Was She Wrong?

[Wickerman]

RJ
The Morning Advertiser, Standard, Echo & Scotsman all reported "hair and eyes", the Times made no mention of the detail.
Chisolm, DeGrazzia & Yost also made no mention of the opinion of doctors who were present at the post-mortem (Bond, Hebbert & Gabe), who stated that the ears were cut off, and or mutilated.

[rjpalmer]

Here's what Stephen Ryder wrote about Robinson's book back in 1998:

The Whitechapel Horrors

Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:55 am

Another priceless discovery unearthed by Ripper researcher Andy Aliffe, this piece has the distinction of being authored by an actual resident of Whitechapel who witnessed the murders first-hand. Author Tom Robinson, who resided in Raven Street, close to Buck's Row, writes in true Victorian form, although the piece was most likely written in the 1920s. 'Most likely' because there is no actual date of publication, and the proveniance of the piece must be gleamed from the first sentence: "Though more than thirty years have passed since the Jack the Ripper Murders..."

The work is completely non-fiction, as Robinson does a fair job of sticking to the facts. He includes information on Emma Smith, Martha Turner (Tabram), Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly; surmising that all were definite victims because 'it is nigh impossible to believe that London, or the whole world, contained two such perfect fiends.' His information is quite in-depth, including witness and inquest testimony.

[rjpalmer]

I would question whether Joe could actually read and write. I suspect this is a police written statement that he was then asked to sign. Assuming his innocence, the woman he lived with has been found murdered and he’s had to identify her destroyed corpse. Would a fish porter really be able to produce such a calligraphed statement in such a scenario and if written for him, did he just sign without fully appreciating what was written? Yes, he could have said ear and meant ear, but I don’t think we can be sure and to be honest don’t think it really matters....

If Barnett's police statement stood alone this would be a reasonable possibility, but an identification by 'the ear and the eyes' was repeated at the inquest, too, as reported in two independent sources, The Star and the Daily Telegraph of 12 November.

Here's what Chisholm, DeGrazia, and Yost had to say:

"the possibility of at least three independent recorders of proceedings suffering identical mishearing seems highly unlikely. Robinson describes Barnett as noting "the peculiar shape of the ear"; it is a possibility that this aspect of the identification was mentioned at the inquest but not so recorded." (News From Whitechapel, footnote, p. 213)

By 'Robinson' they mean Tom Robison, The Whitechapel Horrors (no date, published in Manchester)

[Doctored Whatsit]

Not impossible, but I am inclined to agree with Abby

[Abby Normal]

That, to me, has been a huge distraction.
When you take the single phrase (because it IS two words), you can see the name is not "Johnto".

When you read posts, or anything written by others, how many times do you see a person write "to" for "too", it's quite common.
One previous poster, Jeff L. would frequently do that, my wife does it too.

Here is the full sentence written by Abberline, notice how he joins words together.

". . deceased toldme on one
occasion thather father named
JohnKelly was a formanof
some iron works at livedat
Carmarthen or Caernarvon that
shehada brother named
Henry serving in 2nd Battn
Scotts Guards andknown
amongst his comrades as Johnto
and I believe theRegiment is
now in Ireland. Shealso told . ."

Actual page by Abberline.


In my view Abberline wrote "John to" as an idiosyncrasy for "John too", meaning Henry liked to be called John like his father.

dont think so wick.even when hes connecting words theres still a long space between them and you also have to assume he mispelled tje word too.

[Wickerman]

Thank you, much appreciated. I believe a brother "Johnto" was mentioned by Joe Barnett, although said to be a nickname, it fits with "John".

That, to me, has been a huge distraction.
When you take the single phrase (because it IS two words), you can see the name is not "Johnto".

When you read posts, or anything written by others, how many times do you see a person write "to" for "too", it's quite common.
One previous poster, Jeff L. would frequently do that, my wife does it too.

Here is the full sentence written by Abberline, notice how he joins words together.

