Mary Jane Kelly finally named ..?

[lynn cates]

excellent

Hello Debs. Excellent work.

Good to see yet another silly claim exploded.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

Short of this, and to GUT's observation, I think we need a person who fits at least some of the back story, ideally has a photo that is not inconsistent with the newspaper illustration, can be placed in the East End with arrest/hospital records in the year or so prior to the murder, and obviously cannot be located after it. I haven't studied this topic and so I am ignorant if such candidates exist. If none do, this would be my litmus test. If multiple people fit the bill, GUT may be right and this may be an impossible task.

I'd even live without the photo.

Why do I say impossible, manly because even f someone was found who fitted the story perfectly so many reject the story they would have to reject the person.

The other problem with the story s we have to rely on Joe and Jack, how reliable were they??

[Barnaby]

I agree GUT. Unless someone came forward with a candidate who didn't fit everything but had indisputable family story related evidence to back up an identification perhaps?

Short of this, and to GUT's observation, I think we need a person who fits at least some of the back story, ideally has a photo that is not inconsistent with the newspaper illustration, can be placed in the East End with arrest/hospital records in the year or so prior to the murder, and obviously cannot be located after it. I haven't studied this topic and so I am ignorant if such candidates exist. If none do, this would be my litmus test. If multiple people fit the bill, GUT may be right and this may be an impossible task.

[GUT]

Typical of Debra to sort it in about 10 minutes

[GUT]

Thanks, Amanda.
In the book, Ms. Dyson jumps straight from finding Mary Jane as a servant in 1881 to looking for a marriage between a Mary Jane Kelly and a Davis/Davies etc. without seeming to go down the avenue of first looking for a death or marriage for Mary Jane Malone.

Well isn't that how you do it, if you want to write a book?

[Debra A]

Just a note- I haven't seen the marriage certificate for peter Dyer and Mary Jane Malone which would confirm my findings for certain. I have used a combination of the marriage index and 1881 and 1891 census entries to reach my conclusion, coupled with records of the couples children and Mary's step-children, from various sources.
Coincidentally, I found that one of Mary Jane Dyer's [Malone] step daughters, Kate Ann Dyer, lived in Elland -less than four miles away from where I live, when she got married in Halifax in 1900. (I saw the certificate for this one.)

[Robert]

https://books.google.co.uk/books/abo...AJ&redir_esc=y

http://www.keiramichelle.com/

[Debra A]

Debra, well done. Although I'm a bit mystified as to why Ms.Dyson didn't check those records herself before publishing...

Amanda

Thanks, Amanda.
In the book, Ms. Dyson jumps straight from finding Mary Jane as a servant in 1881 to looking for a marriage between a Mary Jane Kelly and a Davis/Davies etc. without seeming to go down the avenue of first looking for a death or marriage for Mary Jane Malone.

[Amanda]

Thanks, Paul.
Mary Jane Dyer's death was registered Qtr 1 1901

Debra, well done. Although I'm a bit mystified as to why Ms.Dyson didn't check those records herself before publishing...

Amanda

[Debra A]

Excellent work again, Debs.

Thanks, Paul.
Mary Jane Dyer's death was registered Qtr 1 1901

[PaulB]

Excellent work again, Debs.

[Debra A]

And maybe not everything but at least the majority of what we have.

After all most of what we have comes via Joe's testimony and he may have got it wrong, ms-remembered, been like so many men when their women folk are rabbiting on and only half listening.

But I would suspect he got it largely right in recounting what she had told him [or he made the whole thing up].

Well as far as the subject of this thread goes we can discount this Mary Jane Malone identified by Lyn Dyson if I am right and she married Peter Dyer in 1885 in Manchester and went on to have have children John and Henry, both listed on the 1891 census at #8 Barlow St, Manchester along with Mary J, age 32 born India, Peter her husband and his daughter from a previous marriage Kate Ann Dyer.

[GUT]

I agree GUT. Unless someone came forward with a candidate who didn't fit everything but had indisputable family story related evidence to back up an identification perhaps?

And maybe not everything but at least the majority of what we have.

After all most of what we have comes via Joe's testimony and he may have got it wrong, ms-remembered, been like so many men when their women folk are rabbiting on and only half listening.

But I would suspect he got it largely right in recounting what she had told him [or he made the whole thing up].

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,
Yes, I might have found a good candidate as she also had some rather 'interesting' neighbours. Still a lot of research to do yet though.

You're right, it's very hard to decide which parts are fact. I think MJK may have embellished the truth according to whom she was telling her tale to at the time. It just may well be that we will never find her.
Amanda

Good luck with the research into her, Amanda.

[Debra A]

And that's why I doubt It will ever be proven.

Unless we find a woman who fits the whole story.

I agree GUT. Unless someone came forward with a candidate who didn't fit everything but had indisputable family story related evidence to back up an identification perhaps?