopt another's identity? Some reasons are good, some not so good.

    Cheers.
    LC
    Hi Lynn.

    Such questions cannot be answered at this stage.

    What we need to remember, I think, is that we are not looking for Cinderella's Glass slipper, something that fits all around. What we are looking for are points of similarity, the points that do not fit may be the result of miscommunication in the retelling of her story.

    We may only learn why this woman (the victim) adopted the identity of another when more is discovered about the victim.

    I would be interested in seeing if it is possible to trace that so-called cousin who lived in Cardiff, said to be responsible for leading Mary astray.

    If the cousin was a female, is she the one who used Mary's identity and disappeared in 1888?

    Leave a comment:


  • Natasha
    replied
    I know a lot of research has been done on MJK s husband and I am quite sure the following find hasn’t been mentioned before, so I thought I would add the following: I found an Evan Davies who is buried in Black Diamond cemetery America. The death was in December 1876, he was buried in rose hill cemetery he was 30 years old. Now I know that is long shot, but it is quite interesting because these miners are from wales.

    Leave a comment:


  • Natasha
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello Jon, Natasha.

    An essential question (as a preamble) is, Why one one adopt another's identity? Some reasons are good, some not so good.

    Cheers.
    LC
    Hi Lynn

    Maybe she did so for one or a combination of the following reasons:

    1: she was an important informant
    2: she was an accomplice to murder or some other crime(s)
    3: many women did so in that era, because maybe they didn't want there real name associated with prostitution. Maybe for the sake of her family name or she didn't want word to get back to her family about the lifestyle she was living
    4: Maybe in order to make doing her job easier, disassociating herself from herself and just maybe she could earn her own respect back upon ditching her chosen pseudonym
    5: she was hiding from someone

    Leave a comment:


  • Natasha
    replied
    Hi Wickerman,

    Thank you, those 2 candidates are very interesting.
    It is so annoying that there are a lot of possibilities. If MJK wasn't really murdered, it would almost appear like she planned on not, in a million years, being found. Why? What else have we missed?

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    reasons

    Hello Jon, Natasha.

    An essential question (as a preamble) is, Why one one adopt another's identity? Some reasons are good, some not so good.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Hi Natasha.

    Have you read through the, Could Mary have survived Millers Court, thread?


    Chris Scott provided two very interesting possibilities in his book, Will the Real Mary Kelly...

    Both of these are discussed in the thread, just a peek below.
    Brymbo Mary:

    Flint Mary:

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Using that last offering as leverage, it had crossed my mind some time ago that IF the woman killed in room 13 was not the real Mary Kelly, then she knew the real Mary Kelly.

    I think it is pretty well acknowledged across the board that it is easier to maintain a lie if you base that lie on truth.
    That victim knew Mary Kelly, knew her family, and knew her life, she borrowed everything.
    The trouble for researchers is, they have been looking for a Mary Kelly who died in 1888, but, in this hypothesis, the 'real' Mary Kelly never died in 1888.

    This is only conjecture, nothing more.
    This only works if Barnett was lying and if there were a conspiratorial reason for Kelly wanting to escape London. There never has been a logical premise for either of these...and...I'm surprised at your conjecture Jon, and not in a bad way, but in a 'really? Jon hypothesizing' kinda way.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Natasha
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Using that last offering as leverage, it had crossed my mind some time ago that IF the woman killed in room 13 was not the real Mary Kelly, then she knew the real Mary Kelly.

    I think it is pretty well acknowledged across the board that it is easier to maintain a lie if you base that lie on truth.
    That victim knew Mary Kelly, knew her family, and knew her life, she borrowed everything.
    The trouble for researchers is, they have been looking for a Mary Kelly who died in 1888, but, in this hypothesis, the 'real' Mary Kelly never died in 1888.

    This is only conjecture, nothing more.
    Hi Wickerman

    I concur with what you are saying, this idea has crossed my mind as well. I thought maybe she stole someones identity, I did a bit of research and found a Mary born in Wales who did reside in America, her husband was french and was killed in a mining explosion, this Mary also had a child.

    I think it would be a good idea to research a Kelly or Davies who never died in 1888

    Leave a comment:


  • Natasha
    replied
    Originally posted by MayBea View Post
    Ancestry has this Jennet linked to one that married a Robert Gordon Elliot with her father John Davies 63 widowed living with them in 1901. I believe this is the correct Jennet so she's unofficially eliminated, although it wouldn't have been that easy without trying the ready Ancestry links on the census pages.

    I do believe the real MJK could have been disowned or disavowed by her family but they didn't have to be prominent to do that. It could have been almost a Ryan's Daughter kind of thing.

    What do you think of the possibility she told some truthful details of her loved ones, such as first names that wouldn't give away her identity?
    Hi MayBea,

    Thanks for finding out about Jennet Davies

    Yeah I can see that happening with her family. In that era to have a relationship outside of marriage was frowned upon, maybe her lifestyle was looked upon with disgust, so yeah quite plausible.

    I think there was an element of truth in regards to using the first names of her relatives, otherwise it would have been too easy to slip up especially when drunk. It is hard to constantly keep a lie going and would be a lot easier to mix the truth with a few lies
    Last edited by Natasha; 07-12-2014, 05:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by MayBea View Post

    What do you think of the possibility she told some truthful details of her loved ones, such as first names that wouldn't give away her identity?
    Using that last offering as leverage, it had crossed my mind some time ago that IF the woman killed in room 13 was not the real Mary Kelly, then she knew the real Mary Kelly.

    I think it is pretty well acknowledged across the board that it is easier to maintain a lie if you base that lie on truth.
    That victim knew Mary Kelly, knew her family, and knew her life, she borrowed everything.
    The trouble for researchers is, they have been looking for a Mary Kelly who died in 1888, but, in this hypothesis, the 'real' Mary Kelly never died in 1888.

    This is only conjecture, nothing more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cogidubnus
    replied
    Hi Natasha

    Miss Marple said:-
    P.S grave robbing in 88? A no no. A knowledge of Victorian Britain helps.
    I think what she meant was that the Anatomy Act of 1832 ensured that, from that time, the medical students got plenty of unclaimed workhouse corpses, obviating the need for the "Resurrection Men" (and Women)....

    All the best

    Dave

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X