the victims werent prostitutes

[Sam Flynn]

Ah, I was unaware of his adult connection. Thanks, Gary.

[MrBarnett]

They lived in different parts of the East End, and I'm unaware of anything that places Barnett in or around the Ratcliffe Highway, whence Carthy and Felix hailed.

He was born nearby, of course. And according to his Billingsgate records, he did live there as an adult.

[MrBarnett]

Did Joseph Barnett know Mrs Felix and Mrs Carthy?

You'll have to decide for yourself.

The man Joseph Barnett called Morganstone [who had lived with Kelly] was Adrianus Morganstern, a gas stoker.

In 1891 Morganstern lived with Elizabeth Felix [wrongly named Phoenix] at 157 Bow Common Lane, the address she gave to the police at Leman Street police station on Sunday 11th November 1888 when telling her part of the Mary Kelly narrative.

Kelly, she said, had lived in her brother-in-law's house on Breezer's Hill.

The brother-in-law's name was Johannes Morganstern. He lived with Elizabeth Boekü [Buki] at 79 Pennington Street [adjacent to Breezers Hill].

Mrs McCarthy [or Carthy?], the third person involved in the Kelly narrative, lived at 1 Breezer's Hill.

All credit to Neal Sheldon for his research.

Regards,

Simon

Oh dear, you are behind the times.

There was a Mrs McCarthy living at 1, Breezers Hill in 1891, but she wasn't 'Mrs McCarthy' in 1888.

[Sam Flynn]

Barnett, Felix and Carthy may have known one another.

They lived in different parts of the East End, and I'm unaware of anything that places Barnett in or around the Ratcliffe Highway, whence Carthy and Felix hailed.

[Simon Wood]

Did Joseph Barnett know Mrs Felix and Mrs Carthy?

You'll have to decide for yourself.

The man Joseph Barnett called Morganstone [who had lived with Kelly] was Adrianus Morganstern, a gas stoker.

In 1891 Morganstern lived with Elizabeth Felix [wrongly named Phoenix] at 157 Bow Common Lane, the address she gave to the police at Leman Street police station on Sunday 11th November 1888 when telling her part of the Mary Kelly narrative.

Kelly, she said, had lived in her brother-in-law's house on Breezer's Hill.

The brother-in-law's name was Johannes Morganstern. He lived with Elizabeth Boekü [Buki] at 79 Pennington Street [adjacent to Breezers Hill].

Mrs McCarthy [or Carthy?], the third person involved in the Kelly narrative, lived at 1 Breezer's Hill.

All credit to Neal Sheldon for his research.

Regards,

Simon

[MrBarnett]

Hi Sam,

Barnett, Felix and Carthy may have known one another.

Regards,

Simon

Are you saying you think they did, or merely theorising that any three people who lived in the East End may have known each other?

If the former, I'd love to hear your evidence for Barnett knowing the other two! If the latter, no need to respond.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Barnett, Felix and Carthy may have known one another.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

The victim needn't have told anybody anything.

Barnett, Felix and Carthy filled in the details. The whole of the MJK back-story came from them—nobody else—and might not have had anything to do with the body in Room 13.

I see no reason to suppose that they'd made it up - why would they? Besides, Barnett seems to have been independent of Mrs Carthy and Mrs Felix, but his account of Kelly's background is congruent with theirs. For this to have happened, the source of MJK's back-story would have to have been MJK herself; and, as Gary Barnett has already said, a number of elements within that back-story have subsequently been found to check out.

[Michael W Richards]

I can see by your recent posts Simon why it is that you disagree with me on where this backstory may have come from, but I think in both of our scenarios it may have been the authorities that provided one.

As to who was in that room I can only say that the severity of damage to her face alone could be construed as an attempt to conceal her real face. Which would bring up the question...who might be recognizable to the authorities?

If she may have spent time in the company of Fenian plotters as some pseudo spy for the intelligence community, that might explain both the need for a backstory at all, and her being recognizable to some authorizes. Since the intelligence community essentially ran these investigations there may be some story there.

