Alice Carroll

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

This has probably been discussed at some point in the past, but a question out of curiousity: Do you have a "favourite" victim, as in a particular victim or alleged victim on JTR that, for whatever reason, you feel closest to or enjoy researching the most?

I know it's a bit of a cliche, but it's Mary Kelly for me, simply because of her youth and the fact that we probably know the least about her out of all the victims....it's amazing how these supposed low-life unfortunates could all have such interesting lives given the pieces that have been put together.

Cheers,
Adam.

[George Lorton]

Hey Adam,

Yes Mary Kelly is very romantic or I should say her legend is. No I don't have a favorite. I like something about each of them.

Kelly and Stride are the ones I am most interested in as I have seen a bit of myself and my back ground in them as I have Swedish in me like Stride.
Someone has to root for the Swedes, and I like my liquor like Kelly that wild Irish Rose. I got old irish in me. So old i canna find it. Gonna go have me a beer right now. Cheers Mary ya wild roisin, sorry that worthless beast.... tore ya all to hell, love.....:moony:

Plus given what we know about kelly I do wonder if she was a prostitute at all?

[Adam Went]

Hey George,

One could argue that outside of ABBA and Volvo, Elizabeth Stride is Sweden's biggest export. ;)

As for Kelly, we do know that her partner Joseph Barnett didn't particularly like her selling herself on the streets, or having her prostitute friends staying in her home, something which the two had apparently fought over in the past. However, it seems likely that she was often left with no choice - she was way behind in her rent when she died, she was supposedly quite attractive and so she wouldn't have had any major difficulty in attracting customers.

Besides all of that, she lived in Miller's Court which ran off Dorset Street, a street which held the unenviable reputation of being the worst street in London, and justifiably so. Personally i'd like to think of Mary as being a charming and intelligent young woman who was simply a victim of circumstance and location during the young years of her life, but unfortunately we just don't know enough about her youth to make any definite judgements....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Stan Reid]

CE 4 me

[George Lorton]

Adam,

I knew Joseph was upset about her taking in prostitutes but didn't know that they were fighting about her being one. Your right though in that what evidence we have tends to her being a Prostitute.

Stan,
You like Catherine Eddowes, well we we're talking about her just the other night. I like she got out of London for a while and had a bit of a work holiday. Really wasn't much of a holiday but at least she got some fresh air and made some money which is more then some girls got back then.

Plus she also went under the name of Kate Kelly because of one of her common law husbands, John Kelly with ties her in with Mary and she was killed on the same night of Stride. Both were part of The Double Event, a saying which I never liked, makes 'em sound like the Tuesday night line up on NBC.

[Howard Brown]

The murder victims are all about the same in terms of my interest...but its those victims of assault ( see Trevor Bond's thread that he set up on East End assault victims for that year) on the street that intrigue me more as time goes on. There's always that outside chance that one or more of them "just missed" being a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer.
Women like that Georgina Green, for instance.

[Karen Sweet]

As a young girl of about 11, I read a newspaper article about JTR possibly being a woman (Jill The Ripper).
It was the first time I had really read anything properly about the case and I was particularly struck by the description and a drawing of Mary Kelly's crime scene (there were no photos then).
It was somewhat incorrect (as I later discovered) in that it showed and described entrails etc. hanging over picture frames, but I was enthralled and at that moment began a, so far, 40 year fascination with the case and in particular Mary herself.
My greatest wish is that a photo of Mary in life will one day be found.

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

Many thanks for the input so far.

Karen, photos are one of the few things that keep turning up these days, so you never know - she may well be in some sort of family photograph that people have looked at a thousand times and not even realised that they were looking at Mary. It's possible to get some idea of what they must have looked like in life from the mortuary photographs (and the photo of Annie Chapman in life, of course), but sadly, not for Mary - so your wish would definitely be a brilliant one if it came to happen.

Cheers,
Adam.

[George Lorton]

How,
Georgina Green indeed. Did you ever find out why she was out and about alone in Whitechapel at such ungodly hour. I think she was hunting up supper. Which depending on her luck would of either been a rat or money for food depending on her luck which seemed to have run out.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=11762

All,
That would be grand to have a photo of Mary Kelly. Supposedly on Casebook there is a drawing of her that was posted in one of the crime newspapers of the day. She was depicted to the artist by folks who knew her, who described her as a tall fair woman. Seems Mary was a looker, or so the drawing depicts her.

[Karen Sweet]

Can I just ask if there are any of you that feel the murder victim at Millers Court was not Mary Kelly at all?

[Howard Brown]

Karen:
No, I don't doubt it was her at all.

George:
No, I have been unable to locate anything other than what we have now,buddy.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Karen,

I feel that as the identity isn't proven with any known records, therefore the identity is open, in my opinion.

Given, for me at least, that the "Kelly" name was in almost every newspaper in the country and beyond, and given that she had supposedly recieved letters whilst in Londonfrom her family, and given that she supposedly had family members, I find it utterly perplexing that not only does no family member turn up at the funeral, but not one family member ever asks about her afterwards. Nobody tries to contact her in the years afterwards when either parent dies for example.
It simply tells me that whoever "Mary Jane Kelly" was, that name is a psudonym.

I also find it quite singular that from Eddowes to McKenzie, Kelly included, all three of these victims were at one time or another called, known as or (we are told) named "Mary Kelly" either by individuals or by newspapers.

best wishes

Phil

[George Lorton]

How,
Shucks, well bon chance finding something. She must of been tough to survive getting stabbed in the forehead

All,
Regarding Mary Jane Kelly. I have heard of this theory before either by lurking on Casebook or somewhere else. Anyways I just want to add my concurrence to it and say it is interesting to say the least and possible that Mary Kelly wasn't really a Mary Kelly when she died.

What do we know about her, who was she and what was her back ground? What was her family's social standing? How did she end up working the streets if she did? Was she educated at all or was she an illiterate who was well spoken, or should I say spoke like an educated person?

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

Karen:

It's vaguely plausible that it wasn't MJK who was killed, but if that was the case, what happened to the real MJK? It was her home, after all - where did she go? Why did nobody, including Joseph Barnett presumably, ever hear anything of her again?

Then of course you have George Hutchinson's testimony - George claimed that he knew of Mary on a personal level and saw her entering her little room shortly before she would have been murdered, which is pretty well "near enough" if he was right....

Phil:

Mary Kelly was a very, very common name in the Victorian era, so it was a good choice to use as a pseudonym if one was going to do so. It'd probably be the female equivalent to John Brown or Bob Smith. If there was a connection amongst one of the more uncommon names like Eddowes, Stride or Tabram, then one could probably think a bit more of it, but Mary Kelly is pretty basic....

George:

All your questions are ones I think we ourselves would like to know the answers to. Very, very little is known about Mary, her family and her background, and a lot of it came from Joseph Barnett. One of the more popular theories is that she was born in Ireland before emigrating to Wales and then made her way down to London. There was also the story that she had lived for a time with a man in Paris and took the name "Marie Jeanette Kelly" from this, but no solid evidence has ever been found to prove it. She's a very elusive young lady and one can only hope that there's still more information out there to be found on her....

Cheers,
Adam.

[George Lorton]

Hi Adam I remember checking a book out from the library in the fall of 1990 when i was 13 that had a bit about all of the victs including the Marie Jennette Kelly went to Pariee theory. i bought it at the time because I was young and gullible. Now I know better. At least I hope so although I have been taken for a ride before and probably will again.

Shucks for all we knew she did. Just how reliable a witness is Joseph Barnett?

For all we know he might of been lying to the press and was Kelly's Pimp or knocked her around when he had some sauce in him. I bet 50 bucks, Barnett was lying about something.


:heh: :deadhorse:, that is how researchers feel when questioning Marys past and look there is Joe Barnett in front laughing at us all from beyond the grave. Still I would like my and everyone's questions about Mary Kelly answered.

[Adam Went]

Hey George,

Barnett has a good record and he and Mary had been a couple for a while - and by the time of her death, apparently they were on the way to mending the differences they had been having - you certainly wouldn't be alone in harbouring some suspicion against Barnett but IMO, he's got no case to answer for. That's in contrast to the likes of Michael Kidney and John Kelly but neither of them have had suspicions against them as strong as Barnett, which is a little perplexing for me, I have to admit. Barnett might well have been abusive towards Mary every now and then too- that's just a guess though and even then that would be no different to a large portion of other men in the poorer quarters of the East End - in some cases, domestic violence was even encouraged. Women's rights were in their infancy.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris G.]

Hey George,

Barnett has a good record and he and Mary had been a couple for a while - and by the time of her death, apparently they were on the way to mending the differences they had been having - you certainly wouldn't be alone in harbouring some suspicion against Barnett but IMO, he's got no case to answer for. That's in contrast to the likes of Michael Kidney and John Kelly but neither of them have had suspicions against them as strong as Barnett, which is a little perplexing for me, I have to admit. Barnett might well have been abusive towards Mary every now and then too- that's just a guess though and even then that would be no different to a large portion of other men in the poorer quarters of the East End - in some cases, domestic violence was even encouraged. Women's rights were in their infancy.

Cheers,
Adam.

Hi George and Joe

It would appear to me that Michael Kidney, John Kelly, and Joe Barnett were literally "ordinary Joes" who were caught up in the investigation and were not the murderer of their respective women. No, it seems to me that in the Ripper we are looking for someone pretty special and not someone who is superficially and provably an ordinary guy. It also appears to me that whomever wishes to implicate any of these three guys as a murderer wishes to do so because they don't want a particular victim to be a victim of the Whitechapel murderer. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that would persuade me that any of these guys was a killer. Now, they, just like George Hutchinson, whom I think is a more suspicious character, might have had reasons to lie for various reasons, either because of circumstances or because of the culture in which they lived, but that is something else again.

All the best

Chris

[George Lorton]

Hi George and Joe

It would appear to me that Michael Kidney, John Kelly, and Joe Barnett were literally "ordinary Joes" who were caught up in the investigation and were not the murderer of their respective women. No, it seems to me that in the Ripper we are looking for someone pretty special and not someone who is superficially and provably an ordinary guy. It also appears to me that whomever wishes to implicate any of these three guys as a murderer wishes to do so because they don't want a particular victim to be a victim of the Whitechapel murderer.
All the best

Chris

Howdy Chris.

I'm sorry I should of been more clear. I don't think Joseph Barnett murdered Kelly but that perhaps he wasn't a hundred percent truthful in that he told reporters or the police about her background.

Adam my only suspicion against Barnett is that he might of fibbed a bit or made up a bit of Mary Kelly's background.

All,

Who vouched for Mary's name and background to the press and police besides Barnett. If anybody else knows Mary Kelly then how long have they known her? She could of been an Earls daughter gone to pot for all that we know about her background.

That is what is bugging me that folks have gone by what Barnett and other folks have said about Kelly when they had only known her recently. i don't think Mary was Mary Kelly or we would of found about more about her parents and background by now.

[Chris G.]

Howdy Chris.

I'm sorry I should of been more clear. I don't think Joseph Barnett murdered Kelly but that perhaps he wasn't a hundred percent truthful in that he told reporters or the police about her background.

Hi George

I didn't think you were saying that you thought Barnett murdered Kelly, although others, e.g., Leanne Perry and Bruce Paley, have advanced his candidacy as the killer. I think the notion is rocky at best and probably based on the faulty notion that as a Billingsgate porter he cut up fish and thus was handy with a knife. As far as I know the job of a porter was to haul around boxes of fish not to cut fish up. I do agree that Joe Barnett may not have been totally truthful in his testimony.

Chris

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

As Chris says, most theories against partners of the victims occur only to suit one's own personal theories involving the case.

I simply cannot believe - and I have tried - that Jack just stopped killing forever and stuck around the East End beyond 1888. Something happened to him after the MJK murder, be it that he died, moved, got locked up, got sick, changed tact - whatever. I mention this only because, IIRC, Barnett lived until 1926 - nearly 40 years after the murders - and yet there's still no hint in his known history that he would have committed a violent act, especially one as high on the scale as the murder of MJK!

Unfortunately there were few others around to vouch for Mary's past apart from Barnett and a handful of her neighbours and friends....

Cheers,
Adam.

[George Lorton]

Hi Chris,

That is good to know. I sincerely wonder about my written English sometimes and whether I am getting the right point across.

Adam,

I agree with you! Personally, I think JTR went to Yankeeland and had a run in with a pros. named Carrie Brown and then had a run in with another pros. and her pimp and that was probably the end of him. I bet he ended up wearing cement shoes and floating in the Hudson. You all just know his luck must of ran out some time.

[Adam Went]

George:

I reckon that if Carrie Brown had been murdered in the East End, there would have been little doubt that she was a Ripper victim - the problem is that one has to accept that Jack switched continents if she was truly a victim of his.

If one could pinpoint his very first major crime of whatever kind, it would go a long way to tracking down the culprit - after all, if you solve one of the crimes, you solve the lot. ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

[George Lorton]

George:

I reckon that if Carrie Brown had been murdered in the East End, there would have been little doubt that she was a Ripper victim - the problem is that one has to accept that Jack switched continents if she was truly a victim of his.

If one could pinpoint his very first major crime of whatever kind, it would go a long way to tracking down the culprit - after all, if you solve one of the crimes, you solve the lot. ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

True Adam, I don't know though if Jack will ever be found. Sometimes I think DNA will solve the case but then I think maybe not because I think nobody wants these murders to be solved. now I do, myself and i know i can not speak for everybody when I say that researchers don't want the case solved but I get the suspicion that perhaps some don't

An example would be Walter Sickert sending hoax ripper letters to the police which I believed that Patricia Cornwall caught him on do to the watermarks on the paper he "supposedly" used. I am not saying Sickert was the ripper but I do believe he sent some hoax letters to the cops.

Still researchers dispute that so I can't wonder how they would deal with positive DNA proof, or if proof positive can even be obtained at this late date through DNA. Semper Eadem (Always the same)

Good point on Carrie Brown though. I think that theory is crazy though just enough to have happened.

[Cris Malone]

Just a quick point.

There are many researchers here that regularly submit their findings to these boards and publications who do not participate in the debates or offer 'theories' about this series of murders. Their interest is genuine and not predicated on any notion that it would be in their interest that the 'mystery' should remain unsolved. Indeed, if the latter were to be the case, then the quest for information would be counterproductive for such a desire.

