Mary Jane Kelly and the victims of Jack the Ripper

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[Phil H]

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

The point is, we had no idea about them, for all the information they might have known, they were untraceable, the testimony that has survived from them untestable.

Now we know that they existed we can also see that the idea of a time in a West End brothel is a real possibility.

if you cannot see the point, I give up.

For me, this is a real advance.

Same as if some evidence emerged to confirm that Swanson's marginalia was broadly correct - there was a "secret" identification, at the Seaside Home, Kosminski was involved.

Would that not reduce the room for debate somewhat, make us look at what else Swanson and Anderson says afresh and with greater confidence, and vindicate Swanson from some of his detractors. I see the Sheldens efforts as in the same vein and of the same magnitude.

Phil

[Wickerman]

One other coincidence that may or may not have some relevance is that the McCarthy's (Mrs Carthy?) who took over the address at 1 Breezers Hill, Pennington St. sometime in 1888, replaced the Maywood's.
Stephen Maywood was a horse dealer with strong connections to Romford.

George Hutchinson said he had known Mary Kelly for about three years - did they know each other in Pennington Street?

[Ally]

Unfortunately, I bought a Nook instead of a Kindle, a decision I am beginning to regret. My mom however has a Kindle so I am going to borrow it for a week when I go down to Miami next week. Congrats Neal on your new book!

[Cogidubnus]

You could always download Amazon's free Kindle app to your pc Ally...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

thought experiment

Hello Phil. Thanks.

"Same as if some evidence emerged to confirm that Swanson's marginalia was broadly correct."

To preserve symmetry, the evidence would be along the lines of "Kosminski actually existed." Of course, we already know that.

So let me take your example and invert it chronologically. Let's say that the "Marginalia" were found and skeptics proclaimed, "Kosminski? Who is this lad? How do we know the story about his ID is true?" Then, Professor Fido searches the records and finds Aaron Kosminski. Does that make the Marginalia true?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Hutch

Hello Jon. Good thinking. The Shelden's research may make it possible for Hutchinson to have know "MJK" as long as he had stated.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

How was it any less possible before?

[lynn cates]

uncareful

Hello Sally. Thanks.

Yes, an uncareful phrase. How about, "helps one see how . . ."?

(By the way, that helps make my point.)

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

So let me take your example and invert it chronologically. Let's say that the "Marginalia" were found and skeptics proclaimed, "Kosminski? Who is this lad? How do we know the story about his ID is true?" Then, Professor Fido searches the records and finds Aaron Kosminski. Does that make the Marginalia true?

You have taken what I said out of context.

i explained myself fully and i think you know very well what I mean.

Phil

[lynn cates]

not imaginary

Hello Phil. Thanks.

Looks like we are at loggerheads.

I think I understand what you mean. Still, the story has not changed over 125 years--all that is new is that the superb research shows these people were real not imaginary.

Cheers.
LC