Mary Jane Kelly and the victims of Jack the Ripper

[Phil H]

The Move from Cardiff

On the assumption that MJK was, as she alleged from Wales (or Ireland) and had lived until her mid teens there, one might assume the move happened for one of several reasons:

a) someone found her there, recognised her beauty and believed she could make more money in London (the costs of the move - travel etc - would have been paid for and she might have been given a - to her significant - personal payment.

She might have been found either on the streets, in a Cardiff brothel, or simply noticed and "seduced".

I have always thought the Welsh courts might contain some mention of her.

b) like Dick Whittington, and others, she believed the streets on London were paved with gold, and came of her own accord. She was found on the streets in london, a waif, and "rescued".

c) she was fleeing something even worse in her past - a vicious husband, a child, a vengeful pimp, and considered the unknown dangers of London a lesser risk. This might account for her obscuring her former (pre-London) life.

A sub-set of this option would be that she had disgraced herself sexually and fled the wrath of her family, leaving a living husband (and children) behind. Hence we cannot find Davis the dead collier.

d) she was brought to London by an affluent "lover" and then traded to others - it happened to Emma Hamilton 100 years before.

Parts of her pre-London story might be hidden in half-truths in what she told others - a husband (wrong name, living not dead); Johnto (not a brother but a lover? ex-lover?); a child (there were quite a few associations with a child at first, always assumed wrong - but did she perhaps talk to some of her female friends as having had a child(ren)?

Hope this helps

Phil

[lynn cates]

point

Hello Sally. Thanks.

". . .personally I don't think Kelly's London stories were ever unlikely to be true; none of it (except arguably the trip to France perhaps) is implausible.'

Very well.

"It was simply that the verification of the people in that story had not been estabished prior to the Shelden's research. . ."

Quite.

" - and there had to be room for doubt that those people really did exist."

Whom do we think TOLD those stories? The papers?

"Now, there is no doubt - and the stories told by Kelly to Barnett are verified."

Given, of course, that "MJK" told them to Barnett.

"That will obviously encourage the view that other parts of her story were also true - although of course that is not necessarily the case, logically."

And that is my point.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

authentic

Hello Phil. Thanks.

"My point is that we could not be sure of the authenticity of the individuals until now."

Absolutely agree.

"Now we can be - it gives the story they told added weight (IMHO)."

How so? Before they were authenticated, what did we take them to be?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

That's interesting Jon. Perhaps we should be looking for a Mary Kelly living in Fulham? (Although perhaps this has already been done)

You mean that she may have originated in Fulham? - possibly. But if we follow the story backwards we might only be looking for a Mary Kelly in Fulham for a short period. The story has her arriving from Cardiff.

Apart from this inexplicable move from the West End to the East End, which until now we have been at a loss to explain. The next move requiring explanation needs to be the one from Cardiff (or elsewhere?), to the West End.
Could her arrival at the Morgansterns in Fulham (if this was indeed the case), be pure chance, or by some otherwise unknown link between someone in Cardiff (friend, relative, neighbour), with someone known to the Morgansterns in Fulham?



I think this case just goes to show that it is always preferable to give the stories given by witnesses the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Our personal suspicions are not enough to dismiss them.

[Phil H]

I quite understand Sally, that you were decades too young ever to have seen The Lavender Hill MOb on first or even firth release.

I - on the other hand - well recall the illuminated manuscript version

That will obviously encourage the view that other parts of her story were also true - although of course that is not necessarily the case, logically.

I think the crucial thing is to keep firmly in mind that we now have broad and firm confirmation for Kelly from about 1886, even perhaps back to 1884ish (but only by implication and extrapolation for the latter). That does NOT include the alleged French trip.

Anyone seeking now to argue that the earlier period can therefore be taken as equally accurate would be going too far.

For one thing Joe B could (had he wished) have checked up with the Breezer's Hill bunch - he could not have done so (without impossible trouble and expense for one of his class) for any Welsh/Irish events.