The mystery is yet unsolved because the culprit or culprits were never ascertained in the original investigation and the information available now is inconclusive... despite the many theories offered since the conclusion of the events.

That a cottage industry has existed to capitalize on these murders is a certainty, but - Ms. Cornwell and a few others aside - I have found that most people's interest is strictly puritanical with the ultimate reward being a better historical comprehension of these events and the personalities involved... even if the mystery remains unsolved... which I believe will likely be the case.

DNA?... Just where will that be procured to obtain the identity of the killer? Ms. Cornwell's findings were contested because, despite what she said, they were inconclusive. There is a moral factor here in attempting to pin these murders on any individual that may be innocent of such atrocities or cast aspersions that may not be true. If I have a beef with certain aspects of 'Ripperology' it is this.

[Adam Went]

George & Cris:

Sadly DNA cannot solve the case conclusively because even if one of the victims could be exhumed for DNA - which in itself is extremely unlikely - and even if workable DNA could be found with the remains, and even if descendants of said victim agreed to be DNA tested to see if it matched them, and even if a second lot of DNA could be found on the body which could potentially be matched to the killer - who are you going to test to match the other DNA against? Where would you start? Nobody would approve of digging up every Ripper suspect to try and retrieve DNA off them. Some of them were cremated, others we don't even know where they ended up or if they even existed in the first place.

I'm afraid that in the slim chance there is that the case will ever be conclusively solved, it's going to be down to good old fashioned detective work - which is somewhat fitting since modern science didn't have a say in solving the case in 1888, and it won't now.

Cheers,
Adam.

[George Lorton]

Good Points gents,there are too many theories being turned in to books. If somebody want to write a ripper theory book they should do themselves a favor and make it fiction as then it would be better received unless they have airtight findings to gainsay the naysayers.

Chris, I like your point. I will try to remember it next time I see some hokey show on history or natgeo.

Adam you make a great point with the DNA. It has worked great in other cases but not this one. How ever I feel DNA evidence gets brushed aside too easily sometimes but that is just my personal opinion.

as for the Ms Cornwall's case on the watermarks on that paper I think she made a great point but that is me. I never said Sickert was the Ripper although I did theorize that Fiegenbaum was in another thread until How put me straight.

[Adam Went]

Hey George,

I actually thought Patricia Cornwell's book was quite an entertaining read as well, but the trouble with it is that she falsely presumes that almost every single Ripper letter ever written to the police, press, community members - whoever - was genuinely from the killer, even if the letters come from years and years after the actual murders or from foreign places. Then she presumes that it means the writer of these letter has to be the killer, not that it was a hoaxer/hoaxers having a bit of a prank. Then the final point is that she claims so strongly that Sickert was therefore the Ripper - she has no doubt, and even titles the book "Case Closed".

Maybe Sickert did write a few Ripper letters. Nobody can doubt that he was a bit...odd. But to claim that this conclusively proves he was JTR is just wrong, and a real shame because there are passages in her book which are genuinely interesting....

Cheers,
Adam.

[George Lorton]

Hey George,

I actually thought Patricia Cornwell's book was quite an entertaining read as well, but the trouble with it is that she falsely presumes that almost every single Ripper letter ever written to the police, press, community members - whoever - was genuinely from the killer, even if the letters come from years and years after the actual murders or from foreign places.

True, I wasn't lauding her for saying all the ripper letters were from Jack, I just lauded her for matching up the watermark on some of the letters. That is what I remember from reading her book so I used it as an example about evidence, as for Walter Sickert, he was quite a character but that does not mean that he was the killer just an eccentric, even if he was a rather mean one at that. the man may of not have been the ripper but he was still an ******* who treated his wives like dirt so he has no one to blame if folks thought he was the Ripper.



Maybe Sickert did write a few Ripper letters. Nobody can doubt that he was a bit...odd. But to claim that this conclusively proves he was JTR is just wrong, and a real shame because there are passages in her book which are genuinely interesting....

Now I agree with you on your point that even if Sickert wrote those letters or letter that does not prove that he was the ripper still Cornwall's studies on comparing the watermark was what impressed me and since I remembered it, I decided to use that fact or theory from her book as an example on disregarded evidence. I never said that Sickert was the ripper.

My beef what that certain researchers don't or won't use the evidence right in front of them or follow up on a theory because they don't like the theory or researcher who made it and like I stated earlier although not too clearly it seems is that I think that it seems nobody wants these murders to be solved because they think a theory is flawed even if the researcher putting forward the the theory has good evidence in regards to certain aspects of the case. Now if somebody has evidence that a particular suspect put forward by another researcher wasn't JTR then they should state it or share it but still look at the other researchers research or aspects of it with an unjaundiced eye.

Of course I am coming from the Titanic circles which like the civil War buffs have a rep for in-feuding amongst themselves which perhaps gives me a dark view of researchers in general which is on me. Really from what I have seen on this site you all seem to get on pretty good with each other.:spy:

[Adam Went]

Hey George,

It certainly was interesting about matching up various watermarks and checking postage stamps for mitochondrial DNA and what not....it's actually only been fairly recently that I read Cornwell's book. I never bothered with it earlier on because it was so savagely reviewed by so many people! The moral of the story? Never, ever pre-judge something or somebody based on the assessment of others. ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

[George Lorton]

True. I was lucky that I really wasn't in Ripper circles when I read this book so I read it with a clear mind, however I thought at the time I read the book that she made a great case about Sickert.

Since that time I don't know about him being the killer but I do know she made an excellent case for Sickert writing those hoax letter and regarding his suspicious art and crazy life. Still I don't think he was the JTR although I do believe him capable and cold blooded enough to commit murder.

[Adam Went]

George:

An odd individual for sure, was Sickert. But almost certainly not Jack the Ripper. I don't buy the whole "He painted/sketched a few pictures which, with some massive imagination, might vaguely resemble some contemporary descriptions of the victims, therefore he must have been the murderer" theory, with nothing to link him directly to any of the murders or any of the victims. There's been pretty serious doubt for a long time that he was even in London during the time of the murders, or for all of the canonicals anyway - he was supposedly in Dieppe on the other side of the Channel!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Karen Sweet]

Thank you for the replies to my question about Mary Kelly being the victim at Millers Court or not. I found them very interesting reading.

The mystery surrounding her has always been part of the fascination of the murder for me.
I have always been puzzled by the statement of Caroline Maxwell particularly. How could she be that wrong?

Personally I think it probably was Mary Kelly, but I agree it was quite likely not her real name and this is why more info on her is difficult to find.

[Chris G.]

Thank you for the replies to my question about Mary Kelly being the victim at Millers Court or not. I found them very interesting reading.

The mystery surrounding her has always been part of the fascination of the murder for me.
I have always been puzzled by the statement of Caroline Maxwell particularly. How could she be that wrong?

Personally I think it probably was Mary Kelly, but I agree it was quite likely not her real name and this is why more info on her is difficult to find.

Hi Karen

I think the testimony of Caroline Maxwell is fairly easy to explain. She may have been well meaning but she may have been mistaken, just like the woman, Mrs Mary Malcolm, who swore that the body of Elizabeth Stride was that of her sister, Elizabeth Watts, and then was found to be mistaken.

It could be that Maxwell did not know Mary Kelly very well and knew her more by sight than anything. She may have thought she had something valuable to contribute. She may also have been seeking a little place in the limelight much as others such as Roslyn D'Onston, Matthew Packer, and Albert Bachert would seem to have wanted attention for themselves by "inserting" themselves into the case.

Best regards

Chris

[Karen Sweet]

Of course you are quite right that Maxwell could have been seeking the limelight, but Dew felt she was not, didn't he?
I don't see how she could have got it so wrong as she gave a statement on the day she had supposedly seen her, unless of course she was lying, which seems odd given her reputation.

[George Lorton]

Adam,

I agree, still I think Sickert wasn't lily white and had himself quite a time writing hoax ripper letters to the police.

Hi Karen, Chris G,

Yeah I don't think Kelly's real name was Mary Kelly either. I think she took that very common name Mary Jane Kelly to cover her tracks because she was hooking or maybe wanted by the law for something else or she was running from someone or something. If she wasn't Mary Kelly then who was she? If I was doing serious research I would being looking to see who was reported "Missing" from 1880-1890 and narrow my search down to who Mary Kelly might of been if she was even reported missing under her real name.

Although I think the ripper did get Kelly or should I say the Ripper got the woman who called herself Mary Kelly and that Caroline Maxwell was mistaken or saw the wrong Mary Kelly as it was a common name or alias.

[Debra Arif]

Although I think the ripper did get Kelly or should I say the Ripper got the woman who called herself Mary Kelly and that Caroline Maxwell was mistaken or saw the wrong Mary Kelly as it was a common name or alias.

Hi George,
One thought I had (and it's probably been suggested before) was that Caroline Maxwell (and maybe Morris Lewis) perhaps saw Catherine Pickett on that Friday morning? Catherine knocked at MJK's door on the Friday morning on her way to the market, to borrow a shawl because it was raining, but it was a bit earlier than the time Maxwell says she saw MJK. That act seems to suggest they were on friendly terms and perhaps borrowed items of clothing from each other from time to time, or visited with each other? Maybe Maxwell and Lewis thought that Catherine Pickett was the woman who lived in room 13?
...I haven't really thought it through to any great degree though, just thought I'd mention it. :)

I also think the woman found murdered in Miller's Court was the woman known as Mary Jane Kelly, but that it wasn't necessarily her real name. Look at the list of aliases Catherine (Rose) Mylett used.

[George Lorton]

Hi George,
One thought I had (and it's probably been suggested before) was that Caroline Maxwell (and maybe Morris Lewis) perhaps saw Catherine Pickett on that Friday morning? Catherine knocked at MJK's door on the Friday morning on her way to the market, to borrow a shawl because it was raining, but it was a bit earlier than the time Maxwell says she saw MJK. That act seems to suggest they were on friendly terms and perhaps borrowed items of clothing from each other from time to time, or visited with each other? Maybe Maxwell and Lewis thought that Catherine Pickett was the woman who lived in room 13?
...I haven't really thought it through to any great degree though, just thought I'd mention it. :)

I also think the woman found murdered in Miller's Court was the woman known as Mary Jane Kelly, but that it wasn't necessarily her real name. Look at the list of aliases Catherine (Rose) Mylett used.

Howdy Deb,

I forgot all about Catherine Pickett paying a visit or I did not connect the two events like you have done so cleverly. Thank you, I think that is an most excellent theory, especially if Pickett resembled MJK. I appreciate your thoughtfulness in bringing that to my attention. :)

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

Just quickly on Caroline Maxwell, I think all of us have been through a scenario before where we've been wandering down the street and think we've seen somebody we know on the other side of the street or nearby - it's actually a fairly regular occurrence, just like waving to somebody in a car you think you recognise only to realise that it's not them.

As for Walter Dew, he also thought Dr. Crippen was guilty. Go figure. ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

[Debra Arif]

Hey all,

Just quickly on Caroline Maxwell, I think all of us have been through a scenario before where we've been wandering down the street and think we've seen somebody we know on the other side of the street or nearby - it's actually a fairly regular occurrence, just like waving to somebody in a car you think you recognise only to realise that it's not them.

As for Walter Dew, he also thought Dr. Crippen was guilty. Go figure. ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

Adam, yeah, but how many of us have gone on to talk to the person we've mistaken the identity of, as if they are that person, not many of us wouldn't realise our mistake immediately?
If on the other hand Maxwell was not that well acquainted with the residents of Miller's Court and who lived where exactly, but could recognise a woman she saw as being a resident of the court, it makes more sense that she had always been mistaken about who lived at #13, and saw the woman she had always presumed did.

Walter Dew Rocks! :rockon:


Glad you liked my version, George. :)

[George Lorton]

Deb and Adam,

I do at that, Deb. I am often making mistakes like that.

Example "What do you mean you don't live on Ave B, I see you there all the time."

Interestingly as an added note on MJK. MJK was in the habit of sharing her dwellings with other women and even shared her possessions as Catherine Pickett felt if she went by and asked for a shawl to borrow MJK would lend it which tells us something of MJK character if not her real name.

[Adam Went]

Debs:

Well Caroline Maxwell's testimony is in contrast to everything else we know about Mary's activities on the previous evening, witness testimonies and medical reports - so one way or another, she was mistaken. You're quite right though that you would often realise your mistake if you go and speak to the person you thought you recognised, it just depends.

If you were simply hailing somebody called "Mary" in the East End of London circa 1888, it'd be no amazing feat if there was another "Mary" who answered!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Karen Sweet]

Yes at the end of the day, regarding all the other evidence, I agree that somewhere along the line for whatever reason, Maxwell was indeed mistaken about seeing the actual victim we know as MJK on that morning.

Adam

What do you mean? Crippen WAS guilty :suspicious:

[Chris G.]

Adam,

I agree, still I think Sickert wasn't lily white and had himself quite a time writing hoax ripper letters to the police.

Yes, if you believe Patricia Cornwell's theory. She achieved a not very good match of mitochondrial DNA between a Sickert letter and the Openshaw letter and a similarity of Pirie watermarked notepaper, though one was for 1886 and the other for 1887. This is the same lady that thinks Sickert was responsible for "most" of the "Jack the Ripper" letters, an idea which prima facie seems implausible, and that because some Ripper letters shows some artistry Sickert must have been responsible. Hmmmmmm.

Chris

[George Lorton]

Yes, if you believe Patricia Cornwell's theory. She achieved a not very good match of mitochondrial DNA between a Sickert letter and the Openshaw letter and a similarity of Pirie watermarked notepaper, though one was for 1886 and the other for 1887. This is the same lady that thinks Sickert was responsible for "most" of the "Jack the Ripper" letters, an idea which prima facie seems implausible, and that because some Ripper letters shows some artistry Sickert must have been responsible. Hmmmmmm.

Chris

Hi Chris,

No I don't believe Patricia Cornwell's theory. I just believe that Sickert probably sent off a Ripper letter or two to the police, due to the watermark on some of the pipper letters and his own writing paper that matches up. She makes a good case on that aspect. She makes a good case through research but still some of her arguemnts don't stack up in the light of day.

I just don't like Sickert due to the way he treated his wives and some of his other selfish actions. I don't think Sickert was JTR but I do think he was a selfish @$$ but not because of Ms Cronwells book.

