Mary Jane Kelly and the victims of Jack the Ripper

[Wickerman]

And we know also that the "Mrs. Buki" (Boeku) and Mrs. Phoenix (Felix), who came forward to give thier stories to the press, actually existed. And so we can feel confident that the press did not make those stories up.

Which also might include the return trip to the West End 'Madam' to retrieve a box of dresses owned by Mary?

[Sally]

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

Hello Lynn,

Well, it was a spontaneous scenario, really - not something I'd given a lot of thought to. I consider the variables in Kelly's background to be too great at present for serious speculation - the Shelden's book is an important step forward, but we are still, in the main, in the dark where Kelly is concerned.

However, to follow that scenario through...

Why do you consider extra details unecessary? I'd have thought it she wanted to 'disappear' (for whatever reason) a new background would be of some assistance. Surely she'd have wished to eradicate all details of her former, recognisable to old acquaintances, life?

Of course the reality is not so simple, nor romantic. We know that people did know who she was in 1888; not least her mother, who apparently wrote to her when she lived in Millers Court.

[Phil H]

Let's look at this logically.

One the one hand:

a) we have a pretty well now authenticated pre-Millers Ct existence for MJK, with the previosuly unidentified personae of Mrs Buki, Mrs Carthy, Mrs Phoenix and Morganstone now identified beyond reasonable question.

This means that, by implication, the story told to and retold by Joe B is broadly true. I think it means that we can take it that the trip to the west End to retrieve clothing is probably true. The London dates seem to fit and the fact that Mary had worked in a West End brothel is probably true.

On the other hand:

b) we have no basis for the trip to France, or for ANY of the Welsh/Irish and pre-London elements of Mary's tale. "Johnto" remains vague - a brother or a former lover, as has been suggested? No identification there as yet.

For all I know Mary could have been a London lass from birth who embellished her story to add that characteristic Victorian element of the "picturesque" to her background. No one has been found by researchers who seems remotely to be her.

The options, it seems to me are:

i) the story is as she told it but somehow we are missing her in the records (coincidence or a family that wanted to hide itself):

ii) the story is true in skeleton but fabricated in detail so that the reality/facts are obscured - hence we cannot find her - this in a way I see as a sub-set of (i);

iii) Mary created a legend about herself because she wished to spare her family disgrace (unlikley I feel) or more plausible, because she was running away from something or did not want to be fouund. A husband and children maybe? (As a parallel, see the disintegration - over a longer period - of "Polly" Nicols' marriage.) So, some parts of the story will be true - marriage, but death/occupation of the husband might not be.

iv) there is some darker purpose at work - thoughon the basis of the Shelden's work I now feel that is highly unlikely.

Where now?

Given that we now know that Mary did live and work in an area of the East, and probably West, Ends - is it not possible that she is present in the record under her own or another name? For instance, we know some of the young girls in Breezer's hill were summonsed for immoral living - could there be a case (not one of those we know) which is actually Mary but under another name? Could there be a reference somewhere related to the West End brothel?

Or a more mundane record in an electoral roll, or some other domestic archive?

To conclude: We know MJK now, I am confident, in large part from the mid 1880s. But I do not think that allows us to make any assumptions about her early/pre-London (if it was so) life.

Phil

[lynn cates]

what we can be confident about

Hello Jon. Thanks.

I may have been unclear. So let me say that, given these people actually existed, it still does not follow that their stories were true.

But:

1. Since Joe claimed that "MJK" lived for a time with Morganstone, at least, now, we know there was such a bloke (Morgenstern). Of course, it does not mean the story (of her actually living there) is any more true (or false) than it was.

2. If anyone had thought the stories were fabricated by the papers, well, perhaps not. Why? Because there were such people actually living.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

old life

Hello Sally. Thanks.

"I consider the variables in Kelly's background to be too great at present for serious speculation - the Shelden's book is an important step forward, but we are still, in the main, in the dark where Kelly is concerned."

Precisely. And this is my main point. A step forward, but her life is not exactly transparent yet--especially, pre-1884.

"Why do you consider extra details unnecessary? I'd have thought it she wanted to 'disappear' (for whatever reason) a new background would be of some assistance. Surely she'd have wished to eradicate all details of her former, recognisable to old acquaintances, life?"

Splendid. Let's go with this. Often, when one wishes a new identity (for whatever reason), one makes the details as simple as possible. First name retained, many details of real life get transferred lest the story be forgotten. Complicated story, possible faux pas.

"Of course the reality is not so simple, nor romantic. We know that people did know who she was in 1888; not least her mother, who apparently wrote to her when she lived in Millers Court."

We have no details on the mother NOR was she part of the Shelden's excellent research. Mum, dad, and siblings await discovery.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

I think you are being unduly sceptical Lynn. Have you read the Shelden's book?

These people reflect incorrectly understood names, they live in the right places, in the right relationships at the right time, in ways that defy coincidence.

I think it would have been VERY difficult for them to concoct a story that would have the right consistency, without it being true (in VERY large measure). What, IMHO, makes that even more likely, is that the complex web of relationship between them and with Mary would again strain credibility to be false.

