MJK's Body Identification?

[DJA]

The only positive point from her back story was Barnett knew that her supposed brother in the Scots Guards was at the time of her death based in Ireland. Now that was true that they had been transferred there in the previous few months, so either Barnett had the story ready to use, which I consider unlikely or there was some truth in that part of the story.

cheers

Steve

Not in Ireland at that time.

In London from 1885 until 1895 when the Second Battalion deployed to Dublin until 1897.

First Battalion was in Dublin during 1881 before departing for Egypt.

[packers stem]

Hi Gut, all fair points, Chris Scott seemed convinced that was not her real name and that is a big point for me, really respected him.
the point is that searches for a Mary Jane Kelly have provided nothing which fits with our girl, not even a link to the supposed marriage to "Davis" or "Davies" which of course itself is very common too.

The only positive point from her back story was Barnett knew that her supposed brother in the Scots Guards was at the time of her death based in Ireland. Now that was true that they had been transferred there in the previous few months, so either Barnett had the story ready to use, which I consider unlikely or there was some truth in that part of the story.

cheers

Steve

I agree that it almost certainly wasn't her real name but I'd love to know where this 'common name' myth comes from. Maybe in parts of Ireland but certainly not in London. A quick check of the 1891 census shows this to be the case. It's something people revert to whist trying to pass off as coincidence Eddowes also using the name on the day of her death.....it's a nonsense.
As for the ID by Barnett and McCarthy, it's another nonsense I'm afraid that people tend to ignore.
Zoom in on the face on MJK1 and see if you can see the eyes that Barnett supposedly identified, I know it's unpleasant but you won't see any. The eyebrows had been removed, can someone really identify an eyeball?
Zooming in will also show that the person in the room was brunette or the hair was saturated in blood making it very dark.
No one should take Barnett's word on this and certainly not the attention seeking McCarthy who one minute said she was completely unrecognisable then says I'd know her dead or alive in an over emphasising type of way

[Elamarna]

Not in Ireland at that time.

In London from 1885 until 1895 when the Second Battalion deployed to Dublin until 1897.

First Battalion was in Dublin during 1881 before departing for Egypt.

Hi Dave

that’s interesting because I had read, that they had been.

Different sources giving different data, this is one of the problems with this period, much that is written is inaccurate.

that just makes her story even less likely

steve

steve

[Elamarna]

I agree that it almost certainly wasn't her real name but I'd love to know where this 'common name' myth comes from. Maybe in parts of Ireland but certainly not in London. A quick check of the 1891 census shows this to be the case. It's something people revert to whist trying to pass off as coincidence Eddowes also using the name on the day of her death.....it's a nonsense.
As for the ID by Barnett and McCarthy, it's another nonsense I'm afraid that people tend to ignore.
Zoom in on the face on MJK1 and see if you can see the eyes that Barnett supposedly identified, I know it's unpleasant but you won't see any. The eyebrows had been removed, can someone really identify an eyeball?
Zooming in will also show that the person in the room was brunette or the hair was saturated in blood making it very dark.
No one should take Barnett's word on this and certainly not the attention seeking McCarthy who one minute said she was completely unrecognisable then says I'd know her dead or alive in an over emphasising type of way

Dear Packers Stem,

When Saying it was common, I was partial referring to Her supposed home of Ireland when Kelly certainly was common, and therefore not easy to trace.

The Name Kelly does however crop up on several individuals in the Whitechapel area at the time, so it was not rare.
While I fell that the whole name could have been made up, i am prepared to look at the possibility that the first name/names could indeed have been real and added to a false surname. it is equal possible that one of the first names was real and the other not.

I do however accept that it has been prevalent to accept that the name was reasonably common, without actually checking, A common fault in this field I am afraid.

On the issue of ID of the body, both those named did state they had identified her, the two questions asked were:

"2. Would someone have been able to identify her, despite all the mutilation of her face?
3. If someone did identify the body, who was it?"


On This occasion i feel that Pierre's answers were correct, in that Barnett said he did.

The question you pose is was that a true id?

I can see some merit in the points you raise, especially with regards to McCarthy; however while these may raise some doubts, I do not feel they make a compelling reason to override the id.

Regards

Steve

[packers stem]

Hi Steve
I doubt many would accept the ID had she been found in the street and we should bear in mind the difficulty in identifying Eddowes whose facial mutilations were miniscule in comparison. The ID hasn't been questioned enough due to the location in my opinion especially considering positive identifications by at least two people the following morning.
Barnett's apparent ID was a glimpse through the window yet we are supposed to believe he could identify her eyes and hair.... Or ears
A woman identified Eddowes as her sister only to.collapse in shock when being taken to her still alive sisters home ;-)

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve
I doubt many would accept the ID had she been found in the street and we should bear in mind the difficulty in identifying Eddowes whose facial mutilations were miniscule in comparison. The ID hasn't been questioned enough due to the location in my opinion especially considering positive identifications by at least two people the following morning.
Barnett's apparent ID was a glimpse through the window yet we are supposed to believe he could identify her eyes and hair.... Or ears
A woman identified Eddowes as her sister only to.collapse in shock when being taken to her still alive sisters home ;-)

Hi

I note all your points, all of which are well founded. I agree its the location which has had a huge effect on what people accept.

However, just like my view on the GSG(not by killer) this is an area where I will stick with the my preferred point of view for the time being, due to a lack of hard evidence to the contrary.
On this occasion that happens to be the majority view; on the GSG it probably is the minority view. (not seen any recent polls on it , so not sure)

That does not mean that I don't see the problems, and am willing to reconsider my stand, if or when something surfaces which strengthen the case against the ID.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

There is at least one press report that claims Barnett saw Mary while still in room 13...from the window. Its value is diminished when one recognizes that if he did view her from the window, neither of her eyes were visible. There were covered by a flap of forehead skin that hung over them.

So if he recognized her by her "air" and "eyes",or,"ear" and "eyes", then it was done when her eyes were visible.

[packers stem]

Hi

I note all your points, all of which are well founded. I agree its the location which has had a huge effect on what people accept.

However, just like my view on the GSG(not by killer) this is an area where I will stick with the my preferred point of view for the time being, due to a lack of hard evidence to the contrary.
On this occasion that happens to be the majority view; on the GSG it probably is the minority view. (not seen any recent polls on it , so not sure)

That does not mean that I don't see the problems, and am willing to reconsider my stand, if or when something surfaces which strengthen the case against the ID.

Steve

Fair comment. We all have differing views on many aspects but every now and then something triggers to change a perspective :-)
As for GSG I'm puzzled as to the different versions written, the confusion and the eagerness to remove it.
But for me,if it was there,it would have been written by the killer. It's a message,not graffiti. Graffiti would be "it's the Jews wot dun it"
Would have been rubbed off if written earlier or at least smudged by passing coats as pointed out and a crazy coincidence for the apron to be below it

[Elamarna]

Fair comment. We all have differing views on many aspects but every now and then something triggers to change a perspective :-)
As for GSG I'm puzzled as to the different versions written, the confusion and the eagerness to remove it.
But for me,if it was there,it would have been written by the killer. It's a message,not graffiti. Graffiti would be "it's the Jews wot dun it"
Would have been rubbed off if written earlier or at least smudged by passing coats as pointed out and a crazy coincidence for the apron to be below it

Fair comments yourself,
I would say that there is nothing which has been written which convinces me that writing would necessarily by smudge by persons passing.
One big problem with decided on the GSG is as you say:

"I'm puzzled as to the different versions written, the confusion and the eagerness to remove it".

We just can't be sure what it said!

And it could just be a coincidence, they do happen.

As you say, we all have differing views, the important thing is to be prepared to change those views if something does arise.

[Paddy]

Daily Telegraph Tuesday 13th November (Victims-Mary Kelly-Press reports)

Joe Barnett being questioned at inquest

Have you had conversation with deceased about her parents ? - Yes, frequently. She said she was born in Limerick, and went when very young to Wales. She did not say how long she lived there, but that she came to London about four years ago. Her father's name was John Kelly, a "gaffer" or foreman in an iron works in Carnarvonshire, or Carmarthen. She said she had one sister, who was respectable, who travelled from market place to market place. This sister was very fond of her. There were six brothers living in London, and one was in the army. One of them was named Henry. I never saw the brothers to my knowledge.

I have never heard anybody talking of her brothers living in London? It also doesnt seem clear that Henry was the army one either.
Can anyone tell me anything about this inquest report please?

Thanks Pat.......

[Rosella]

Paddy, this is what I found in 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook', by Evans and Skinner.
They present what was deposed at the inquest of Mary Kelly, Monday 12th November 1888. These depositions are included with papers held at the Greater London Records Office. Evans and Skinner observe that evidence given at the inquest can differ from statements taken on the day of the murder, and that further differences can be found in various newspaper accounts of the inquest.

Joe Barnett, having been sworn in at the Inquest (as first witness) gave an account of what he knew about Mary's background. He deposed

'...Her father's name was John Kelly, he was a Gauger at some ironworks in Carnarvonshire. She told me she had one sister, who was a traveller with materials from market place to market place. She also said she had 6 brothers at home and one in the army, one was Henry Kelly. I never spoke to any of them....'

[Michael W Richards]

I would think that by now we all should be using the premise that Mary Jane Kelly was not her real name anyway, so any alledged background using that alias is suspect.

Great researchers have found nothing to validate that backstory...in fact..we still have no idea where she was really from or what her family history entailed.

[Bridewell]

I would think that by now we all should be using the premise that Mary Jane Kelly was not her real name anyway, so any alleged background using that alias is suspect.

Great researchers have found nothing to validate that backstory...in fact..we still have no idea where she was really from or what her family history entailed.

To my mind, the two elements of her story most likely to be true are her given name and her father's occupation. The latter because, if she was fabricating a background story, "gauger" is an unlikely occupation to come up with. If it really was all invented then I fear we're stuffed.

[Michael W Richards]

To my mind, the two elements of her story most likely to be true are her given name and her father's occupation. The latter because, if she was fabricating a background story, "gauger" is an unlikely occupation to come up with. If it really was all invented then I fear we're stuffed.

I believe if she had used a real given name, even with a fabricated backstory if it was, then we would have found her by now.

I think Bridewell that if we have ny hope of finding out who Marie Jeanette really was it will come from secondary sources, not her own words.

[Bridewell]

I believe if she had used a real given name, even with a fabricated backstory if it was, then we would have found her by now.

From all the census records listing someone with the given name of 'Mary' who was about the right age? I wouldn't be confident of having eliminated them all.

I think Bridewell that if we have any hope of finding out who Marie Jeanette really was it will come from secondary sources, not her own words.

And that brings its own problems because we don't know for sure what her own story was, only what Barnett (with some help from others), sincerely or otherwise, claimed it to have been.