[Adam Went]

Karen:

If Crippen was genuinely guilty, I will, as Mr. Grimwig would say "eat my own head" - and a top hat to go with it.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Debra Arif]

Karen:

If Crippen was genuinely guilty, I will, as Mr. Grimwig would say "eat my own head" - and a top hat to go with it.

Cheers,
Adam.

Lol, I hope you'll be boiling it first, Adam. :)

[Karen Sweet]

:rofl:@ Adam!

Well I'll wait with baited breath to see if anything conclusive turns up about his guilt or innocence then :)

[Adam Went]

Debs & Karen:

I already mentioned this in the other Crippen thread but since it was artfully dodged ( ;) ) - if either of you get the chance to see it, check out the docco called "The Last Secret of Dr. Crippen" which puts a pretty conclusive case forward for his innocence.

Cheers,
Adam. :)

[Debra Arif]

Adam, I'd say politely ignored, rather than artfully dodged. ;)

You're a docco makers dream, bless you! :)

[Adam Went]

Debs:

You've seen said docco then?
And you're not willing to offer a counter-argument to their points? The letters purporting to be from the supposedly dead Belle Elmore in the states which were ignored whilst Crippen awaited hanging.....Belle trying to withdraw money and hiring removalists just weeks before her "death"....the contamination and interference with the scene of the crime....hmmm.

Sorry, off topic.... ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

[Belinda]

Hey all,

This has probably been discussed at some point in the past, but a question out of curiousity: Do you have a "favourite" victim, as in a particular victim or alleged victim on JTR that, for whatever reason, you feel closest to or enjoy researching the most?

I know it's a bit of a cliche, but it's Mary Kelly for me, simply because of her youth and the fact that we probably know the least about her out of all the victims....it's amazing how these supposed low-life unfortunates could all have such interesting lives given the pieces that have been put together.

Cheers,
Adam.
I feel most of all for Annie Chapman and Elisabeth Stride. They are the saddest victims.

[Debra Arif]

Hi George,
One thought I had (and it's probably been suggested before) was that Caroline Maxwell (and maybe Morris Lewis) perhaps saw Catherine Pickett on that Friday morning? Catherine knocked at MJK's door on the Friday morning on her way to the market, to borrow a shawl because it was raining, but it was a bit earlier than the time Maxwell says she saw MJK. That act seems to suggest they were on friendly terms and perhaps borrowed items of clothing from each other from time to time, or visited with each other? Maybe Maxwell and Lewis thought that Catherine Pickett was the woman who lived in room 13?
...I haven't really thought it through to any great degree though, just thought I'd mention it. :)

I also think the woman found murdered in Miller's Court was the woman known as Mary Jane Kelly, but that it wasn't necessarily her real name. Look at the list of aliases Catherine (Rose) Mylett used.


Pickett? Really?

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Elsewhere.. on Casebook, there was a discussion a while ago about the origin of the term.."a right Mary Ann" or "a regular Mary Ann" which I quote the reference below..

http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-3345.html

However, I just thought I would add something that perhaps some may not know (forgive me if you do already know this)..

The name Polly is said to be a form of Mary. It is believed to have developed from possibly a nickname, possibly even a rhyming nickname: To Polly from Molly from Mary. Better in fact, in the reverse order, Mary to Molly to Polly.

Another example:-

Bet, Betty, Elisabeth or Elisabeth to Betty to Bet

In Victorian times, it was commion to do this with men's names as well.

John to Johnny to Jacky to Jack.

Each of the individual names above are now used even at birth, without the "lineage", and often boys are christened "Jack" or "Johnny", likewise girls are christened "Molly" or "Polly".

All of which brings me back to the name Mary Jane or Mary Ann Kelly. I stated previously in the thread that I do not believe her real name was Mary Ann or Mary Jane Kelly.

I am, along with a few others, trying like crazy to find out what happened to Alice Carroll after 1887. I hold out little hope of finding the answer, but may have more news in a few weeks time.

The thing that strikes me very very clearly, is the purported certainty of certain members of the police (said at various times after the event occured) that Mary Kelly was the last victim, even though the police were still apparently looking for "Jack the Ripper" quite a few years afterwards.

It may seem odd to some that in the 1890's, although the limited number of murders attributed to one murderer had been established and opined upon at a high level, the police were still looking for "Jack" when other murders occured, and then, when the memoirs and opinions of retired policemen came out, the general feeling went back again to the Kelly killing being the last of "Jack's" sordid ordeal. How we interpret this two way thought is up to each individual. However..

Allow me to expand a little on the possibility of Alice Carroll being Mary Jane Kelly. I am wondering (as others are) whether she were resettled like some of the others in the Pheonix Park murder case. The amount of money she recieved after the trial was substantial, and she was under police protection after the trial as well. She was last known of appearing in court for drunkeness, in Dublin. The names of the streets mentioned in her Dublin life where she lived are remarkable co-incidences too.

In addition to this, the mention of one policeman purportedly thinking that the murders had something to do with the " leader of a Fenian plot to kill Balfour" keeps nudging at me...as well as the statement in the famous reward text referring to an accomplice or accomplices connected to the Kelly murder.

Is it at all possible that the police knew who- Radical Fenians (not individual names) were involved in the Kelly murder? Is it possible that Catharine Eddowes was merely the "wrong" Mary Kelly? Is it possible that Alice Carroll was being hunted down, was living under the name of Mary Kelly and the last of the "Jack the Ripper" murders were infact used by her killers as the background for her killing? People far more knowledgable than I have stated their opinion that Kelly could, like Stride, be unconnected with the "Ripper" crimes.

Well, as for supporting evidence for the above, we have very little indeed. The obvious question is how any Fenian would know that a drunk woman who happened to call herself Mary Kelly was locked up in Bishopsgate Police Station, and even how they would know when she was released. One could answer that with the obvious fact that all underground organisations have their spies on the ground, and follow up on any reported occurrance of an individual. They don't always get the right person either. Policemen too are well known to be paid for their services for information and "help" throughout the ages...for a policeman doesn't always hand out physical back handers.. he takes them too..of a different sort...Informing others on activity is pretty common, as we all know. A back hander...corrupt policemen.. ahhh, the cry goes up..picking on policemen again are you? Well The Turf frauds a decade earlier told us quite a bit about attitudes to back handers.. and because the culprits were rooted out, dioesnt mean that corruption was, in any way. Williamson survived though. But here I drift away into little known of speculation and we know little of the motives of any individual in or out of the force for anything they do. Ahhh, motive.. one of the deadly three.. means motive and opportunity. It was pointed out to me that any possible connection between Halse and the removal of the apron piece from Mitre Square fell down on the question of motive. Read on McDuff...

The trouble with Ripperology is that we do not have enough facts, so all of the above becomes intruiging thought and in some cases, extended supposition. There should be enough room for intruiguing thought and such possibilities.. because if we go on facts and facts alone.. we are stone dead cemented in place. We cannot get any further. Reliable and reputable researchers start to look at intertwining links beyond the close circle of facts. The problem is that the further away from the centre of the spider's web one gets, the links become very tenuous indeed and even all the more improbable..and all the more unbelievable because of it. The possibilities become a myriad.

Such research starts at the centre, the known facts, and looks at the closest links, then their connections and so on and so on. At some point however, a way back to the centre must be found from the outside edge.. and to help back up the link going out, another different line must be found inwards again towards the centre. Naturally, some of these links and lines stop halfway..some diversify into another direction altogether. Which is why the connecting of the background material,. is, in my honest opinion, og great importance to this case (something I have maintained for well over 30 years)..from the myriad of goings on in Whitechapel, to the myriad of underground organisations and its members (known and unknown), to the undergriound activity of the police (Special Branch), it's leaders (Anderson, Monro, Warren etc) and beyond, to the political machinations of the time that connect all of the above. Special Branch answered to no one.. not even the Home Secretary if Anderson and Co didn't deem it needed. They were, in effect, a self governing, self law making and law breaking militia. If it was in the nation's interests... they could do what they saw fit, recieved the monetary means to carry it out and all was accepted, as long as it met the means to an end. Hmmm...

If one, for example, needs a really good idea of how the murders connect with politics, one only has to see the amount of documentary evidence that exists today from the police, dated 6th November 1888. An awful lot of police comment either collectively or individually was written in concluding words on the "double event" on that date. Swanson included. Why the 6th of November? Well, to me it is obvious. Parliament opened again after the recess on the 7th of November, and any Home Secretary worth his salts would need every bit of informtion at HIS fingertips in order to answer any eventual question in Parliament the next day. As it turns out, another remarkable feature of this case is that there were no questions in Parliament the next day about what had been going on in London for the last 2 months or so, a subject that was on the lips of the poplace and indeed, the entire world...a subject causing abject panic and at times, hysteria, a subject that was clearly out of control of the Metropolitan and City Police forces in the area.

So why all the stoic "we have it all under control" attitude from Anderson who stated years later that no further murder was committed on the streets after he turned up, because of his (self believing) actions and decisons... and that the murder was known to him and etc etc etc.. when at the time...the picture was clearly one of apparent blindness. So bad infact, that the poplace was in uproar. The official reason for Warren's resignation was given, but it cannot be denied that the background of his political and career inability to catch the "killer" of the Whitechapel victims played a heavy hand behind the scenes, as did his reaction to the ongoing riots in Trafalgar Square previously. The power struggle between the Home Secretary and the Police Commisssioner, the problems involving the use (officially and behind the scenes) and non use of Monro and his resignation, the reaction of Anderson and involvement in the forthcoming Parnell inquiry and all its "spy" spin offs, the use of Jenkinson's "spies" selling matches on street corners etc and the all round inability of the police to do what they were ordered to do, namely police the streets, with poor pay, poor conditions, poor hours and poor bemanning, under some questionable leadership.. well.. these are all part of the spider's web..amongst many, many other things.

Here, it will be shouted.. the simpler answer is the easiest. Well.. its so easy that it doesn't actually work. One man, 5 killings and he then disappears off the face off the earth, with the police still playing blind man's buff for the next 5 or six years and passing it on to every amateur detective, historian and researcher ever since. Then the guessing game starts of "name the Ripper" I don't have to go through the list. We all know who they were.

The great enthusiast, Stewart Evans has said many many times that we will "never know the name of..." I am 99% in agreement. IF it was one man...1000% in agreement. But I personally doubt that to be the case. My thought of a 2-1-2 or a 2-1-1-1 are still as strong as ever. Those who believe in a 4-1 scenario, with Stride the victim of another killer, means that the police would have TWO killers on the loose at the same time..something that the police would NEVER have admitted to in a month of Sundays, and of course, takes the "easy" option of a one man 5 woman killer out of the equation.. which is for some very hard indeed to swallow.. but credit where it is due to thiose who believe it and stick by it.. because they demand extra facts to DISprove it. I respect that.

I also respect that some say that Kelly was killed by a different hand than both Stride and the other three. Respected Ripperologists have stated this. That would make three killers on the loose at the same time. Here the cries of "impossible" ring out, based on amongst other things, statistics. Well the answer I have seen it said to that the fact is that every statistic has a start and a finish possibility. The mean average isn't always the answer. The majority in the number of cases uncovered over x amount of years doesnt neccessarily point to this being the answer in 1888 in Whitechapel. Again, the police would never have admitted this in public, and heads would be riolling faster than you can spit tobacco into a bowl from 12 paces. Both in the police and in Government.

So the possibility that Nicholls and Chapman were killed by one person, Stride by another and then Eddowes and Kelly by one (group/organisation/set of radicals) is only a half step away from the thinking of the respected Ripperologists above.

It would fit nicely in with Stewart's respected views too. Certainly nobody knows the name of the killer of the first two victims, likewise the name of the Stride killer, and then the differing names within the same group/organisation/set of radicals. A very good reason why nobody will ever know the names of the murderers of the final two victims if the killers were thus connected.... remember the word accomplice(s) from the offer of reward after the Kelly murder?

So. Is it possible that Alice Carroll was the person murdered in 13 Millers Court, Dorset Street? Until we find out what became of or what happened to Alice Carroll after 1887, and if she was/wasn't part of a resettlement plan or not, then the answer is the possibility, however small, must remain left open. And like it or not, I put it to you all that this too must be equally respected as a viewpoint, given all of the background information and myriad of goings on at the time. Is is far from a crank idea. Otherwise respected researchers would not be looking into Alice Carrolls background.

Yes, it is possible. Highly unlikely, and highly improbable...but possible.

Is it possible that the motive, should the thought be so, for Halse to have possibly removed the apron piece lie linked to any of the above? Highly unlikely..but...as one commentator has said, it would have been possible with the motive attached to the very clear means and opportunity. The only thing one has to take into account is that someone, somewhere, knew something that only a selected few knew. The fact that all police leave was limited and maximum force shown in the CITY may raise some eyebrows.. not the MET area. So could someone have been tipped off something was about to happen in the Square Mile? Feasable and well known even today. The fact that he was a policeman means very little if one is to look at the ongoings from the Thurf Fraud Scandal onwards. I must add that I believe one or two splashes of paint do not make the whole wall look the same colour.

"Mary Ann Kelly" was arrested for drunkeness and escorted to Bishopsgate police station. She was released 4 hours later. 5 or so hours later a woman was found murdered in Mitre Square. It took a few days before Catherine Eddowes was named as the victim, identified by a man, John Kelly, whose testimony and statements to the police and at the inquest give rise to major concern for some (together with the lodging house keeper) and whose story of how (they) came to know that this woman was locked up is highly dubious and not verified in any way. At the inquest, as been pointed out in a recent article, both Halse's statements and intentions have been questioned, as have another important policeman's, P.C.Long. Various ideas have been attributed to them both.

There is a 6 week gap. If Mary Ann Kelly wasn't Alice Carroll..then before another doorbolt is tried, the RIGHT Alice Carroll must be found. And when she was... my oh my the disfigurement made her.... yup... unrecognisable...and in keeping with the poplace's view and police presentation... of a one man killer's deeds. Plausible?.. Again.. it is highly speculative all round.

But it would clear up the most important parts of Ripperology and satisfy most everyone's questions. We would know "who" was behind murders 4 and 5..and would also explain why there is a terrible lack of material in the Kelly file alone.. not to mention the remarkable fact that very very many of the letters porporting to come from "Jack the Ripper" sent to the CITY police miraculously survived WW2's bombings and all other info re police papers on Catherine Eddowes "went up in flames".. I would have thought they would both have been kept in the same place... personally...wouldn't you?

Now if there was any Special Branch involvement/Fenian involvement and it got out... it WOULD have been of grave concern to the Government. Anarchy was indeed in the air anyway. This would have certainly sparked it off..and with the Irish troubles persisting... through the next 110 years.. there is no way that information could, or would, have been made public.

It raises great questions as to the reluctance and lengths the Met Police today (because of revealing Irish informants names) have gone to stopping the public access to any Special Branch material..even after the judge in charge of the case Trevor Marriott attempted agreed with him, and two lay (thats unqualified in the profession of law) members of the same tribunal voted him down. I certainly have never heard of a qualified judge's words being (basically) ignored by those who take his knowledge, advice and formal judgement onboard in a case. It is virtually unheard of. And before you start thinking that it is impossible to challenge the wisdom and actions of the two lay members that sided with the judge, Trevor Marriott lodged, but then later dropped, an appeal BEFORE the tribunal was held against one of the members on the panel because that member was on a previous tribunal panal that had ruled in favour of the Met Police keeping documents closed in another case. He dropped the appeal on legal advice.

In summing up. I believe Mary Kelly wasn't her name. There is a small chance tyhe vuictim was Alice Carroll. I have no proof of either..but then..proof in this case is almost non existant anyway.. so whats the difference?

I had prepared this post a day or two ago.. and was going to add more to it for an article in Ripperologist Magasine (sorry Chris.. this was part of the article intended and you may still use it still if you wish as far from all subscribers are members here, I'd imagine...send me an email or pm if you wish to)... but the reasons for posting this now in this way are two fold.. I have been very ill recently and am in the course of recovering (note the absence from the forums), and the recent publication of an article that is connected with this one by another commentator.

I will not be around for a while again, enforced absence due to illness and recovery, forthcoming workloads and other committments linked to selling and moving home, and cannot give my time and attention to any replies made personally to me on this thread. So please ladies and gentlemen, do discuss amongst yourselves if you find this posting of interest in any way... and at some stage I will endeavour to come along again when health and possibility enables me to.

I make no apologies for the length of this posting as most intended articles are longer than posts anyway, and if reading this amount is difficlut for some, I suggest they adopt the same methodology they use when reading articles or even books. As articles go, this would be, in its present state, quite short. I wish you all a pleasant New Year!

kindest regards

Phil

PS... apologies to all for any typo's etc.

[Debra Arif]

Hi Phil,
The issue of resettlement is interesting.The thing I find it hard to get to grips with is why Alice would have been resettled after 1887 and not 84 when the actual events and threats to her life were happening? The fact that Alice was still around unscathed and living in the exact same area and house 3 years later and under the same name seems to suggest the threats were not deemed to be that serious?
Why resettlement in 87?
And wouldn't resettlement after her last mention in the Dublin papers mean that the timeline of MJK's story doesn't fit? She would still have been in Dublin when she supposedly met Barnett and started living with him, plus Morganstone/stern/stein and Flemming could not have been part of her past yet we have men in the right area who fit the bill to be part of her past?

Perhaps Alice got married and changed her name or just decided to behave herself after her 1887 reported drunk and disorderly,so isn't mentioned in the papers again? How many times would an average person be mentioned in the papers anyway?
I personally think the coincidence of Dorset Street being mention in the newspaper reports about Alice's evidence in the Phoenix Park murders has influenced the view that these events are connected somehow? But this Dorset Street was in Dublin.

[Debra Arif]

P.S. -Hope you feel better soon, Phil.

[Debra Arif]

I think I have traced Alice Carroll's parents and siblings in the 1901 census (and other records), still living in the same street reported as Alice's address in the 1883 newspapers covering the trial she gave evidence in (and beyond)
If it's correct, then it looks like Alice had several sisters (including one called Mary Jane)all born within a few years of each other. It seems odd to me that Alice would be relocated but not her family, and sisters especially, some of whom were a similar age and living at the same address, would have been at risk of being identified as Alice herself by those who didn't personally know her or the family? And murdered in her place?

[Robert Linford]

That's a very interesting post, Phil. I for one do not see any harm in speculation, which is, after all, just another word for "thought-experiment."

Here's wishing you a smooth recovery. And for your health's sake, don't look at Chelsea's results.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,
The issue of resettlement is interesting.The thing I find it hard to get to grips with is why Alice would have been resettled after 1887 and not 84 when the actual events and threats to her life were happening? The fact that Alice was still around unscathed and living in the exact same area and house 3 years later and under the same name seems to suggest the threats were not deemed to be that serious?
Why resettlement in 87?
And wouldn't resettlement after her last mention in the Dublin papers mean that the timeline of MJK's story doesn't fit? She would still have been in Dublin when she supposedly met Barnett and started living with him, plus Morganstone/stern/stein and Flemming could not have been part of her past yet we have men in the right area who fit the bill to be part of her past?

Perhaps Alice got married and changed her name or just decided to behave herself after her 1887 reported drunk and disorderly,so isn't mentioned in the papers again? How many times would an average person be mentioned in the papers anyway?
I personally think the coincidence of Dorset Street being mention in the newspaper reports about Alice's evidence in the Phoenix Park murders has influenced the view that these events are connected somehow? But this Dorset Street was in Dublin.

Hello Debs,Robert, all

Thank you for your replies, am writing via phone and this will be short,
Re. Resettlememt-am in agreemnt re time gap. One must take into account two things though. £500 was a very hefty sum for her co-operation- so she must have been regarded as a pretty important witness. Also she WAS under police protection, as far as I am aware whilst in Dublhn. It does not tell us much but is to be considered.

Re. MJK and her story. If Alice WAS MJK- there are two considerable points to be made which I personally find obvious. Anyone resettled elsewhere would never reveak their true identity- to anyone- ESPECIALLY to Irish people in a community like Whitechapel- and it is obvious to me at least that in order to protect her identity a cover story would have to be invented. The MJK time frame would be a total red herring, and would be shown to be such by all effortr to trace any part of it with certainty for 120 odd years. SHE told the story and SHE is the only person that could verify it. It has absolutely no base in known fact- for as it is- MJK has not actually been found to exist as per the myriad of stories she told about herself. There is not ONE fact that stands out alone as being provably true. (according to HER story that is). People other than I have grave doubts about Barnett's and Hutchinson's words. Without going into it deeply- it has to be said that if Hutch had known her for the length of time he said he did- and he knew her well- he woule have been logically told things of her background that the police would have used in order to trace hfr true family and friends. The mere fact that this long term friend disappears off the face of the planet after having given evidence- late- and cannot be traced either causes doubts about both his story and identity in some quarters.

A Mary Jane Kelly may well have existed- but I believe the MJK of "victim" fame didnt- because I do not believe that was the name of the corpse in Millers Court. I dont kow who it was- but if we can actually find PROOF of Alice Carroll's life after 1887- we can rule her in or out of the equation. Any eventual marrage record for her must be easier to locate than one for MJK- because AC certainly existed.

All intruiging and speculative indeed- but as I said in my piece- the outside of the web is always far from the centre. There is a connection already for example between the turf frauds and the Pheonix Park Murders- via a policeman involved in both- I believe. Also in the same manner one between the turf frauds and the WM- Williamson. Not much to go on- but one thing is certain- look at the amount of police involvement with backgrounds specialising in previously fighting Fenianism that was brought in to the WM scenario and the " plot against Balfour" comment perhaps becomes more explanitory.

Now I must concentrate on other things. I will not have the chance I doubt to respond further for a while. My apologies. Thanks to all for all the good and kind wishes.

Kindest regards

Phil

[Debra Arif]

I have to ask though, Phil.
Alice received £500 pounds for her evidence, a sum that would have allowed her to relocate anywhere she chose?-Other witnesses were said to be heading off for a new life in the US. So why did Alice choose the Whitechapel slums? And why after September 1887? Four years after the death threats and police protection?

As fas as a marriage or even death goes. The Irish BMD indexes show a couple of possibles just in Dublin North alone. Ordering certificates that might relate to Alice in Dublin (or anywhere else in Ireland) after 1887, and ruling those out, is the only way to prove she doesn't exist in the records after 1887. No one is going to pay all that money to do that, so I guess speculation will win out because of that.

[Debra Arif]

10119

[Howard Brown]

Folks:

Please use this thread to discuss the topic of Alice Carroll !
I'll make a note on the other thread and leave a link to this thread over there...

The other thread was on the subject of favorite victim.

Carry on folks..............:nod:

[Scott Nelson]

You have to reconcile what Barnett tells us about MJK. That wouldn't seem to fit the details of Alice Carroll.

[Debra Arif]

Barnett would have had to have been in on the whole 'new identity' thing as he said he met Mary Jane Kelly in April 1887 and started living with her then.
On September 27th 1887 Alice Carroll was charged and convicted of using abusive and profane language at Albert Quay, Dublin.
The newspaper reports of the incident mention Alice's involvement in the Phoenix Park murder trials, so we know it's definitely the same Alice Carroll.

[Debra Arif]

There's a lot more I could say about Meiklejohn's involvement, Phil. But it's no fun talking to yourself. :(

[Howard Brown]

Debs:

I'm new to this Alice Carroll aspect, so all I have are questions...please fill me/us in on Meiklejohn...:tea:

[Robert Linford]

Yes, I can't say I'm au fait with it.

[Chris G.]

Barnett would have had to have been in on the whole 'new identity' thing as he said he met Mary Jane Kelly in April 1887 and started living with her then.
On September 27th 1887 Alice Carroll was charged and convicted of using abusive and profane language at Albert Quay, Dublin.
The newspaper reports of the incident mention Alice's involvement in the Phoenix Park murder trials, so we know it's definitely the same Alice Carroll.

Hi Debs

I agree. It sounds a bit far fetched for Mary Jane Kelly to have been Alice Carroll. As you say, Barnett would have had to have been involved in fabricating her new identity, or at least in spreading the story of her alleged background. If that was so, it might imply he was involved in her murder too, if not her actual murderer. :shakehead:

If Joe was not involved with her murder but just in telling tinters about her background, you would think that with the shock of her being murdered something might have cracked in the facade of the lie... that he might have let a clue slip that he didn't believe the story, but that didn't happen -- it seems he believed he was telling the truth about her background as he knew it.

Best regards

Chris

[Robert Linford]

Hi Chris

Well, if Joe was involved in the murder, then the "Eddowes as mistake" scenario falls flat. The only way I can see it working, is if Joe was genuinely taken in by Mary's stories about her "previous life." But that of course still doesn't get round the apparent time clash between Joe meeting Mary for the first time, and Mary (Alice) still being in Ireland at that time.

[Debra Arif]

As you say, Barnett would have had to have been involved in fabricating her new identity, or at least in spreading the story of her alleged background. If that was so, it might imply he was involved in her murder too, if not her actual murderer. :shakehead:



I agree, Chris.
Barnett knowing MJK's background as Alice Carroll would imply some sympathies with MJK's murderers? Otherwise as soon as she was murdered he could have pointed scotland Yard in exactly the right direction?

Robert, I also agree about the other problem you highlighted. Even if Joe was fed a story by MJK, it seems incredible that Joe could have been mistaken about the day he met and started living with MJK. Perhaps a week or so out is acceptable, but not what would amount to nearly six months difference.

[Debra Arif]

Debs:

I'm new to this Alice Carroll aspect, so all I have are questions...please fill me/us in on Meiklejohn...:tea:

How, perhaps I was misunderstanding Phil's post when he said-"There is a connection already for example between the turf frauds and the Pheonix Park Murders- via a policeman involved in both.."


I assumed Phil meant Meiklejohn as he was a Scotland yard detective jailed for 2 years for his involvement in the turf frauds. In 1884 after serving his time and setting up as a private detective Meiklejohn was hired by William O'Brien of the "United Ireland" to get dirt in Dublin on George Bolton (amongst others), Crown solicitor in Ireland . Meiklejohn paid a visit to Alice Carroll in connection with this particular private investigation, ( I assume because Bolton had been stated to have been withholding crucial defence evidence in certain cases in the Irish courts and perhaps fabricating prosecution evidence too?)

Anyway- I don't really see a connection if Phil meant Meiklejohn, apart from one man was involved in two separate incidents ....which happens all the time doesn't it?

[Debra Arif]

I've been looking at the marriage certificate business to see if Alice is in the official records already transcribed online, after 87.
I found her baptism record and those of her four sisters, two brothers and several cousins, one of whom was also named Alice Carroll (after their grandmother)and of a similar age and living in the same area as the family.
Of the five Carroll sisters, at least two got married, going by the names of the grandchildren living with the Carroll's in the 1901 census and another baptismal entry showing the name and maiden name of the mother of the child being baptised, but I can't find any marriage records for these women either as yet.

One newspaper reported in 1884 that Alice's husband, a policeman, had been assaulted and that Alice had returned to live with her mother. I'm sure that report is in error though.
There is one marriage entry for Alice's cousin, also Alice. So I've ruled that one out so far! :)

[Robert Linford]

One point I would like to make : is is likely that, having hunted down Carroll-Kelly, the murderers would not have left a message or done something to make her fate known to the people back in Ireland? Surely, apart from sheer revenge, the motive for killing Carroll would have been to deter future informers. Yet the killing of Carroll-Kelly was anonymous - or rather, less than anonymous because everybody attributed it to the Ripper. Hardly good Fenian propaganda.

[Debra Arif]

Excellent point, Robert.

[Debra Arif]

10223

10224

[Debra Arif]

I have to ask though, Phil.
Alice received £500 pounds for her evidence, a sum that would have allowed her to relocate anywhere she chose?-Other witnesses were said to be heading off for a new life in the US. So why did Alice choose the Whitechapel slums?



Oh, I get in now.
http://adland.tv/commercials/paddy-power-atletico-kebab-2012

[Livia Trivia]

And to make matters worse, Greg's
new kids all look like Messi.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Just incase I have missed it somewhere.. here's a link that is pertinent

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0917F9395F15738DDDA10A94D9405B8384F0D3


(Am just going through things I have and making sure they are seen or are posted.)




Phil

[Phil Carter]

and another, here


http://books.google.no/books?id=8qTOy6DzuWUC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=alice+carroll+fenian+informer&source=bl&ots=DZsD-kkB22&sig=1YuzkMlxDRCfbHOHPST6V_J0nNI&hl=no&sa=X&ei=e1dZUbLMEuXQ4QSoqoGQDA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=alice%20carroll%20fenian%20informer&f=false



Phil

[Phil Carter]

and another, here


http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=NZTR19151218.2.65&l=mi&e=-------10--1----0--




Phil

[Phil Carter]

and yet another, same thing, here,

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1302&dat=18830317&id=ilwQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MJMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3764,2651298


Phil

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Robert. Just saw this thread. Sorry for a cold post.

"Surely, apart from sheer revenge, the motive for killing Carroll would have been to deter future informers. Yet the killing of Carroll-Kelly was anonymous - or rather, less than anonymous because everybody attributed it to the Ripper. Hardly good Fenian propaganda."

The killing of Dr. Cronin seems not to have included any PR. He was lured to a house where a Clan-na-Gael removal team "removed" him. If I recall properly, he was stabbed in the head with ice picks or similar.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Phil. Thanks for posting this.

I can vouch for the Molony book--great material.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Lynn,


Thanks.. Just one more,, here's a sketch of Mary Kelly... when put side by side with the sketch of Alice Carroll that Debs posted.. we can compare.. sort of..

I can't do it but perhaps someone who can may like to try?

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=catherine+eddowes&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=catherine+eddowes&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=C61BF621BA8CB6C05EED726F608E6D0A042CD917&selectedIndex=682




Phil

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Phil. Thanks.

I never feel confident with sketches. Some may be very good; others poor.

Just went through Ancestry trying to locate a wedding between Alice and a man named Mooney. I presume that such a marriage had to have occurred between 1883 (Field trial) and early 1887 (paper report).

I found an Alice Carroll who married in Shoreditch in 1885. But Mooney for same date returned zero.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil. Thanks.

I never feel confident with sketches. Some may be very good; others poor.

Just went through Ancestry trying to locate a wedding between Alice and a man named Mooney. I presume that such a marriage had to have occurred between 1883 (Field trial) and early 1887 (paper report).

I found an Alice Carroll who married in Shoreditch in 1885. But Mooney for same date returned zero.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Thanks..I think Debs has already been down that road..from what I re-read of the posts before if I'm not mistaken...and came up with very little.

One can but try though, eh?


Phil

[Debra Arif]

Hello Lynn,


Thanks.. Just one more,, here's a sketch of Mary Kelly... when put side by side with the sketch of Alice Carroll that Debs posted.. we can compare.. sort of..

I can't do it but perhaps someone who can may like to try?

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=catherine+eddowes&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=catherine+eddowes&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=C61BF621BA8CB6C05EED726F608E6D0A042CD917&selectedIndex=682




Phil


I posted a description of Alice Carroll of Eccles Lane from the Grangegorman prison records somewhere.
Apparently she was 5 ft 4.5in. with brown hair, blue eyes and a fair complexion. The hair and eye colour denoted with ditto marks from the description of women above her in the page list.

I can't recall coming up with much as regards a Mooney marriage.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Phil. Thanks.

Yes, I try and try. I'd like to be able either to establish or eliminate her once for all.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Did that pertain to her witness at the Field trial or her D & D?

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Did that pertain to her witness at the Field trial or her D & D?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, no, at Grangegorman prison in January 1886, convicted of using abusive language. She paid her 15/- fine and was released.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Hmm, sounds like our Alice--loud and abusive when in her cups.

Oh, well, a trifle compared to her largesse from HM government. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hello Phil. Thanks.

Yes, I try and try. I'd like to be able either to establish or eliminate her once for all.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, Phil,
As i mentioned before-I don't believe the death certificate avenue has been exhausted yet, just for starters. Alice may have died unmarried and there are a couple of possible deaths for an Alice Carroll in Dublin. The year of birth given on death indexes is usually an estimate from information supplied by an informant who may not have been aware of an exact date or year of birth, so a couple of years either side of her actual birth years shouldn't rule out the death completely.
Then there's the question of whether she married. Amarriage record is missing for at least one of Alice's known to be married sister, so, that leaves the possibility Alice's is too.

Also, again-that's besides the obvious problems of Alice as MJK timing-wise.
Barnett would have had to have definitely lied about the time he met MJK as AC was known to still be in Dublin in 87.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Yes, I agree. If she were in Dublin continuously until then, either Joe lied or his memory was worse than mine.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Yes, I agree. If she were in Dublin continuously until then, either Joe lied or his memory was worse than mine.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks, Lynn. And why would he have lied is another question.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

If he's indeed lying, he'd almost HAVE to be in league with the situation.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Debs, Lynn,

Thanks for the responses, both. Most kind.

We are of course totally reliant that

a) what the woman "Kelly" said, IF Barnett is totally honest and truthful in his regailing HER story, is also truthful.

b) what Barnett was "told" actually happened at happened at all.

We have, on the face of it, no reason to not believe the man..except... and it really must be considered here, imo, that after 125 years of incredibly solid research by many, all of us included at some point I'd imagine, we can't identify this "Mary Kelly" woman...not a positive snifter.

Now I'd imagine it would be very very hard, percentage wise, for so many people searching left right and centre, independantly (and there have been very many who have tried), all to have missed the woman in an archive or another.

It offers only one explanation. She wasn't who she said she was. And THAT, reflects back to the Barnett situation....If she wasn't who she said she was... then everything she told Barnett was false.

Likewise, if she wasn't "Mary Kelly", the story Barnett tells cannot be true...by default. It can't be. Because according to him

a) "Mary Kelly" told him the story and a woman who went by that name, doesn't exist.

Which, as Lynn points out, leaves Barnett's story precariously hanging in thin air..making him a liar and opening up the whole story.

We can't believe "Mary Kelly" exists on the one hand, yet knowing this accept that we have ploughed every avenue searching for her and still not find her.

It leaves us with the obvious ...the conclusion that she wasn't "Mary Kelly".

So we can start by dismissing the Barnett story. It was told to him, presumably, by a woman who did not wish to be known by her true name.

If Barnett's story IS true in what he was told, then the emphasis isn't on Barnett lying.. but on "Mary Kelly" lying, and perhaps telling Barnett to say that and nothing else if asked.

If all that leads to Alice Carroll possibility looming.. then it doesn't matter where she actually was in 1887. The story doesn't actually matter.


Phil

[Debra Arif]

If Barnett's story IS true in what he was told, then the emphasis isn't on Barnett lying.. but on "Mary Kelly" lying, and perhaps telling Barnett to say that and nothing else if asked.

If all that leads to Alice Carroll possibility looming.. then it doesn't matter where she actually was in 1887. The story doesn't actually matter.


Phil


Hi Phil, sorry to rush this reply and I may have missed something in your post but I have to disagree. We are after all discussing the possibility that MJK may have been Alice Carroll, resettled after being a trial witness in Phoenix park related goings on. For this to be possible, Barnett must have lied about the date he met MJK as Alice Carroll was reportedly in Dublin in 1887, well after Barnett met MJK. And a resettled in Whitechapel witness, given a new identity, taking trips back home to Dublin and getting arrested and charged under her real name doesn't seem all that feasible either, to me.
So I personally do think it is an important issue and really has nothing to do with whether MJK lied to Barnett about her past and her name, which is a separate issue.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil, sorry to rush this reply and I may have missed something in your post but I have to disagree. We are after all discussing the possibility that MJK may have been Alice Carroll, resettled after being a trial witness in Phoenix park related goings on. For this to be possible, Barnett must have lied about the date he met MJK as Alice Carroll was reportedly in Dublin in 1887, well after Barnett met MJK. And a resettled in Whitechapel witness, given a new identity, taking trips back home to Dublin and getting arrested and charged under her real name doesn't seem all that feasible either, to me.
So I personally do think it is an important issue and really has nothing to do with whether MJK lied to Barnett about her past and her name, which is a separate issue.

Hello Debs,

No problem and thanks for the reply.

I don't disagree with you.. all I was saying is that either "Mary" lied to Barnett and he believed it..or Barnett lied to the police. Seperate issue, yes.

If Alice Carroll was "MJK" then the problem arises of the arrests under her own name. I agree. It doesn't seen feasable to me eithe.

But then again.. this whole sorry business has more problems in it than the unseen truth behind the 2nd WW!!



Apologies for ME rushing the reply..time for me to be elsewhere.


Phil

[Debra Arif]

Apart from the obvious problems concerning Barnett and Kelly and the meeting date of April 87 while Alice Carroll was still in Dublin in Oct 87; If Kelly was Alice Carroll why did the Fenians wait until she was secretly resettled in Whitechapel(?!) before murdering her? Why not bump her off in the four years she was still living (and not very quietly or secretly) in Dublin after the Phoenix Park trials (where she was a witness not an informant?) 1883-late 87. Her parents and some of her other family were still living in the same road in 1901 so none of them were scared enough to go into hiding.

A Fenian involvement may have been mentioned at the time of the murders but that MJK was Alice Carroll is a modern theory that doesn't seem to bear up to closer scrutiny in my view.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks for this.

"If Kelly was Alice Carroll why did the Fenians wait until she was secretly resettled in Whitechapel(?!) before murdering her?"

Simple answer here. IF she were done by such a group, the Triangle faction was far and away the most likely responsible.

Now, we know that Sir Ed sat down with Michael Davitt in Paris just after mid-October 1888. Sir Ed gave Davitt information for use in the Parnell Commission. In return, Davitt promised NOT to tell all he knew of some of Sir Ed's dodgier activities. Davitt claimed later he was gobsmacked at all the "trusted ones" who were in British employ.

Now, if between the Field trial and resettlement, Alice (like Pat Casey before) had "helped" Sir Ed in his network, she would be in line for a taste of Clan-na-Gael "justice." I'm sure you read their warning to traitors?

By the way, Davitt was a good friend to Alexander Sullivan, head of the Triangle faction Clan-na-Gael.

Compare the analogous situation with Davitt, Sullivan and Dr. Cronin.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Apart from the obvious problems concerning Barnett and Kelly and the meeting date of April 87 while Alice Carroll was still in Dublin in Oct 87; If Kelly was Alice Carroll why did the Fenians wait until she was secretly resettled in Whitechapel(?!) before murdering her? Why not bump her off in the four years she was still living (and not very quietly or secretly) in Dublin after the Phoenix Park trials (where she was a witness not an informant?) 1883-late 87. Her parents and some of her other family were still living in the same road in 1901 so none of them were scared enough to go into hiding.

A Fenian involvement may have been mentioned at the time of the murders but that MJK was Alice Carroll is a modern theory that doesn't seem to bear up to closer scrutiny in my view.

she might have had police protection ?

didnt some of the other victims use the name kelly after all kill all the Kellys you are bound to get the right one ! lol

[Debra Arif]

Hi Lynn, ok, but that scenario only makes sense if your theory of Alice Carroll being involved with Edward Jenkinson after the trials is correct?

Alice as MJK means Barnett outright lied about the date he met her and that can only mean his personal involvement in the resettlement?

[Debra Arif]

she might have had police protection ?

didnt some of the other victims use the name kelly after all kill all the Kellys you are bound to get the right one ! lol


It was pretty crap if she did have police protection seeing as ex Det. Meiklejon (as a PI) was able to walk straight into her house unnoticed in 1885 to interview her about Bolton etc.!

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

"but that scenario only makes sense if your theory of Alice Carroll being involved with Edward Jenkinson after the trials is correct?"

Right. If she were merely resettled after the Field testimony, it would seem much ado about nothing. Of course, to be fair, her L500 largesse from HM government caused tongues to wag.

"Alice as MJK means Barnett outright lied about the date he met her and that can only mean his personal involvement in the resettlement?"

Almost certainly. Of course, he could have his dates mixed and be regurgitating her cover story from memory.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Almost certainly. Of course, he could have his dates mixed and be regurgitating her cover story from memory.

Cheers.
LC

Saying they met in April 87 rather than after October 87 would have to be more than a simple 'dates mixed up' mistake? That's 6 months difference, practically a third of the total numbers of months they supposedly lived together.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Quite. But I have made blunders like that.

Is it barely possible that Alice were visiting/taking care of business at that time--not living there continuously?

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Quite. But I have made blunders like that.

Is it barely possible that Alice were visiting/taking care of business at that time--not living there continuously?

Cheers.
LC

He specifically relates the meeting to Easter bank Holiday-extra reason to remember it correctly?
That seems to defeat the whole purpose, Lynn. What's the point of secret resettlement if you visit your old home in the first few months?

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

"He specifically relates the meeting to Easter bank Holiday-extra reason to remember it correctly?"

Yes, but compare one of the killings where Easter seems conflated with Christmas or bank holiday.

"That seems to defeat the whole purpose, Lynn. What's the point of secret resettlement if you visit your old home in the first few months?"

My idea is that this is just before the beginning of resettlement. In other words, she has been back and forth between Dublin and London. Afterwards, no more travel--just lying low.

Of course, some day, records will be found and it may turn out that Alice is totally unrelated to the "MJK" business.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Yes, but compare one of the killings where Easter seems conflated with Christmas or bank holiday.

The Fairy Fay/Hames/Hayes/Emma Smith mix up is much more complicated than that and not personal to Barnett. We are talking about him recalling the day he met MJK-which he says was Good Friday 1887...not around that time or possibly or could have been-was.

My idea is that this is just before the beginning of resettlement. In other words, she has been back and forth between Dublin and London. Afterwards, no more travel--just lying low.



But, if, as you suggest, Barnett was just plain mistaken about the date they met (out by 8 months) then she needn't have been travelling between Dublin and London up to October 87.

[Trevor Marriott]

It was pretty crap if she did have police protection seeing as ex Det. Meiklejon (as a PI) was able to walk straight into her house unnoticed in 1885 to interview her about Bolton etc.!

Hi Debs
I only said she might have had I didnt say she did.

Looking at it realistically it would have been easier for the police to squirrel her away. But as you point out she remained that didnt appear to have happened initially.

But the Alice Carroll theory as Mary Kelly is interesting to say the least. I will be in Dublin later in the year who knows what may come out of the woodwork.

[Trevor Marriott]

It was pretty crap if she did have police protection seeing as ex Det. Meiklejon (as a PI) was able to walk straight into her house unnoticed in 1885 to interview her about Bolton etc.!