We today have only the thinnest of veneers remaining from what must have in 1887/88 been a quite complicated network.

I think we can take that part of MJK's story, at least, now to have been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.

What is there to suspect?

phil

[Wickerman]

Or she was simply dodging the law...

All the best

Dave

Hm, but on the other hand, how could letters from home reach her under an assumed name?
And, we are told her father came looking for her, that she made a conscious effort to avoid him. Why would that be necessary if she lived under an assumed name?
And, how could her father expect to locate her if he did not know the name she was using?

Ah, the questions keep coming....

[Phil H]

It is always possible that while being consistently Mary Jane Kelly in London, she remained in contact with her family using her real (maiden or married) name.

Kelly COULD have been her maiden name (certainly not her married name if her story is true). But equally "Kelly" could have been a "London" pseudonym for an Irish looking/sounding lass, given her in the west End brothel.

Her family would then have continued to know her and communicate with her as "Miss O'Brian" or some such. Barnett and others may have kept that quiet to protect the family, or the police may have agreed to do so.

All this may have been on the missing case file, of course.

Phil

[lynn cates]

musings

Hello Phil. That's a pretty good historical argument--and one can agree with large portions of it.

However:

1. Once again, their existence does not authenticate their stories. One may exist and yet not give a true story. Please recall that these stories have been around for 125 years, almost.

A. They have been true (or false) that long.

B. The protagonists were around in 1888. And this has been true for 125 years.

C. What HAS changed is the epistemic situation. We now know they actually existed.

D. And, to some extent, the stories TEND to corroborate one another. (Caveat: given they are related, one must remember that frequently a family member will agree with another member.)

2. I am puzzled by your iv. If one wished to argue for a "dark purpose" (whatever that means) one need merely posit a family assisting "MJK" in her dark purpose.

Please do not construe ANY of this as a problem with the research. It was truly remarkable and, as I have said so often, shows that the people who came forward actually existed.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

musings, continued

Hello (again) Phil. Thanks.

"Have you read the Shelden's book?'

Of course. And well done, too.

"These people reflect incorrectly understood names, they live in the right places, in the right relationships at the right time, in ways that defy coincidence."

Quite. And collusion is ruled out?

"I think it would have been VERY difficult for them to concoct a story that would have the right consistency, without it being true (in VERY large measure). What, IMHO, makes that even more likely, is that the complex web of relationship between them and with Mary would again strain credibility to be false."

I believe that they were related. No problem believing that.

Their story? Which parts? That Mary lived in the neighbourhood? I accept that too.

"We today have only the thinnest of veneers remaining from what must have in 1887/88 been a quite complicated network."

Network?

"I think we can take that part of MJK's story, at least, now to have been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt."

Very well. But which part?

"What is there to suspect?"

Suspect? Well, I--as so many--would like to know of her family. And, if the stories about her siblings is not true, why did she make it up?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

questions

Hello Jon.

"Ah, the questions keep coming."

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Her family would then have continued to know her and communicate with her as "Miss O'Brian" or some such. Barnett and others may have kept that quiet to protect the family, or the police may have agreed to do so.

As the mail would likely be dropped with the landlord/lady, any alternate name would have been known by others. Hardly any point in hiding under it in that case.

Annie Farmer used the name 'Smith' whenever she went to the Infirmary.
Using an alternate name is not quite the same as hiding under one.
In the former a woman may assume a different name if she is a prostitute and no doubt some people may know that she went under a different name, in the latter case, no-one else must know.

[lynn cates]

protection

Hello Phil.

"It is always possible that while being consistently Mary Jane Kelly in London, she remained in contact with her family using her real (maiden or married) name."

Certainly.

"Kelly COULD have been her maiden name (certainly not her married name if her story is true). But equally "Kelly" could have been a "London" pseudonym for an Irish looking/sounding lass, given her in the west End brothel."

Quite. But let me ask you--Can you personally buy the story that one would trade a West End brothel for the squalor of Spitalfields?

"Her family would then have continued to know her and communicate with her as "Miss O'Brian" or some such. Barnett and others may have kept that quiet to protect the family, or the police may have agreed to do so."

Of course. But what kind of "protection" is needed here?

"All this may have been on the missing case file, of course."

By all means. Sure.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

......Can you personally buy the story that one would trade a West End brothel for the squalor of Spitalfields?

That, is an interesting question which on occasion I have mused on myself.

Regardless of all the other incidents, why, would any woman move (flee?) to the other end of this major metropolis, and at what expense, and to a location where she knew no-one at all?

Generally, people did not move about the country as we do today. Many will live and die in one home town. This move, if true, is extraordinary especially for a young woman on her own.
She is essentially descending to the depths of hell, but for what reason?

So, I had to wonder, where did she first settle, the Ratcliffe Highway? - and was it with someone who she knew, or knew of, who may have had connections to that West End brothel?

More questions...

[lynn cates]

situation

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Maybe she didn't care for the situation? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC