Mary Jane Kelly and the victims of Jack the Ripper

[Bridewell]

The "book" suggests that there might be reasons why the Irish/Welsh bits might be falsified. An alternative explanation of Jonto is also touched on. (I am desperately seeking to avoid spoilers!)

But the London bits that Joe B could have checked appear accurate. Surprisingly so.

Phil

Point taken, Phil. I'll buy the download later this weekend!

[lynn cates]

existence

Hello Colin. Lest one become too excited over these excellent finds, let's remember that this is probably the second piece of evidence that may corroborate Barnett.

Before, we had Joe's story that "MJK" loved a man named Fleming. A Joseph Fleming was found (James Evans) who looks a good match for this man. However, that never told us whether ANY of the other details were true.

For example:

1. Would they have married?

2. Did he ill use her?

3. Was she really fond of him?

Now, due to the Shelden's excellent work, we know that Joe's Morganstone actually existed (Morgenstern). But does that mean that "MJK" actually lived with him, etc?

Mrs. Buki (Boeku/Bockee) and Mrs Phoenix (Felix) are also shown to exist. Of course, they came forward and gave stories to the papers. But, does their actual existence make their stories any more true that they were in November, 1888?

Personally, there is no particular reason to doubt that this family knew "MJK" and perhaps lodged her. But I don't think we can infer this from the fact that they are now definitely shown to exist.

On the other hand, I think we can rule out the possibility that the papers made up their stories from whole cloth.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

That surely is the point.

The new research demonstrates that the (garbled) names provided in 1888 (Morganstone/Buki/Phoenix) actually existed in a relationship that makes coincidence utterly out of the question. They are found in precisely the locations we were told they would be.

So we can reasonably conclude:

A) that what MJK told Barnett about her London experiences and existence/associates was almost certainly true;

B) that he retold the story accurately enough (given the usual errors of oral transmission);

C) that on that basis we can be reasonably confident (perhaps more) that whether true or not) his version of MJK's earlier life is probably accurate as told to him.

I am not sure that the (probably unrecoverable) nature of MJK's relationships with individuals is THAT important - after all, we cannot know the precise nature of her relationship with Joe B - was it love on both sides or a cynical practical relationship on one or both sides? She was not there to give her perception of events. Whether she broke with Joe F because his height intimidated her, or he was too tall for their bed - we can probably never know.

Though I am tantalised by the fact that Leonard Matters, researching his JtR book in the late 20s could still have spoken to several people who knew MJK intimately (in all senses) had he known where to look. What might we have found out had he done so...?

Phil

[lynn cates]

confidence

Hello Phil. Thanks.

Of course, that assumes that the story was indeed told to Barnett. That is my belief, but nothing more. However, NOTHING precludes his having known these people himself and thus concocting such a story. (Personally, I don't believe that.)

Not sure why we can be reasonably confident of A and C?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Do I not recall an account - was it Mrs Buki? - that had Mary and an unknown man calling at/staying at Breezer's Hill after she was living with Barnett? Could that have been Joe? He would then have met at least some of these people.

I cannot put my hand on the reference at the moment. Does anyone else recall this?

Phil

[Sally]

This is from 'Mrs Carthy' Phil, who told the press that Kelly had left to live with a man from the building trade who she would believed would've married her (generally assumed to be Fleming).

She also told the press that Kelly had come to her door recently with a strange man asking for a bed for the night - which might (if true) suggest that it wasn't Barnett, but somebody else.

It depends on what we think 'a short time ago' means and whether we even believe that bit. It could be pure press embellishment.

As so often, it's all pretty nebulous.

[Cogidubnus]

Nebulous....

Hi Sally

Depends of course whether Mrs Carthy knew Flemming or Barnett (or whoever) as the man who would've married her....Personally I always read it as Flemming...which just might've made the man she turned up with as Barnett...but as you rightly suggest, it ain't necessarily so...

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

That surely is the point.

The new research demonstrates that the (garbled) names provided in 1888 (Morganstone/Buki/Phoenix) actually existed in a relationship that makes coincidence utterly out of the question. They are found in precisely the locations we were told they would be.

So we can reasonably conclude:

A) that what MJK told Barnett about her London experiences and existence/associates was almost certainly true;

B) that he retold the story accurately enough (given the usual errors of oral transmission);

C) that on that basis we can be reasonably confident (perhaps more) that whether true or not) his version of MJK's earlier life is probably accurate as told to him.

I am not sure that the (probably unrecoverable) nature of MJK's relationships with individuals is THAT important - after all, we cannot know the precise nature of her relationship with Joe B - was it love on both sides or a cynical practical relationship on one or both sides? She was not there to give her perception of events. Whether she broke with Joe F because his height intimidated her, or he was too tall for their bed - we can probably never know.

Though I am tantalised by the fact that Leonard Matters, researching his JtR book in the late 20s could still have spoken to several people who knew MJK intimately (in all senses) had he known where to look. What might we have found out had he done so...?

Phil

That's an excellent post Phil.

I concur. What this important new research tells us is that Mary Kelly was Mary Kelly at least from the point her 'London' stories begin. If she truly was a Fenian spy, she had a very deep cover indeed.

As an aside, in a social milieu in which the use of aliases was commonplace, I'm not sure I buy that whole spy/informer thing. Even if she had changed her name, there are a multitude of less dramatic reasons for doing it.

Here's a purely speculative one, playing Devil's advocate with contemporary hearsay: Kelly had a tendency to enter into relationships with domineering men. She changed her name to elude a persistent ex lover whom she feared would ill-use her if he caught up with her.

Easy.

[Sally]

Hi Sally

Depends of course whether Mrs Carthy knew Flemming or Barnett as the man who would've married her....Personally I always read it as Flemming...which just might've made the man she turned up with as Barnett...but as you rightly suggest, it ain't necessarily so...

All the best

Dave

I read that as Fleming Dave; Barnett wasn't in the building trade so far as we know; Fleming was.

The man she turned up with Mrs Carthy evidentally didn't know. It could've been Barnett, or it could've been somebody else.

If it was Barnett though, why didn't they simply go home that night? They always had lodgings together.

[Cogidubnus]

Here's a purely speculative one, playing Devil's advocate with contemporary hearsay: Kelly had a tendency to enter into relationships with domineering men. She changed her name to elude a persistent ex lover whom she feared would ill-use her if he caught up with her.

Or she was simply dodging the law...

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

Or she was simply dodging the law...

All the best

Dave

Yep. That does just as well. Plenty of people were. It was - and is - very easy to get into trouble with the law living on the fringes of society as she did.

[lynn cates]

unidentified

Hello Phil. Thanks.

That is my recollection as well. The young man, so far as I know, is unidentified.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

marriage

Hello Sally.

"She changed her name to elude a persistent ex lover whom she feared would ill-use her if he caught up with her."

Very well. And the purpose of the Wales business with her youthful marriage to Davies?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hello Sally.

"She changed her name to elude a persistent ex lover whom she feared would ill-use her if he caught up with her."

Very well. And the purpose of the Wales business with her youthful marriage to Davies?

Cheers.
LC

Not sure I catch your meaning there Lynn. The two aren't incompatable, are they?

Perhaps it was true - or partially true. Perhaps she was married to a man called Davies who died in an accident. Perhaps she was married to a man called Evans who died in an accident. Perhaps she was never married to anybody, but had heard the story from somebody who had been.

Who knows?

If invention, the purpose of the story could have been to elicit sympathy, or to give herself a background.

But even if the latter were true, it doesn't necessarily suggest an undercover agent, does it?

The truth is generally quite mundane, I find.

[lynn cates]

story

Hello Sally. Thanks.

I was merely trying to fit the rest of her story onto your hypothesis. It seems to me that, if you are trying to evade someone, there is no need for extra details. So I'm not sure what her point would have been here?

Cheers.
LC