But of course if she had have had protection then your officer would have no doubt been allowed access to her by reason of his past employment and may have known any officers doing the protecting. He would not have been looked upon as a potential threat

[Debra Arif]

But of course if she had have had protection then your officer would have no doubt been allowed access to her by reason of his past employment and may have known any officers doing the protecting. He would not have been looked upon as a potential threat


But that isn't what happened, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

But that isn't what happened, Trevor.

You maybe right I dont know anyhting about this incident just generalising and giveing a rational explanation for your initial post

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

I think that collusion is more likely than faulty memory. The latter is only just possible.

cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Trevor. Tread carefully. Sentiments about that case still run high--after all these years.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

I think that collusion is more likely than faulty memory. The latter is only just possible.

cheers.
LC

I agree, Lynn. If MJK was Alice Carroll then Barnett would have had to have been involved in her murder in some way.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

But not as perpetrator, surely?

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

But not as perpetrator, surely?

Cheers.
LC

I don't know, Lynn. If MJK was Alice and Barnett lied about the first day he met her it had to have been for sinister reasons and he was covering up something?

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

"If MJK was Alice and Barnett lied about the first day he met her it had to have been for sinister reasons"

Why? Surely Sir Robert--had he known--would want this kept quiet. But may that NOT be sinister--merely prudent? After all, he had one of his own to protect.

". . . and he was covering up something?"

Of course--the extent of the old intelligence network begun by Sir Ed and now under the auspices of Nick Gosselin. And there may have been good reason for tweaking the date.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

"If MJK was Alice and Barnett lied about the first day he met her it had to have been for sinister reasons"

Why? Surely Sir Robert--had he known--would want this kept quiet. But may that NOT be sinister--merely prudent? After all, he had one of his own to protect.

". . . and he was covering up something?"

Of course--the extent of the old intelligence network begun by Sir Ed and now under the auspices of Nick Gosselin. And there may have been good reason for tweaking the date.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks, Lynn. I'm sorry, I just don't buy any of it.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

"I'm sorry, I just don't buy any of it."

That's fine. The purchase might be premature. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. Tread carefully. Sentiments about that case still run high--after all these years.

Cheers.
LC

Have no fear Lynn he who dares wins !!!

[Jennifer Shelden]

If this Carroll person was Kelly, then it wouldnt make sense of the whole Mrs Carthy Breezers Hill, Mrs Buki story, which would make at least two people at the time making up stuff.

Kelly is mysterious enough without adding unnecessary conspiracy.

[Debra Arif]

If this Carroll person was Kelly, then it wouldnt make sense of the whole Mrs Carthy Breezers Hill, Mrs Buki story, which would make at least two people at the time making up stuff.

Kelly is mysterious enough without adding unnecessary conspiracy.

Thanks for your input here, Jenni. I know you and Neal have published some interesting research on Morganstone and 'Phoenix' as a couple which was pretty convincing as an identification, to me. That there was a Joseph Flem(m)ing connected to the building trade and a man named Morganstone/stern in the right area at the right time makes me think that MJK's back story from 84 onwards at least, was not fabricated.

The search for a death or marriage certificate for Alice Carroll has not been truly exhausted. She was in the Irish papers a couple of times in 86/7-that she doesn't appear in online newspaper archives after that date should no be taken as her disappearing from Ireland. She may have just grown up a bit and decided to start behaving herself.

[Jennifer Shelden]

Hi Debs,
that said, if you think its possible, then - im willing to take it far more seriously than i was
Jenni

[Debra Arif]

Hi Debs,
that said, if you think its possible, then - im willing to take it far more seriously than i was
Jenni

I stick with my last post to Lynn, Jenni-I just don't buy it. I'm surprised Trev is willing to entertain the idea to be honest seeing as there's sod all evidence and it's a modern idea plucked from nothing-AC as MJK that is, not Fenian involvement.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Jennifer. Thanks.

"Kelly is mysterious enough"

Completely agree. Do you have any idea why she should be so mysterious and yet Polly's movements are so well documented; Annie's earlier life so well attested (even a marriage photo), but not "MJK's"?

Any ideas are appreciated.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn. Polly's movements in the days prior to her death are woefully undocumented, but in a larger time frame I can see what you mean. But she was in and out of the system so that's why we know so much about her. Mary was not. I know even less about Pearly Poll than I do Mary, but that doesn't mean Poll was a Fenian operative or anything. It just means she was off the grid.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs.

"makes me think that MJK's back story from 84 onwards at least, was not fabricated."

But could it be tweaked and embellished?

"The search for a death or marriage certificate for Alice Carroll has not been truly exhausted."

Not even close. But, eventually, I trust it shall be.

"She was in the Irish papers a couple of times in 86/7-that she doesn't appear in online newspaper archives after that date should no be taken as her disappearing from Ireland. She may have just grown up a bit and decided to start behaving herself."

Absolutely. And I shall be delighted to find the material showing that AC is NOT "MJK." Then, I can look elsewhere.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello (again) Debs.

"I'm surprised Trev is willing to entertain the idea to be honest seeing as there's sod all evidence and it's a modern idea plucked from nothing-AC as MJK that is, not Fenian involvement."

But, once disestablished, it can be permanently laid aside.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Tom. Thanks.

I was thinking about the timeline in the A-Z. Interesting.

Pearly Poll? I'll leave her on your turf. Much I don't know here.

Although I'd never use the term "Fenian," I know what you mean.

But, I think, all shall be made clearer once Sir Ed's operation is dissected.

Some day?

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hi Lynn. Thanks for the replies.
I'm curious as to who first proposed the theory of MJK as AC.

Why don't you like the term 'Fenian'? The home Office were still using it in documents well after the 1860s.

[Jennifer Shelden]

Hello Jennifer. Thanks.

"Kelly is mysterious enough"

Completely agree. Do you have any idea why she should be so mysterious and yet Polly's movements are so well documented; Annie's earlier life so well attested (even a marriage photo), but not "MJK's"?

Any ideas are appreciated.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,
i dont think MJK was as 'well off' as Annie if your asking about Kelly.

ALso we must remember the other ladies were older and with the exception of Stride had children and siblings who came forward at the inquests
Jenni

[Tom_Wescott]

Absolutely. And I shall be delighted to find the material showing that AC is NOT "MJK." Then, I can look elsewhere.

Hi Lynn. I thought proof HAD been discovered to the effect that Mary Kelly was in London at Easter, 1887 while Alice was in Dublin? It's not documented proof, but is it not evidence to suggest the two were not one and the same?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jennifer Shelden]

Thanks for your input here, Jenni. I know you and Neal have published some interesting research on Morganstone and 'Phoenix' as a couple which was pretty convincing as an identification, to me. That there was a Joseph Flem(m)ing connected to the building trade and a man named Morganstone/stern in the right area at the right time makes me think that MJK's back story from 84 onwards at least, was not fabricated.

The search for a death or marriage certificate for Alice Carroll has not been truly exhausted. She was in the Irish papers a couple of times in 86/7-that she doesn't appear in online newspaper archives after that date should no be taken as her disappearing from Ireland. She may have just grown up a bit and decided to start behaving herself.

i totally agree, it seems pretty solid from 84 onwards, several people confirming various aspects.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

"I'm curious as to who first proposed the theory of MJK as AC."

Me too. Like so many ideas, I think that I have discovered something, only to find later that it was thought of LONG ago.

I think I found a thread on another site where someone had proposed this earlier. I asked another chap about it and he was already aware of it.

"Why don't you like the term 'Fenian'?"

Because it is imprecise. I prefer to use the names of the particular groups involved in particular activities. For example, many of the dynamite attacks seem to have been due to Clan-na-Gael, but Sullivan's breakaway faction, probably responsible for Dr. Cronin's death, was The Triangle. The IRB (Irish Republican Brotherhood) had a breakaway group--The Irish National Invincibles.

Quite difficult to follow, but a bit more accurate.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

"I'm curious as to who first proposed the theory of MJK as AC."

Me too. Like so many ideas, I think that I have discovered something, only to discover later that it was thought of LONG ago.

I think I found a thread on another site where someone had proposed this earlier. I asked another chap about it and he was already aware of it.

"Why don't you like the term 'Fenian'?"

Because it is imprecise. I prefer to use the names of the particular groups involved in particular activities. For example, many of the dynamite attacks seem to have been due to Clan-na-Gael, But Sullivan's breakaway faction, probably responsible for Dr. Cronin's death, was The Triangle. The IRB (Irish Republican Brotherhood) had a breakaway group--The Irish National Invincibles.

Quite difficult to follow, but a bit more accurate.

Cheers
LC

Yet the men writing about them still used the term and I am aware of the various factions, including the ones you don't mention, thanks.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Jennifer. Thanks.

"Also we must remember the other ladies were older and with the exception of Stride had children and siblings who came forward at the inquests."

Quite. But surely with a mum and dad and several siblings, at least one of "MJK's" family should have as well?

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Tom. Thanks.

"I thought proof HAD been discovered to the effect that Mary Kelly was in London at Easter, 1887 while Alice was in Dublin?"

Well, according to Barnett, she WAS in London then, and they met.

Debs has shown Alice to have been in Dublin that autumn. Wasn't aware of spring?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

I stick with my last post to Lynn, Jenni-I just don't buy it. I'm surprised Trev is willing to entertain the idea to be honest seeing as there's sod all evidence and it's a modern idea plucked from nothing-AC as MJK that is, not Fenian involvement.

Debs
As an investigator you have to keep and open mind and follow all leads and sometimes go off in differnet directions in an attempt to prove or disprove facts and evidence.

In the case of Mary Kelly as her antecednets have not been proved we have to keep an open mind with regards to the possibilty of her perhaps being Alice Carrol.

I fully appreciate that on the face of it some of Carrolls antecedents do not seem to suggest this to be the case. Neverthless it is a known fact that Special Branch did relocate informants in other countries and give them new identities. So from my perspective I will keep an open mind with regards to both Kelly and Alice Carrol until something comes along to sway me in one direction or the other.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Correct. They lumped them all together.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Wasn't aware of spring?

Cheers.
LC
She was in Paris then.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

After she had met Barnett?

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Debs
As an investigator you have to keep and open mind and follow all leads and sometimes go off in differnet directions in an attempt to prove or disprove facts and evidence.

In the case of Mary Kelly as her antecednets have not been proved we have to keep an open mind with regards to the possibilty of her perhaps being Alice Carrol.

I fully appreciate that on the face of it some of Carrolls antecedents do not seem to suggest this to be the case. Neverthless it is a known fact that Special Branch did relocate informants in other countries and give them new identities. So from my perspective I will keep an open mind with regards to both Kelly and Alice Carrol until something comes along to sway me in one direction or the other.

We have to keep an open mind that she may have been named something other than Mary Jane Kelly, not necessarily Alice Carroll-with that I do agree.

Trev-you honestly believe, as an investigator, that Alice Carroll got 500 quid and was relocated to the Whitechapel slums ?!!! Really?

[Debra Arif]

I'd still like to know who first proposed Alice Carroll as MJK? One of the supporters of the theory must know.

[Trevor Marriott]

We have to keep an open mind that she may have been named something other than Mary Jane Kelly, not necessarily Alice Carroll-with that I do agree.

Trev-you honestly believe, as an investigator, that Alice Carroll got 500 quid and was relocated to the Whitechapel slums ?!!! Really?

We know that any relocation by choice or otherwise did not take effect as soon as perhaps we might have expected. This is just one of the problems with the Alice Carroll theory. But of course the total disfigurment of the face could suggest that the killer was perhaps trying to hide the true identity of the victim.

She received her informants payment but how long does it take to spend that amount when in todays world lottery millionaires are found to be almost penniless several years later.

Equally she could have come to London still with money in her pocket but if that soon went or she took to drink then perhaps prostitution was another option.

I can tell you that when informants become of no use to the police they drop them like hotcakes. This has been clearly shown in confidential letters I have seen and read in relation to other poluce informants working for Special Branch during those years.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs.

The thread to which I referred had a lady researcher who was focusing on her blue eyes. This ring a bell?

Maybe I could research this?

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

We know that any relocation by choice or otherwise did not take effect as soon as perhaps we might have expected. This is just one of the problems with the Alice Carroll theory. But of course the total disfigurment of the face could suggest that the killer was perhaps trying to hide the true identity of the victim.

She received her informants payment but how long does it take to spend that amount when in todays world lottery millionaires are found to be almost penniless several years later.

Equally she could have come to London still with money in her pocket but if that soon went or she took to drink then perhaps prostitution was another option.

I can tell you that when informants become of no use to the police they drop them like hotcakes. This has been clearly shown in confidential letters I have seen and read in relation to other poluce informants working for Special Branch during those years.

Facial disfigurement can't disguise height, weight or hair and eye colour. All things used for identification purposes.

We know AC was still in Dublin in Sept 87 when she was fined for using obscene language. It was a pretty rapid downward spiral into drink and prostitution in Whitechapel in that case, plus it doesn't account for the Morganstone and Flemming past checking out.

No evidence to support any of it.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Trevor.

If it were JUST a resettlement, I would have to side with Debs. Whitechapel would be awkward indeed. As you know, many resettlees went to South Africa or Australia. Kavanagh, however, might have died in Britain.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs.

"We know AC was still in Dublin in Sept 87"

Are we sure about "still"?

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hello Debs.

The thread to which I referred had a lady researcher who was focusing on her blue eyes. This ring a bell?

Maybe I could research this?

Cheers.
LC

As I recall it was AC's red hair and blue eyes the researcher mentioned (she had brown hair in reality) plus also of coincidences of names of streets in Dublin where AC lived and Whitechapel MJK lived were mentioned in support of the theory?

[Trevor Marriott]

Facial disfigurement can't disguise height, weight or hair and eye colour. All things used for identification purposes.

We know AC was still in Dublin in Sept 87 when she was fined for using obscene language. It was a pretty rapid downward spiral into drink and prostitution in Whitechapel in that case, plus it doesn't account for the Morganstone and Flemming past checking out.

No evidence to support any of it.

I wasnt seeking to rely on it simply theorising. A bad habit I have picked up here !

[Debra Arif]

Trevor-Are people given new identities and relocated allowed to return home when they like?
Not just return home either but be given a new name, settled in one place and then go home and get arrested and give their old name in court??

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Now that you mention it, I think I did hear something about street names.