". . deceased toldme on one
occasion thather father named
JohnKelly was a formanof
some iron works at livedat
Carmarthen or Caernarvon that
shehada brother named
Henry serving in 2nd Battn
Scotts Guards andknown
amongst his comrades as Johnto
and I believe theRegiment is
now in Ireland. Shealso told . ."

Actual page by Abberline.


In my view Abberline wrote "John to" as an idiosyncrasy for "John too", meaning Henry liked to be called John like his father.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yes, you can find more details in the book - Will the Real Mary Kelly . . ., by Chris Scott.

https://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/realmjk.html

Chris writes:
A search of the 1881 census for Wales under the full name, Mary Jane Kelly, produced only three results, all far too young and none Irish born. There were 63 "Mary Kelly" entries, of whom 19 are noted as born in Ireland. Apart from the Mary Ann Kelly living in Flint, only one other record falls within the probable range. This individual is listed as Mary Kelly, aged 17, living in Brymbo in Denbighshire.

The girl from Brymbo is the one I mentioned in my previous post, as Chris said, the other candidate, a girl from Flint, had similar details, but might be a second choice.

1881 Census.
- Mary Ann Kelly, age 16, B. Ireland.
- Father John Kelly, age 43, B. Ireland.
- Mother Ellen Kelly, age 40, B. Ireland.
- Sister Elizabeth, age 20, B. Ireland.
- Brother Patrick, age 14, B. Wales.
- Brother John, age 11, B. Wales.

Thank you, much appreciated. I believe a brother "Johnto" was mentioned by Joe Barnett, although said to be a nickname, it fits with "John".

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I think we all realise that "Mary Jane Kelly" who was murdered, was not really Mary Jane Kelly, but I was unaware that another Mary Jane Kelly with fairly similar major identity details had been identified. Jones and Davies are both very common names, so maybe easily misremembered. Do you have any further details?

Yes, you can find more details in the book - Will the Real Mary Kelly . . ., by Chris Scott.

https://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/realmjk.html

Chris writes:
A search of the 1881 census for Wales under the full name, Mary Jane Kelly, produced only three results, all far too young and none Irish born. There were 63 "Mary Kelly" entries, of whom 19 are noted as born in Ireland. Apart from the Mary Ann Kelly living in Flint, only one other record falls within the probable range. This individual is listed as Mary Kelly, aged 17, living in Brymbo in Denbighshire.

The girl from Brymbo is the one I mentioned in my previous post, as Chris said, the other candidate, a girl from Flint, had similar details, but might be a second choice.

1881 Census.
- Mary Ann Kelly, age 16, B. Ireland.
- Father John Kelly, age 43, B. Ireland.
- Mother Ellen Kelly, age 40, B. Ireland.
- Sister Elizabeth, age 20, B. Ireland.
- Brother Patrick, age 14, B. Wales.
- Brother John, age 11, B. Wales.

[GBinOz]

George
I appreciate your comments on Maxwell et al., but I can’t get my head around how the switch of bodies can go unnoticed. How could Mary Kelly a broke unfortunate leave town. She had no family to help her. Why hide the fact that she is alive anyway? She would have been famous if it became known that Mary Kelly has tricked fate and Jack The Ripper, too. This unnamed dead prostitute would be looked for by those who knew her. Hutchinson testimony creates a difficult timeline for another prostitute and another punter. Many of my questions are part of the Sugden observations listed above.
i have looked online and on this site for an article that explains the Mary Kelly is alive theory, but have found nothing.

Hi Scott,

I believe I have offered answers to some of your questions in my post #23. According to Mrs McCarthy's statement in the Hull Daily of 12 Nov, Mary visited her premises at 2am with a "strange man" "some short time ago" and spent two shillings on a bed. Was this Mary with a wealthy client during the murder, or leaving after the murder?

Here is an article on the subject:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-desmary.html

Here is a reply to that article:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-yoststranger.html

There are more links in the "Related pages" section of each article.

