Mary Jane Kelly and the victims of Jack the Ripper

[Wickerman]

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?

[lynn cates]

follwing around

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Are you suggesting that this young, allegedly attractive woman, was following around an old married man? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Lynn.

I can't see a more justifiable reason for Mary to make such a transition, the timing is right too.

Adrianus opened up a brothel in the East End, his daughter Wilhelmina wrote of being brought up in a brothel. Neal has assumed this must have been subsequent to the death of his wife, but maybe not.
Would Adrianus open up a brand new venture on arrival in the East End, or just shift his business from Fulham to Limehouse?
Maybe he also ran a brothel in Fulham before the move?

Mary Kelly then, may have been one of his 'employees'?

I wonder if we have another potential link unearthed by the research of Neal Shelden?

[lynn cates]

follow through

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Very well, let's follow this through. Let's say Adrianus really were a mister (obviously, he cannot be a madam). He is running a brothel in West London. So now, in spite of the competition from girls like Polly Nichols, he opens up a high class brothel for the poor citizens of the East End of London (whom cannot afford more than the 4d, whilst the slumming lords and twits from the West End want the thrill of a "cheap girl.")

Now, for his grand opening (poor choice of words?) he needs some of his "best" ladies. Obviously, "MJK" is chosen. Flattered, she heads east and takes charge of the eastern operation.

So, why did she not stay with it? Surely it wasn't the lure of the French brothel which she also rejected?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Very well, let's follow this through. Let's say Adrianus really were a mister (obviously, he cannot be a madam).

Hi Lynn.

We don't need to just "say", it is part of the family history that he opened a brothel in Limehouse.
At this point we do not "know" whether he ran one in Fulham. Although, it could be said to be a strange venture to open up a brothel in the lowest part of the City without previous experience at managing one, dealing with the criminal element and the legal aspects.

He is running a brothel in West London. So now, in spite of the competition from girls like Polly Nichols, he opens up a high class brothel for the poor citizens of the East End of London

We can't say what kind of brothel it was, likewise we know nothing about why he made the move, but move - he did, and open a brothel - he did.
What is more, his older brother Johannes was at the time living in Pennington Street, quite close by. No word on whether he was in the brothel business at this time.

Now, for his grand opening (poor choice of words?) he needs some of his "best" ladies. Obviously, "MJK" is chosen. Flattered, she heads east and takes charge of the eastern operation.

Maybe, she was given an offer she couldn't refuse. Who would go to live in the Ratcliff Highway by choice?

So, why did she not stay with it? Surely it wasn't the lure of the French brothel which she also rejected?

We can't say how she eventually shook the Morganstern's off, perhaps Barnett played a role in 'rescuing' her? Or perhaps she became too troublesome, an Irish redhead with a fiery temper?
There's more to learn yet.

[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

[lynn cates]

You don't say?

Hello Jon. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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]

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

[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)

[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

[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]

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

[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.