Permit me to observe that such is VERY weak. It does not sway me at all.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Now that you mention it, I think I did hear something about street names.

Permit me to observe that such is VERY weak. It does not sway me at all.

Cheers.
LC

It's all weak to me.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor-Are people given new identities and relocated allowed to return home when they like?
Not just return home either but be given a new name, settled in one place and then go home and get arrested and give their old name in court??

Its is quite clear that she was not relocated by the police initially however she might have chosen to relocate herself sometime later with the help of the police. She disappesrs off the radar after 1887 does she not.

Sometimes people dont always do what they are told to do.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom. Thanks.

"I thought proof HAD been discovered to the effect that Mary Kelly was in London at Easter, 1887 while Alice was in Dublin?"

Well, according to Barnett, she WAS in London then, and they met.

Debs has shown Alice to have been in Dublin that autumn. Wasn't aware of spring?

Cheers.
LC

My mistake then. Thanks. I thought I saw posts earlier where someone was saying the Barnett story conflicted with Alice's movements, and you tried to argue that Barnett was mistaken as to the day.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Trevor.

A question MUST be asked. If Alice is "MJK," as I think she MAY be, and if her death represents a revenge killing, as I BELIEVE it does, why would her assassin wish to keep her from being recognised and slash her face?

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Tom. Thanks.

"the Barnett story conflicted with Alice's movements, and you tried to argue that Barnett was mistaken as to the day."

It does conflict. Debs has rightly pointed out that, subsequent to her meeting Barnett, she was in Dublin and charged with a D & D. Debs suggested collusion (if Alice = "MJK") between Joe and Alice. I suggested it could be bad memory, but that does not inspire me.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn. I believe Debs also suggested that the entire scenario in which Alice is MJK is pulled from whole cloth, based on nothing contemporary, and is supported by zero facts. Is this true or is Debs mistaken? I personally have no idea how this theory originated and what evidence sits at its foundation. I'm assuming there must be something about it for you to be so thoroughly convinced.

Or are you exploring this theory to see where it goes, but not as convinced by it as you might appear?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor.

A question MUST be asked. If Alice is "MJK," as I think she MAY be, and if her death represents a revenge killing, as I BELIEVE it does, why would her assassin wish to keep her from being recognised and slash her face?

Cheers.
LC

If she was Alice Carroll and a normal murder had taken place the killer perhaps thought she could be identified subsequenlty as Alice carroll and the blame shifting back to The Fenians,

If this were the case perhaps the killer only recenlty found her and where she lived in between her splitting up with Barnett, and may have thought she had always lived alone.

After all if that be the case would the killer have known whom she might have told about her past

Just another point to ponder

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Lynn. I believe Debs also suggested that the entire scenario in which Alice is MJK is pulled from whole cloth, based on nothing contemporary, and is supported by zero facts. Is this true or is Debs mistaken? I personally have no idea how this theory originated and what evidence sits at its foundation. I'm assuming there must be something about it for you to be so thoroughly convinced.

Or are you exploring this theory to see where it goes, but not as convinced by it as you might appear?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Something to ponder upon which has been posted before but in the light of the current arguments it is aired yet again ---- FACT or FICTION ?

"Alice Carroll was described as having bright, golden red, hair and very pretty blue eyes the same as kelly. She lived with her parents, 2 brothers and three sisters in Lower Eccles Lane, just off Dorset Street,Dublin. Nearby in Hardwick Street was a grocery store owned by the MCCarthys and another store owned by the Hutchinsons" !!!!!!!!!!!

One of the convicted terrorists whose evidence Carroll helped to send to the gallows was a Joseph Brady who had a girlfriend Annie Meagher, she hated and despised Carroll for giving evidence. She is quoted as saying "The sun has gone from my sky and the heart has been torn from my body, I hope someday your heart is torn from you as has mine"

Alice Carroll felt safer to stay at home with her mother. She was abused constantly on the streets and one one occassion an effigy of her was burned near her home.

According to uncorroborated reports following the execution of Brady and others their bodies were the subject of dissection, their organs being removed for medical research, and their remains buried in unmarked graves inside Dublin prison.

Food for thought and certainly raises the suggestion of a motive for the murder of Kelly

Now lets see if we can put some meat on the bone or remain fighting over the scraps.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Tom. Thanks.

Not at all convinced that Alice was "MJK." But I am fairly convinced that "MJK" was involved in some such thing as information networking, resettlement or something of that sort. And if so, it would explain most of the anomalies in her case.

If it were merely a matter of contemporary researchers not being able to confirm her (very well, Barnett's) stories about birth, family, marriage, death of spouse, descent into vice, etc. I'd think, "Well, we'd better try harder."

But reporters immediately after her death tried to find her antecedents--tried, but failed miserably.

So, what possible scenario would explain such a deep veil of mystery?

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

I am definitely pondering.

"If she was Alice Carroll and a normal murder had taken place the killer perhaps thought she could be identified subsequently as Alice Carroll and the blame shifting back to the Fenians."

OK.

By "normal murder" I take it you mean domestic, or something of that sort? Certainly not normal by my usual canons of normality. Looks like the perpetrator is quite deranged.

Next, are you proposing that the killer wished Alice to be identified as Alice, thus having the appropriate Irish faction take the blame for him? If so, surely the facial mutilations were counter productive?

But, if it were not Alice, and he disfigured her hoping that she would be identified as Alice and the blame going onto an Irish group, then surely--whoever else "MJK" was--it was NOT Alice who was killed.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Trevor. Just read your post to Tom.

Alice was involved in the Field trial, and, yes, that eventually had some bearing on the Phoenix Park murders. And, later, Brady and Kelly were hanged.

1. I'm not sure about the value of the coincidences between Dublin and Whitechapel. Reminds me of an analogous claim about Maybrick regarding Liverpool and London.

2. How much of the Meagher story is confirmed? How much, urban legend?

Sorry to sound skeptical, but it does me no good to accept tales uncritically.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. Just read your post to Tom.

Alice was involved in the Field trial, and, yes, that eventually had some bearing on the Phoenix Park murders. And, later, Brady and Kelly were hanged.

1. I'm not sure about the value of the coincidences between Dublin and Whitechapel. Reminds me of an analogous claim about Maybrick regarding Liverpool and London.

2. How much of the Meagher story is confirmed? How much, urban legend?

Sorry to sound skeptical, but it does me no good to accept tales uncritically.

Cheers.
LC

You will notice i did put at the beginning fact or fiction.

Lynn your reply is indicative of researchers who stand firmly by their own beliefs but have nothing of any real consequece to support them, but seem to want to readily dismiss anything that may go against their beliefs.

[Trevor Marriott]

Lynn

I simly posted that with a view to opening it up for discussion you and others have been asking where the Alice Carrol theory came from and was there anything to back it up what has been posted if corrcet would go along way to backing it up would it not

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

I am definitely pondering.

"If she was Alice Carroll and a normal murder had taken place the killer perhaps thought she could be identified subsequently as Alice Carroll and the blame shifting back to the Fenians."

OK.

By "normal murder" I take it you mean domestic, or something of that sort? Certainly not normal by my usual canons of normality. Looks like the perpetrator is quite deranged.

Yes loosely speaking but not deranged if it wera case of shfting the murder onto the murderer who was curently being sought

Next, are you proposing that the killer wished Alice to be identified as Alice, thus having the appropriate Irish faction take the blame for him? If so, surely the facial mutilations were counter productive?

No read my post I am saying the opposite had it been a normal killing without the mutilations there is a likelihood that she might have been identified or named as Alice Carrol after all if the police had a Joanna Doe who knows who might have come out of the woodwork to subsequently name her. But by disfiguring her here was no likelihood of the police being able to photograph her face and circulate it for identification purposes.

But, if it were not Alice, and he disfigured her hoping that she would be identified as Alice and the blame going onto an Irish group, then surely--whoever else "MJK" was--it was NOT Alice who was killed.

You have lost me now

Cheers.
LC

[Jennifer Shelden]

Anyone who thinks they have a candidate for Mary Kelly needs to be held to the same high standards.

Proving they were not alive post 1888 is an important part of this.
What do we know about this lady?

[Trevor Marriott]

Lynn
Further to your posts

Hello Trevor. Just read your post to Tom.

Alice was involved in the Field trial, and, yes, that eventually had some bearing on the Phoenix Park murders. And, later, Brady and Kelly were hanged.

1. I'm not sure about the value of the coincidences between Dublin and Whitechapel. Reminds me of an analogous claim about Maybrick regarding Liverpool and London.

Well I am sure as we speak Debs is busy trying to prove or disprove it. There was a Hardwick Street and there was a Dorset Street, and Eccles Lane all near to each other

2. How much of the Meagher story is confirmed? How much, urban legend?

There also was an Annie Meagher

Sorry to sound skeptical, but it does me no good to accept tales uncritically.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Anyone who thinks they have a candidate for Mary Kelly needs to be held to the same high standards.

Proving they were not alive post 1888 is an important part of this.
What do we know about this lady?

On the face of it more than we prove with regards to Mary kelly

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"Lynn your reply is indicative of researchers who stand firmly by their own beliefs but have nothing of any real consequence to support them, but seem to want to readily dismiss anything that may go against their beliefs."

What beliefs would these be then? I am looking to find out up or down if "MJK" is actually AC, that's all.

I can live either way.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello (again) Trevor. Thanks.

Now I get your idea. It was to block identification as Alice. Very well.

But IF it were a revenge killing, why worry about it? Just kill and let all traitors fear?

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello (yet again) Trevor. Thanks.

OK. But where do we get the information about Meagher? News reports? I'd be delighted to see them.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Jennifer. Thanks.

You mean Alice? Well, Debs has found an 1887 D & D for her in Dublin.

Research is ongoing.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello (yet again) Trevor. Thanks.

OK. But where do we get the information about Meagher? News reports? I'd be delighted to see them.

Cheers.
LC

So would I ?

[Debra Arif]

Trevor-as usual you wade in without checking out what has been posted already or what any one researcher has researched. The snippets you posted are from the an 'essay' on Alice Carroll that I have seen ages back when Lynn sent me the link. I believe the essay was written and posted on casebook sometime back. This doesn't answer the question of when this Alice story came about. That is someone's essay on her-maybe even the originator of the whole 'theory'

I've already researched tons on Alice, that is why I am able to come on here and give an opinion on whether the story rings true or not to me. I know her story-I've traced her family, I've traced and been in touch with descendants of her sister who emigrated to the New York in 1891 who knew nothing of any of Alice's story and I was able to give them original BMD and christening records of their family members in Ireland. I researched Irish records and found her father and mother still living at the same Dublin address given when Alice was a witness, right up until 1901 and beyond.

And no, it isn't true that Alice disappears off the radar in 1887-she is last mentioned in an Irish paper in Sept 1887 when she is in trouble with police for abusive behaviour and taken in front of the magistrates and fined.
No one has been through all the indexed deaths in Dublin for an Alice Carroll b c 1865 and ordered all the death certificates that could be possibles yet- one of her sister's marriage entry hasn't been located yet but it is known she married and who she married, so it's also possible there is a marriage certificate for Alice too somewhere, that would also open up a whole other area of research in the death indexes under a different married surname.

I just find it ridiculous that someone's name not appearing in the papers after 1887 is taken to indicate they've fallen off the planet!!

And for the last time because I'm sick of writing this-I found and posted (about 4 times now) a description of Alice Carroll that was in her prison records that I located from Grangegorman, Dublin.
She didn't have red hair-it was brown. Her eyes were blue, complexion fresh and she was 5ft 4.5 in tall.

The whole address comparison between Whitechapel and Dublin is ridiculous to say the least. Of course there was a Dorset Street- has no one read James Joyce? There was also a Portland Place..are we to take it that is a secret message that Charles le Grand was MJK's assasin?!

..rant over.

[Trevor Marriott]

Debs
The battle lines have been drawn again

Can I first ask that you get off you high horse and stop trying to make it look like I am the villian of the peace simply becasue I posted something which others may not be familiar with on this topic

If you read my post you will see I stated it had already been posted I also asked the question fact or fiction?. If it was made up very well done I have to say not quite as good as The Swanson Marginalia though

Trevor-as usual you wade in without checking out what has been posted already or what any one researcher has researched. The snippets you posted are from the an 'essay' on Alice Carroll that I have seen ages back when Lynn sent me the link. I believe the essay was written and posted on casebook sometime back. This doesn't answer the question of when this Alice story came about. That is someone's essay on her-maybe even the originator of the whole 'theory'



I've already researched tons on Alice, that is why I am able to come on here and give an opinion on whether the story rings true or not to me. I know her story-I've traced her family, I've traced and been in touch with descendants of her sister who emigrated to the New York in 1891 who knew nothing of any of Alice's story and I was able to give them original BMD and christening records of their family members in Ireland. I researched Irish records and found her father and mother still living at the same Dublin address given when Alice was a witness, right up until 1901 and beyond.

Yes you have put a lot of work into it but you were not able to get the result you were seeking and I know how frustrating that is get over it dont take it personally.

And no, it isn't true that Alice disappears off the radar in 1887-she is last mentioned in an Irish paper in Sept 1887 when she is in trouble with police for abusive behaviour and taken in front of the magistrates and fined.
No one has been through all the indexed deaths in Dublin for an Alice Carroll b c 1865- one of her sister's marriage entry hasn't been located yet but it is known she married and who she married, so it's also possible there is a marriage certificate for Alice too somewhere, that would also open up a whole other area of research in the death indexes under a different married surname.

Then if that be the case its good for everyone and good for Ripperolgy

I just find it ridiculous that someone's name not appearing in the papers after 1887 is taken to indicate they've fallen off the planet!!

Thats the way it looks and one can only go on that fact

And for the last time because I'm sick of writing this-I found and posted (about 4 times now) a description of Alice Carroll that were in her prison records that I located from Grangegorman, Dublin.
She didn't have red hair-it was brown. Her eyes were blue, complexion fresh and she was 5ft 4.5 in tall.

Red hair when unwashed and dirty is brown is it not !!!!!!!!!

The whole address comparison between Whitechapel and Dublin is ridiculous to say the least. Of course there was a Dorset Street- has no one read James Joyce? There was also a Portland Place..are we to take it that is a secret message that Charles le Grand was MJK's assasin?!

Its not ridiculous. You have to accept that the addreses were there and were close to each other and there were shops in those streets thats fact.