[Sam Flynn]

"Every night?" Wow. Thanks for sharing. I now feel much better about my drinking habits. .

It was that kind of village; everything revolved around beer and rugby (or cricket in the summer). Believe it or not not, some of my mates were in the pub during the daytime as well! At least I limited my visits to the evenings

[Paddy]

Found a John Kelly and family in Howarden, Flintshire. Now I know this doesn't quite fit, but he was a Foreman of an Engineering works. If you look at his neighbors they worked in an Iron Foundry so I thought he might have been connected to that ? The family are Kelly in other census...

[c.d.]

Indeed, Gary - then again, I know everyone who frequents my local pubs... not Even when I used to go every night, I never got to know everyone by name. And this in a village with fewer than 2,000 residents, not much more populous than three streets in the Spitalfields slums.

"Every night?" Wow. Thanks for sharing. I now feel much better about my drinking habits.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

The victim needn't have told anybody anything.

Barnett, Felix and Carthy filled in the details. The whole of the MJK back-story came from them—nobody else—and might not have had anything to do with the body in Room 13.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Some of what 'Kelly' told Joe Barnett has been supported by modern research. The Morganstone, McCarthy, Buki, Felix, Breezers Hill/Pennington Street stuff checks out to a considerable degree. Perhaps the Welsh/Irish stuff would too, if only we knew her real name.

I suspect it has been dawning on some researchers over the past few years that Mary Kelly was not her real name.
I've certainly held that suspicion for a few years, it seems to be the only obvious solution to the mystery of why she can't be found.

Which means,....every Mary Kelly that has been found by researchers, and eliminated because they did not die in 1888, is back in the running.
One of them just might be the 'real' Mary Kelly, because the 'real' Mary Kelly also did not die.
What we are looking for, unknowingly up until now is, a close friend or relative of that Mary Kelly.

So, possibly, one of those Mary Kelly's lost a friend or relative in 1888.
And, the only real clue we have as to which one is the 'real' Mary Kelly (the source of the mystery) is the bio that we have from Barnett.
The Mary Kelly in question was about 25 yr old, had one sister, seven brothers - one in the army, and one was named Henry; family came from Ireland, but now residing in Wales; a father named John who was a 'gaffer' in the Ironworks; a cousin in or near Cardiff, an aunt in the market trade.....etc. etc.

Any one of these details could also be wrong, but it's all there is to start the search.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I agree with you regarding MJK not being the victim's real name.

You ask, "Did she [the victim] know a real Mary Kelly?"

You then go on to say, "If you are going to adopt a fake persona, it is always wise to pick one you are familiar with."

Agreed. I would only add that it is even wiser to pick the persona of someone who is roughly the same age and already dead.

Hi Simon.

Is it really necessary in late Victorian England to only take the name of a dead person?
Checking up on someone's family who lives hundreds of miles away in Wales, or even Ireland, can't have been too easy.
Not much of a problem today, but back when letters & telegrams were the normal means of long distance communication, would it really matter?

...The victim didn't need to know anything about a "real Mary Kelly" as she had no lines to learn.

There I would disagree.
The victim can't be telling one person that her father came to London looking for her, then tell another that her family still live in Ireland. She needs to know which brother was in the army, she can't afford to get the names mixed up. If she has a sister who adores her she needs to learn her name to be consistent.
Many personal details come out of simple casual conversation, and this is when an imposter can most easily screw up.

If the Room 13 victim was someone other than MJK, what made it necessary to go to into such unconfirmable detail in order to satisfy everyone that the victim actually was someone known as MJK?

Possibly, in order to avoid anyone finding out who she really was?
If she was not convincing in her role-play, then people may start asking questions.
We already have had theories put forward asking why such a rapid downfall. From the house of a West End madam, to the back streets of the worst cesspit in London.
Who was she hiding from?

If not MJK, who could the Room 13 victim have been?

The cousin?