Cheers, George

[scottnapa]

Do you remember what Barnet, and others, said about Mary Kelly's family details?

We were told Mary Kelly was in her early 20's, was born in Ireland, her family moved to Wales when she was young.
Mary had one sister, and seven brothers, 6 of which lived in London, one in the army.
Mary had been married to a collier, who died.

Given that any of the above could be erroneous, the witnesses were only recalling from memory, so some things may not be exactly as recounted, so keep that in mind.

Now, hypothetically, lets suppose we cannot find the real Mary Kelly in the genealogical records, who died in 1888, because the real Mary Kelly, did not die.
The real Mary Kelly was alive and well so, when she was found in census records, we naturally dismissed her.

This Mary Kelly, was born in Ireland in 1864, she turned up in the 1881 UK census at 17 years of age, the family living in Wales.
She had one younger sister named Elizabeth.
She had seven brothers.
We have a marriage certificate dated 1886.

So, if the real Mary Kelly was found alive, then who was found mutilated in room 13?

Barnet told us Mary had a cousin who lived in Cardiff, whom she visited and apparently led Mary into bad ways (prostitution), from Cardiff she moved to London.

As the real Mary was alive and well in the 1891 UK census, then my suspicion is, it was the cousin who moved to London, but used Mary's family details to avoid recognition.
Who would know Mary's family details better than her own cousin?
If you are going to adopt a false identity, use the identity of someone you know, the names of your family will be readily available when questioned.

Like I said, this is hypothetical, but it is based on what we know, and what has been uncovered.

Some details do not fit, Barnet said her father's name was John, maybe he remembered wrong or, perhaps the cousin's father was actually called John.
He also said one brother was called Henry, none of the living Mary's brothers were named Henry, we don't know if the cousin had any brothers.
Barnet said Mary married a collier named Davis or Davies, who died in an explosion, neither of which is true for the real Mary (who married a man named Jones), but we do not know if the cousin had been married.

Prater did say they all use false names, and the fact decades of research has not turned up one genuine Mary Kelly, who fit even most of the family details, and who died in 1888, strongly suggests to me, that Mary Jane Kelly was not the victims real name.

Thank you for the overview. Very curious and compelling story.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Do you remember what Barnet, and others, said about Mary Kelly's family details?

We were told Mary Kelly was in her early 20's, was born in Ireland, her family moved to Wales when she was young.
Mary had one sister, and seven brothers, 6 of which lived in London, one in the army.
Mary had been married to a collier, who died.

Given that any of the above could be erroneous, the witnesses were only recalling from memory, so some things may not be exactly as recounted, so keep that in mind.

Now, hypothetically, lets suppose we cannot find the real Mary Kelly in the genealogical records, who died in 1888, because the real Mary Kelly, did not die.
The real Mary Kelly was alive and well so, when she was found in census records, we naturally dismissed her.

This Mary Kelly, was born in Ireland in 1864, she turned up in the 1881 UK census at 17 years of age, the family living in Wales.
She had one younger sister named Elizabeth.
She had seven brothers.
We have a marriage certificate dated 1886.

So, if the real Mary Kelly was found alive, then who was found mutilated in room 13?

Barnet told us Mary had a cousin who lived in Cardiff, whom she visited and apparently led Mary into bad ways (prostitution), from Cardiff she moved to London.

As the real Mary was alive and well in the 1891 UK census, then my suspicion is, it was the cousin who moved to London, but used Mary's family details to avoid recognition.
Who would know Mary's family details better than her own cousin?
If you are going to adopt a false identity, use the identity of someone you know, the names of your family will be readily available when questioned.

Like I said, this is hypothetical, but it is based on what we know, and what has been uncovered.

Some details do not fit, Barnet said her father's name was John, maybe he remembered wrong or, perhaps the cousin's father was actually called John.
He also said one brother was called Henry, none of the living Mary's brothers were named Henry, we don't know if the cousin had any brothers.
Barnet said Mary married a collier named Davis or Davies, who died in an explosion, neither of which is true for the real Mary (who married a man named Jones), but we do not know if the cousin had been married.

Prater did say they all use false names, and the fact decades of research has not turned up one genuine Mary Kelly, who fit even most of the family details, and who died in 1888, strongly suggests to me, that Mary Jane Kelly was not the victims real name.

Hi Jon,

I think we all realise that "Mary Jane Kelly" who was murdered, was not really Mary Jane Kelly, but I was unaware that another Mary Jane Kelly with fairly similar major identity details had been identified. Jones and Davies are both very common names, so maybe easily misremembered. Do you have any further details?

[Wickerman]

. . .
i have looked online and on this site for an article that explains the Mary Kelly is alive theory, but have found nothing.

Do you remember what Barnet, and others, said about Mary Kelly's family details?

We were told Mary Kelly was in her early 20's, was born in Ireland, her family moved to Wales when she was young.
Mary had one sister, and seven brothers, 6 of which lived in London, one in the army.
Mary had been married to a collier, who died.

Given that any of the above could be erroneous, the witnesses were only recalling from memory, so some things may not be exactly as recounted, so keep that in mind.

Now, hypothetically, lets suppose we cannot find the real Mary Kelly in the genealogical records, who died in 1888, because the real Mary Kelly, did not die.
The real Mary Kelly was alive and well so, when she was found in census records, we naturally dismissed her.

This Mary Kelly, was born in Ireland in 1864, she turned up in the 1881 UK census at 17 years of age, the family living in Wales.
She had one younger sister named Elizabeth.
She had seven brothers.
We have a marriage certificate dated 1886.

So, if the real Mary Kelly was found alive, then who was found mutilated in room 13?

Barnet told us Mary had a cousin who lived in Cardiff, whom she visited and apparently led Mary into bad ways (prostitution), from Cardiff she moved to London.

As the real Mary was alive and well in the 1891 UK census, then my suspicion is, it was the cousin who moved to London, but used Mary's family details to avoid recognition.
Who would know Mary's family details better than her own cousin?
If you are going to adopt a false identity, use the identity of someone you know, the names of your family will be readily available when questioned.

Like I said, this is hypothetical, but it is based on what we know, and what has been uncovered.

Some details do not fit, Barnet said her father's name was John, maybe he remembered wrong or, perhaps the cousin's father was actually called John.
He also said one brother was called Henry, none of the living Mary's brothers were named Henry, we don't know if the cousin had any brothers.
Barnet said Mary married a collier named Davis or Davies, who died in an explosion, neither of which is true for the real Mary (who married a man named Jones), but we do not know if the cousin had been married.

Prater did say they all use false names, and the fact decades of research has not turned up one genuine Mary Kelly, who fit even most of the family details, and who died in 1888, strongly suggests to me, that Mary Jane Kelly was not the victims real name.

[FrankO]

Some would add that Maxwell was lying to protect someone.

Others may even add that the whole thing was orchestrated by Kelly in order for her to escape and start anew somewhere else. I prefer to look for simpler and more straight-forward explanations before considering anything else.

I think, if we try, we can find issues with almost any conclusion!

Seeing that there are so many little oddities, contradictions and holes in all of the evidence, I have no trouble at all agreeing with that, DW.

I personally opt for a murder during the night. The fire used to burn the clothes would not have been observed at night, but there would have been a lot of smoke considering what was burned, and the smoke would have been obvious in daylight. Beyond that I am undecided.

Good point. I'd opt for the victim being Kelly and, a bit less sure, that she was killed during the night.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi all,

Not that I think it will solve anything, but I thought I’d take a different approach on the thread’s question. I see 3 main possibilities:

1. Maxwell did see Mary Jane, but the woman on the bed wasn’t her; she was killed during the night.
2. Maxwell saw someone whom she thought was Mary Jane Kelly, but Mary Jane was butchered during the night
3. Maxwell did see Mary Jane before she was slain between 9 and 10.30 am

Questions/problems kling to each of these possibilities.

1. Why, as far as we know, didn’t anyone come forward who missed the woman that was actually killed? It had to be a friend or asociate of Kelly’s, and presumably not a complete stranger to Miller’s Court. And it must not have been any friend or asociate, but one who at least had to have had very similar hair length, type, colour and quantity as Kelly did and not be significantly shorter or taller than her. And why did Kelly stick around Dorset Street for at least an hour (or 2)? Why was there nobody at the nearby pubs to confirm the stories of Kelly having bought at least one beer that morning or having gone to buy milk?
2. Why didn’t the woman that Maxwell saw come forward to put things right? It would certainly be odd if that woman was someone who was a familiar face in the neighbourhood.
3. Why did nobody see any man that could have been the Ripper that morning in Dorset Street or Miller’s Court? And why did the Ripper decide to deviate so majorly from his usual MO of killing during the nightly hours of lull? Why take this needless risk this time?

The first and perhaps major problem I see with situation number 1 would be that the woman on the bed would just have to have had a very similar head of hair and be about the same height as Kelly and, preferably, the same eye colour or a very similar one.

The obvious problem witn number 3 would be why would the Ripper have deviated from a succesful MO, why he would want to take the risk of being seen in daylight, when, undoubtedly, there were many possible witnesses out & about? Furthermore, it would also raise the question of how common it would have been for Kelly, or any other woman for that matter, to prostitute herself during the morning?

Feel free to shoot.

The best,
Frank

Very reasonable considerations. Some would add that Maxwell was lying to protect someone. I think, if we try, we can find issues with almost any conclusion!

I personally opt for a murder during the night. The fire used to burn the clothes would not have been observed at night, but there would have been a lot of smoke considering what was burned, and the smoke would have been obvious in daylight. Beyond that I am undecided.

[FrankO]

Hi all,

Not that I think it will solve anything, but I thought I’d take a different approach on the thread’s question. I see 3 main possibilities:

1. Maxwell did see Mary Jane, but the woman on the bed wasn’t her; she was killed during the night.
2. Maxwell saw someone whom she thought was Mary Jane Kelly, but Mary Jane was butchered during the night
3. Maxwell did see Mary Jane before she was slain between 9 and 10.30 am

Questions/problems kling to each of these possibilities.

1. Why, as far as we know, didn’t anyone come forward who missed the woman that was actually killed? It had to be a friend or asociate of Kelly’s, and presumably not a complete stranger to Miller’s Court. And it must not have been any friend or asociate, but one who at least had to have had very similar hair length, type, colour and quantity as Kelly did and not be significantly shorter or taller than her. And why did Kelly stick around Dorset Street for at least an hour (or 2)? Why was there nobody at the nearby pubs to confirm the stories of Kelly having bought at least one beer that morning or having gone to buy milk?
2. Why didn’t the woman that Maxwell saw come forward to put things right? It would certainly be odd if that woman was someone who was a familiar face in the neighbourhood.
3. Why did nobody see any man that could have been the Ripper that morning in Dorset Street or Miller’s Court? And why did the Ripper decide to deviate so majorly from his usual MO of killing during the nightly hours of lull? Why take this needless risk this time?

The first and perhaps major problem I see with situation number 1 would be that the woman on the bed would just have to have had a very similar head of hair and be about the same height as Kelly and, preferably, the same eye colour or a very similar one.

The obvious problem witn number 3 would be why would the Ripper have deviated from a succesful MO, why he would want to take the risk of being seen in daylight, when, undoubtedly, there were many possible witnesses out & about? Furthermore, it would also raise the question of how common it would have been for Kelly, or any other woman for that matter, to prostitute herself during the morning?

Feel free to shoot.

The best,
Frank