For myself I am simply grateful for this step forward in understanding Kelly's life - and I am hopeful that further discoveries will come from the research. My own thinking about some things has altered. It's remarkabe how things, formerly mysterious, can just slip into place once you see a bigger picture.

I agree. And I think many of things now enigmatic - such as the marginalia and all it discusses - would fall into place had we but a small amount more evidence.

Phil

[Sally]

My earlier reference to the "Breezer's Hill mob" was an attempt at satire based on the old Ealing comedy, "The Lavender Hill Mob" (Alec Guiness/Peter Sellers) - it obviously passed you by!! Sorry.

I got it Phil - though I'm too young to remember it!

Lynn - personally I don't think Kelly's London stories were ever unlikely to be true; non of it (except arguably the trip to France perhaps) is implausible. It was simply that the verification of the people in that story had not been estabished prior to the Shelden's research - and there had to be room for doubt that those people really did exist.

Now, there is no doubt - and the stories told by Kelly to Barnett are verified.

That will obviously encourage the view that other parts of her story were also true - although of course that is not necessarily the case, logically.

For myself I am simply grateful for this step forward in understanding Kelly's life - and I am hopeful that further discoveries will come from the research. My own thinking about some things has altered. It's remarkabe how things, formerly mysterious, can just slip into place once you see a bigger picture.

[Phil H]

My point is that we could not be sure of the authenticity of the individuals until now. Now we can be - it gives the story they told added weight (IMHO).

Unlike Mrs Darrell/Long, or Hutchinson or Flemming, we KNOW something about the Breezer's Hill people now. They are real.

We can even try to trace further information about them.

Does anyone ever use wills (as in last testament) to find out how people left their money? The Morgenstern s might have been affluent enough to have wills, as might McCarthy.

Phil

[lynn cates]

truth value

Hello Phil. Thanks.

"But there is nothing in what Mr P or Mrs C told in 1888 that strikes me as out of place."

Splendid. Can't disagree. But those stories date from 1888. So, if the stories are true, they were always so. That these people existed neither enhances nor detracts from the stories themselves.

Skeptical? I have no reason to be any more (or less) skeptical than before. The excellent research that shows the BH gang (still like your terminology--provenance notwithstanding) actually existed seems--in my humble opinion--to leave untouched its truth value.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Lynn

My earlier reference to the "Breezer's Hill mob" was an attempt at satire based on the old Ealing comedy, "The Lavender Hill Mob" (Alec Guiness/Peter Sellers) - it obviously passed you by!! Sorry.

Frankly I don't think the stories ever changed - with the rider that since we hardly know their stories today, we cannot tell whether they changed appreciably. But there is nothing in what Mr P or Mrs C told in 1888 that strikes me as out of place.

Further than that, I continue not to understand why you are so sceptical.

Phil

[Sally]

There is another detail unearthed by Neal, I am surprised it has remained inconspicuous.

The Morganstern family were divided between Fulham & Wandsworth, in the West End of London, and their brother Adrianus, who lived in the East End.

Sometime after 1884 Adrianus Morganstern moved from Fulham to the East End of London.

Are any hints necessary?

That's interesting Jon. Perhaps we should be looking for a Mary Kelly living in Fulham? (Although perhaps this has already been done)

[lynn cates]

now and then

Hello Phil. Thanks.

You don't like my comparison? Very well. Let's try this.

The "BH" gang (to adapt your terminology) told their tale in 1888. Was there a reason to doubt that tale in 1888?

Today, thanks to the Shelden's great research, we know these people existed. But has the tale changed? Is there any more/less reason to accept the tale given that these people existed?

If you claim "more reason" then perhaps you could explain what one took the 1888 situation to have been that would make the tale doubtful?

1. The papers fabricating the stories?

2. Shadowy characters using aliases to come forward and give false information?

To put it succinctly, why are the tales themselves--not the tale-bearers--more likely to be true NOW as opposed to 1888, or 2012 for that matter?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Of course not, but it makes it that much more likely to be.

The problem with Schwartz story is that it is transmitted through interpreters and may have become garbled.

That is not such an issue with the Breezer's Hill mob (if I can call them that!).

There are other differences which make your comparison problematic for me:

i) Schwartz told a story/recounted events - he has not been found. The comparison with Schwartz is Hutchinson in my view. We have neither narrator nor a reliable story and thus cannot assess either.

ii) with Buki, Morganstone, Phoenix, Carthy we had names but no background, events related but no backing. We now have definite names and the story appears to hang together well.

In 1888, anyone could have gone to see those people individually and asked them about MJK. If they got the story we have had passed down then in hangs together and is not inconsistent with what else we know.

iii) Schwartz related an event he witnessed but did not take part in. He was talking perceptions NOT participation. Patently, he could have misunderstood what he saw, have drawn wrong conclusions. (Personally, I think he did she something but misheard and misinterpreted events.)

Now, on the contrary, the Breezer's hill mob were actually actors in the drama - one of the woman went with Mary to the West End brothel. She talked to an knew Mary. Yes, there is a chance that the entire story is made from whole cloth, but the Shelden's research suggests otherwise - the relationships (what I called the network earlier) is too complex for some sort of "fraudulence" to be sustainable - at least as I see it. You don't misunderstand things that you have taken part in as a rule; you have reasonable knowledge of someone you have lived and socialised with.

So I do not see your comparison as a valid one.

I believe that the Sheldens have given us a firm grip on MJK in her London period and that we can safely move forward from that foundation.

Sorry to continue to disagree - it's usually me being sceptical of "evidence", but I think this is different.

Phil

[lynn cates]

Schwartz

Hello Phil. Thanks.

I fear I am not yet making my thoughts clear. Perhaps an example will help.

Many researchers are looking for Israel Schwartz. So far, a Russian and a Pole are the closest matches. But, let's say the tide turns and he is found in the 1891 census. Does that mean that the BSM story is now true?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

You don't say?

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Taking that tack, my only reply is, "Can't say."

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

I think we are in danger of complicating (I almost said "tainting") this important new information with somewhat premature and chaotic speculation.

First, Lynn - I think you are in danger of jumbling the material.

I have tried to draw a clear distinction between what we can now be certain of, and what this new information sheds no light on - the pre-London past. I am sure we would all like to know more about MJK's identity and life but let's at least be satisfied that we have part iof the background now pretty and incontrovertibly established.

My reference to "darker" reason was an allusion to the Fenian conspiracy type speculation - I think we can now rule that out - at least I do.

On letters, surely MJK could have set up a "PO box" arrangement with a friend rather than her landlord?

Changing her name to protect the family - one reason could be that now she was a sex-worker she did not want to disgrace her family. In any case adopting a nom-de-lit is not unusually and might simply have been how she came to be known by her associates.

There are many reasons for leaving a brothel that occur to me - falling out with its owners, crossing the madam, running away with a lover who then deserts you spring to mind.

But let's be clear - we can only assume the brothel part of her tale for circumstantial reasons:

a) we now know that "Mrs Buki" the woman she went with to Knightsbridge to recover clothing existed - it is thus likely that the clothing story was true in some part (remember that it has been suggested in the past that the whole "posh" part of Mary's background was an attempt to improve her image) - was the famous maroon pelerine the last remaining part of her old wardrobe?;

b) we know that houses in the Breezer's Hill area to which she relocated were used for immoral purposes and that she likely met Flemming in a brothel - so continuing in the trade seems logical;

c) I think some of the ideas about the Morgenstern brothers are interesting but go a little further than I would feel comfortable with at this stage. But they DO IMHO provide circumstantial support for the idea that MJK remained in the prostitution business. On the other hand, I don't think that the West End brothel can have been run by one of the Morgenstern's, since they would surely have SENT the clothing on to MJK's new address.

We don't know how prosperous the Morgenstern's were, do we - though they appear to have been able to relocate and buy.rent property at will. Did they work as a team - they changed their names in parallel it appears?

A final thought for now - could Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man have been one of the Morgensterns?

Phil