..rant over.

Two questions for you, can you prove concluisely that Mary kelly was who she said she was

Can you prove conclusivley that Mary Kelly was not Alice Carrol

The answer to both is no you cant

At this time it is right and proper to say Carrol disppears of the radar as there is no trace of her after 1887. Now there might be legitamte reasons for that but so until you or anyone else comes up with something we have to keep an open mind.

[Debra Arif]

Trevor-do you even know what has happened to a lot of the Irish records that a researcher might use to determine what happened to a person after a given time?

I'm sick to death of being patronised and talked to in a condescending way by someone who in general appears to have nothing more than a junior school level of understanding of some aspects of he case. You were the one who drew the battle lines by carrying on in that vein again, taking the piss because I like to research certain aspects of the case.

I can't prove MJK wasn't a lot of people!

The rest of your post is not even ridiculous, it's ludicrous.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor-do you even know what has happened to a lot of the Irish records that a researcher might use to determine what happened to a person after a given time?

I'm sick to death of being patronised and talked to in a condescending way by someone who in general appears to have nothing more than a junior school level of understanding of some aspects of he case. You were the one who drew the battle lines by carrying on in that vein again, taking the piss because I like to research certain aspects of the case.

I can't prove MJK wasn't a lot of people!

The rest of your post is not even ridiculous, it's ludicrous.

Ridiculous, ludicrous but true !!!!!!!!

And isnt it about time you came off that pedestal that you have put yourslef on

No one was taking the piss it was you who got on your high horse as you always do when something or someone goes against you grain. You like others only see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe if it suits your purpose.

[Rob Clack]

No one was taking the piss it was you who got on your high horse as you always do when something or someone goes against you grain. You like others only see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe if it suits your purpose.

What Debs sees is common sense. Which is sadly missing from some of the members here who belong to the conspiracy theorist cabal.

Rob

[Tom_Wescott]

Why must there be battle lines?

Just my personal opinion, but over time I'm peaked in on this thread and I've always thought that Debs showed a remarkably open mind about the theory, particularly considering what little foundation it rested on. Regardless of her personal stance, it can't be said she hasn't contributed a lot of research towards it.

On the flip side, Trevor's been very subdued and low key on this thread...even supportive in his own way. While certain comments to Debs were definitely condescending, I don't think they were intended that way, which is more than I can say for a few other posters in the past.

Anyway, I'd like to ask Lynn what he thinks about exploring the larger theory...that there was some funny business surrounding the murder of Kelly and that she was specifically targeted...versus the very specific theory that she was Alice Carroll - a discussion that's very exclusitory to most posters.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Donald Souden]

Trev,

You like others only see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe if it suits your purpose.

So true. Sounds like that fellow who in the face of immense evidence to the contrary still persists in peddling the nonsense that the apron part found in Goulston Street had been left there by Kate Eddowes after she used it as a sanitary napkin.

Don.

[Debra Arif]

Ridiculous, ludicrous but true !!!!!!!!

And isnt it about time you came off that pedestal that you have put yourslef on

No one was taking the piss it was you who got on your high horse as you always do when something or someone goes against you grain. You like others only see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe if it suits your purpose.


It's true that women weren't allowed to wash their hair in prison is it and that's why AC had brown hair in her prison records and not red? She was the lucky one who missed the first night de-lousing then.

It's true that because there's a Dorset Street in Whitechapel and a Dorset St in Dublin close to Eccles Lane where AC lived that that means something significant?!!Perhaps you might want to know that a man named Kelly, a soldier in the 2nd Batallion Scots Guards also lived a few doors down from AC. that must mean something surely?

I'm sure Tom will be pleased that thanks to your brilliant deductions- we can now officially place LeGrand in the running for the murder of MJK-otherwise what else could be the signficance of there being a Portland Place Dorset Street right near Alice's house and LeGrand living in Portland Place in 1888?

[Debra Arif]

It's obvious from comments made that I must come across as someone doing this for all the wrong reasons- kudos, ego-valuing myself above everyone else.
I shall now step down from the pedestal I've placed myself on and never post feck all else again...it's all going in my book now.

Thanks Rob and Tom

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm sure Tom will be pleased that thanks to your brilliant deductions- we can now officially place LeGrand in the running for the murder of MJK-otherwise what else could be the signficance of there being a Portland Place Dorset Street right near Alice's house and LeGrand living in Portland Place in 1888?

There's little question this is the breakthrough we've been looking for.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra Arif]

There's little question this is the breakthrough we've been looking for.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

case closed

[Debra Arif]

http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/ireland/page91.aspx

Plus they pulped the 61,71, 81 and 91 Irish census

[Jennifer Shelden]

Debs
The battle lines have been drawn again

Can I first ask that you get off you high horse and stop trying to make it look like I am the villian of the peace simply becasue I posted something which others may not be familiar with on this topic

If you read my post you will see I stated it had already been posted I also asked the question fact or fiction?. If it was made up very well done I have to say not quite as good as The Swanson Marginalia though



Two questions for you, can you prove concluisely that Mary kelly was who she said she was

Can you prove conclusivley that Mary Kelly was not Alice Carrol

The answer to both is no you cant

At this time it is right and proper to say Carrol disappears of the radar as there is no trace of her after 1887. Now there might be illegitimate reasons for that but so until you or anyone else comes up with something we have to keep an open mind.

Hold on Trevor, I dont think you can say that about Debs, she is one of the best researchers we have. I doubt very much that you it is within reason to question her skills.

The fact of the matter is, you dont know what happened to Caroll either, as evidenced by your bizarre insistence that she was MJK.

In answer to your questions

[1] who did she say she was. We have good evidence to support a lot of her latter story being based on the truth. You have 0 evidence to support your theory which manages to also contradict what little we do know about her
[2] Debs cannot prove it conclusively, but she can prove it is highly unlikely. Whereas you actually have no evidence whatsoever to support your theory. I fully expect that given enough time and with unlimited finance Debs would easily be capable of proving your theory wrong.
[3] when you say there is no trace of someone does that make that MJK. I have a gt gt step grandmother, who together with her daughter and common law husband seem to vanish in 1884, of course they didnt vanish in real life, they just lost from my view on the record. Its quite different

Jenni

[Tom_Wescott]

Debs cannot prove it conclusively

Oh yee of little faith. I bet Debs could indeed prove it if she cared enough to spend the money and take the time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra Arif]

Oh yee of little faith. I bet Debs could indeed prove it if she cared enough to spend the money and take the time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You'll all have to wait for my book to see now!
Thanks Jenni, you make perfect sense.

[Tom_Wescott]

You'll all have to wait for my book to see now!
Thanks Jenni, you make perfect sense.

Yeah right. I'll have a book out before you do. And I doubt Alice Carroll will figure into either of our 'must haves'!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra Arif]

Yeah right. I'll have a book out before you do. And I doubt Alice Carroll will figure into either of our 'must haves'!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I might give her the odd mention in my lecture tours.

[Jennifer Shelden]

Oh yee of little faith. I bet Debs could indeed prove it if she cared enough to spend the money and take the time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

If you read all my post i did say that with enough time and money she could indeed prove it

dont twist my words as though im insulting the lovely Debs!

[Trevor Marriott]

Hold on Trevor, I dont think you can say that about Debs, she is one of the best researchers we have. I doubt very much that you it is within reason to question her skills.

The fact of the matter is, you dont know what happened to Caroll either, as evidenced by your bizarre insistence that she was MJK.

In answer to your questions

[1] who did she say she was. We have good evidence to support a lot of her latter story being based on the truth. You have 0 evidence to support your theory which manages to also contradict what little we do know about her
[2] Debs cannot prove it conclusively, but she can prove it is highly unlikely. Whereas you actually have no evidence whatsoever to support your theory. I fully expect that given enough time and with unlimited finance Debs would easily be capable of proving your theory wrong.
[3] when you say there is no trace of someone does that make that MJK. I have a gt gt step grandmother, who together with her daughter and common law husband seem to vanish in 1884, of course they didnt vanish in real life, they just lost from my view on the record. Its quite different

Jenni

As is the norm all of these issues get blown up out of all proportion, I have never questioned her researach capabilities.

The theory you refer to is not my theory it is an issue that has arisen I did not invent it nor did i first publish it, I simply referred to it, which resulted in Debs going off on one and she has done with me in the past on other issues.

She comes to her own conclusions based on what she researches which is what we all do, however it seems that she takes umbridge with anyone who comes along and suggests something which is contrary to her beliefs thats is quite clear again by her post in reply to my initail posting.

The theory in question itself has thrown up a number of separate issues which cannot be fully addressed, and until they can myself and others will continue to question them and attempt to prove or disprove them which is what others should also be doing.

You use the word highly unlikely well there are many issues within Ripperology which can be interpreted as such.

As to financing her research as you and others seem to have great faith in her perhaps you should all club together to finance her further research, then we will all be the wiser.

I had to find the time and the money to fund my quest to gain access to The SB files i didnt see anyone from here coming forward with any offers of financial help, but if I had been successful you would have been all over them like a rash.

[Jennifer Shelden]

Yeah right. I'll have a book out before you do. And I doubt Alice Carroll will figure into either of our 'must haves'!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
get writing your books, i want to read both,

no arguements lol

[Debra Arif]

If you read all my post i did say that with enough time and money she could indeed prove it

dont twist my words as though im insulting the lovely Debs!

You did say that Jenni-and that's because you yourself are a very capable and knowledgeable genealogical researcher and know how difficult it is to trace females sometimes, especially when it's in Ireland and no records survive! You would totally understand that a newspaper mention is no guarantee a certain persons last mention in the records and fully recognise the fact the 1891 Irish census is no longer available to consult.

[Jennifer Shelden]

As is the norm all of these issues get blown up out of all proportion, I have never questioned her researach capabilities.

The theory you refer to is not my theory it is an issue that has arisen I did not invent it nor did i first publish it, I simply referred to it, which resulted in Debs going off on one and she has done with me in the past on other issues.

She comes to her own conclusions based on what she researches which is what we all do, however it seems that she takes umbridge with anyone who comes along and suggests something which is contrary to her beliefs thats is quite clear again by her post in reply to my initail posting.

The theory in question itself has thrown up a number of separate issues which cannot be fully addressed, and until they can myself and others will continue to question them and attempt to prove or disprove them which is what others should also be doing.

You use the word highly unlikely well there are many issues within Ripperology which can be interpreted as such.

As to financing her research as you and others seem to have great faith in her perhaps you should all club together to finance her further research, then we will all be the wiser.

I had to find the time and the money to fund my quest to gain access to The SB files i didnt see anyone from here coming forward with any offers of financial help, but if I had been successful you would have been all over them like a rash.

Hi Trevor,
Im afraid I didnt read past the first sentence as that contradicts something you said which was
"Yes you have put a lot of work into it but you were not able to get the result you were seeking and I know how frustrating that is get over it dont take it personally." post 176, in fact the whole tone of the post was off, you dislike Debs because she knows her stuff and doesnt mind telling you

Jenni

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,
Im afraid I didnt read past the first sentence as that contradicts something you said which was
"Yes you have put a lot of work into it but you were not able to get the result you were seeking and I know how frustrating that is get over it dont take it personally." post 176, in fact the whole tone of the post was off

Jenni

Do i care ? no i dont

You read what you want to read and beleive what you want to believe if it makes you happy.

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Trevor.

"Can you prove conclusivley that Mary Kelly was not Alice Carroll?"

In logic, this fallacy is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Cheers.
LC

[Jennifer Shelden]

Do i care ? no i dont

You read what you want to read and beleive what you want to believe if it makes you happy.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle to me.

I believe what evidence points to rather than what i want to

dont put your insecurities onto me

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Tom. Thanks.

"Anyway, I'd like to ask Lynn what he thinks about exploring the larger theory."

With all my heart. I just want to get Alice crossed off (or confirmed), then the next lass on the list can be examined.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs.

"You'll all have to wait for my book to see now!"

Hope there's a chapter on Fleming. In which case, I'll pre-order.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle to me.

I believe what evidence points to rather than what i want to

dont put your insecurities onto me

Get it right its what evidence proves not what it points to thats why so many people have been misled.

If that be the case take off the rose tinted spectacles you are looking through when assessing and evaluating any that should come your way.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Tom. Thanks.

"Anyway, I'd like to ask Lynn what he thinks about exploring the larger theory."

With all my heart. I just want to get Alice crossed off (or confirmed), then the next lass on the list can be examined.

Cheers.
LC

I am in total agreement

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

Then it's settled. I'm ready to hunt.

Cheers.
LC

[Jennifer Shelden]

Get it right its what evidence proves not what it points to thats why so many people have been misled.

If that be the case take off the rose tinted spectacles you are looking through when assessing and evaluating any that should come your way.

ive totally lost the thread of what you are trying to say. Are you just insulting me for no reason or do you have a point to say relating to how on earth this Caroll lady could be MJK. If it is the former I suggest you shut up and put up
Jenni

[Debra Arif]

You could next try Sanfran's Liverpool Mary Jane Kelly? She is untraceable in the records too after 81!

[Debra Arif]

Hello Debs.

"You'll all have to wait for my book to see now!"

Hope there's a chapter on Fleming. In which case, I'll pre-order.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn, I thought we'd settled this Flemming thing?

[Lynn Cates]

Hello Debs. Thanks.

No, I mean EVERYTHING you have--separate chapter.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

ive totally lost the thread of what you are trying to say. Are you just insulting me for no reason or do you have a point to say relating to how on earth this Caroll lady could be MJK. If it is the former I suggest you shut up and put up
Jenni

No, he's not insulting you for no reason-he's insulting you because you disagree with him.

[Debra Arif]

hello debs. Thanks.

No, i mean everything you have--separate chapter.

Cheers.
Lc

everything?! Ok. ;)

[Tom_Wescott]

If you read all my post i did say that with enough time and money she could indeed prove it

dont twist my words as though im insulting the lovely Debs!

Please don't twist my words to read as though I'm twisting your words and insulting lovely Debs. I don't think anyone got that from me, Jenn. I was pointing out a fact that if Debs took the time and spent the money buy death certificates and whatnot she could, in fact, lay this baby to rest. Unless, of course, Lynn's correct in his theory.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jennifer Shelden]

Tom u already said the same, that was my only point , don't lets fall out about it ,we both agree Debs is brill, peace out