Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Death Certificate of Liverpool Mary Jane Kelly?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by San Fran View Post
    Yes, but the rates of the disease were pretty high from what I gathered in terms of total population and cause of death.
    Not so high, I’ll admit, that grandma Mary Kelly could have found another impostor, this time a fatally ill one, among her own relatives like aunt Jane Wilson.

    I’ve spent several days looking at other possible relatives but, since it’s agreed “aunt” can mean anything including non relatives, I don’t feel there’s an obligation to identify the “stand-in” or “lie-in” for a falsified death record when gramma could get any sick woman off the street to fill the role with the offer of shelter. MJW and her mother were estranged so it’s suspicious that “Jane Wilson” would give the same address as the matriarch.

    This is just in case anyone thinks I’m ignoring evidence.

    Comment


    • #32
      Some perspective on the death registry:

      The registry of burial in the Established Church is a public act ; the coffin and several witnesses are before the clerical registrar; but the identification of the body in the place of death is lost. And in a large city anybody may be buried under any name.
      Full text of "Vital statistics : a memorial volume of selections from THE REPORTS AND WRITINGS OF WILLIAM PARE, M.D, D.C.L, C.B, LATE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE
      REGISTRAR GENERAL'S OFFICE, ENGLAND. ...
      https://archive.org/stream/vitalstat...ruoft_djvu.txt

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by San Fran View Post
        Some perspective on the death registry:



        Full text of "Vital statistics : a memorial volume of selections from THE REPORTS AND WRITINGS OF WILLIAM PARE, M.D, D.C.L, C.B, LATE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE
        REGISTRAR GENERAL'S OFFICE, ENGLAND. ...
        https://archive.org/stream/vitalstat...ruoft_djvu.txt
        Registration of burial is of course not the same as registration of death.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
          Registration of burial is of course not the same as registration of death.
          You are of course correct in that. Please continue if you will.

          I think the quote was comparing the two and saying the ID for the death register at the place of death is fraught with the possibility of fraud and mistakes because it's not a public event.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by San Fran View Post
            But now that I know two names don't mean two certificates and each person with multiple names only gets one, I can research people who've had two actual death death certificates to prove that something like that is possible and has happened before.
            Well, my initial research doesn't suggest that there is an actual discovered and documented historic case of someone purposely trying to pass of a dead person as someone else and committing fraud against the public record. There would be no common reason to go to those extreme measures.

            If you wanted to get life insurance money on a living person, you could just get someone to give you a fake death certificate. This happened in Liverpool in 1868:

            https://books.google.ca/books?id=Qgc...page&q&f=false

            Comment


            • #36
              Here's an example of a crime against the "workhouse death register" where the actual dead person wasn't buried but was sent to a university for dissection.

              In May 1901 an article appeared in the Yarmouth Advertiser and Gazette entitled Alleged Traffic in Pauper Corpses How the Medical Schools are SuppliedThe Shadow of a Scandal It recounted that, although a pauper named Frank Hyde aged fifty had died in Yarmouth workhouse on 11 April 1901, his body was missing from the local cemetery. The case caused a public outcry because the workhouse death register stated that Hyde had been buried by friends in the parish five days after he had died. An editorial alleged that "the body was sent to Cambridge for dissection"instead and that the workhouse Master's clerk profited 15 shillings from the cadaver's sale.
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC546296/



              Yet another example, this time of phony death certificates, provided by Gary.

              fetch?id=559200&d=1549018600.jpg

              Comment


              • #37
                After 1904 babies born in the workhouse did not need to put any indication of the fact on their birth certificate and fake addresses were used to save them from a lifetime of shame. Births at the Liverpool workhouse were recorded as being 144A Brownlow Hill, even though that address never existed.
                Before welfare: True stories of life in the workhouse | UK | News | Express.co.uk

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ;n492891
                  Clerical error?
                  Christina's Fazakerley record notes her as an orphan whose grandmother is her next of kin.
                  In 1890, if it says "orphan", then when that note was made, n.o.k. grandmother Mary K, was still indicating that the late Robert Wilson was the father when she knew he wasn't. Unless she knew the real father and knew he was dead. But...

                  In 1892, when little brother William, is put in the orphanage, she doesn't pretend that Robert Wilson was the father anymore and just indicates
                  "mother Jane dead".

                  Post 1892,
                  Mother [Mary] Jane died in 1890 but 92 register has mother's name, marital status and address?!!!! [see image below right side]

                  [image below] The first imposter "mother Jane" came back after gramma's death presumably and the note says basically "I'm the mother, I'm still alive and I'm the widow of Robert Wilson, indicating that he's the father. And oh by the way, William was not born in 87 but 88." A clerical error or a lie?

                  The minutest clerical errors were taken care of in the registers. They even changed the word Court to Place in the the register transcribed below.

                  Originally posted by n488500
                  Workhouse infirmary records before July 1890

                  Jane Wilson, 35, CofE, widow, admitted from Everton, disease-chest dis. admitted 25/04/90, discharged 29/04/90, admitted from

                  6 Snarling Court [crossed out] [Place], Everton, mother Mrs Kelly same address.
                  The "clerical error" explanation might be simple but saying it's aunt Jane is also simple and more believable.

                  What's so problematic with an aunt showing up at an orphanage and just saying she's the mother. Maybe she adopted the illegitimate nephew and wanted to register him legitimate, after the deceased gramma had basically admitted upon his admission that he was illegitimate by saying "mother [Mary] Jane dead" and not mentioning the father.



                  fetch?id=726158&d=1572137645.jpg

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Gosh,my name keeps popping up here a lot lately despite me posting these a long time ago! San, I will repeat that the thing for me, is if you take out the fact that you believe Mary Jane Wilson nee Kelly was MJK and there was some sort of conspiracy to cover something up, and treat this as ordinary genealogical research, MJW can be traced from her birth, through her marriage and children to her death in the workhouse in 1892 with not one piece of evidence that she ever left Liverpool. It's maybe a simplistic view as far as you are concerned, but that's me! Simple

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X