Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could These Be Alice Mackenzie's Relatives ?

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

  • Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
    I posted it on my own. Are we not supposed to do that? Apologies if that is the case.
    No, it’s not prohibited, it’s just that some of us aren’t able to post images.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
      Clearly Castle Alley was somewhere Alice was familiar with, which supports the idea that she may have chosen that spot - whether she was there for a sexual liaison or not.
      Yes. I've read many reports that Castle Alley wasn't a place the average Joe/Jane walks around at night.

      Comment


      • I posted it on my own. Are we not supposed to do that? Apologies if that is the case.
        -Jerry-
        No, it’s not prohibited, it’s just that some of us aren’t able to post images.
        -Gary-
        ***********

        No need to worry....I will post the images requested.
        The software has yet to be upgraded to facilitate members posting attachments in the non-Photobucket, non-Imgur method.
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact [email protected]

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
          Yes. I've read many reports that Castle Alley wasn't a place the average Joe/Jane walks around at night.
          It is claimed by some that JTR chose the murder sites. In Alice’s case, it would have been a bit of a coincidence if her killer had chosen the street where she frequently went to launder clothes, and that her body was found just a few feet away from the wash house she used.

          Having spent McCormack’s day’s wages, including the 8d intended for the couple’s rent, it’s likely that Alice would have been reluctant to return to Gun Street empty-handed, so perhaps she was trying to earn a few coppers when she was killed. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, she was looking for somewhere familiar to get her head down for a few hours. ;-)

          Comment


          • Or, perhaps, just perhaps, she was looking for somewhere familiar to get her head down for a few hours. ;-)
            -Gary-

            ...and most likely not on a pillow.
            To Join JTR Forums :
            Contact [email protected]

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
              It is claimed by some that JTR chose the murder sites. In Alice’s case, it would have been a bit of a coincidence if her killer had chosen the street where she frequently went to launder clothes, and that her body was found just a few feet away from the wash house she used.

              Having spent McCormack’s day’s wages, including the 8d intended for the couple’s rent, it’s likely that Alice would have been reluctant to return to Gun Street empty-handed, so perhaps she was trying to earn a few coppers when she was killed. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, she was looking for somewhere familiar to get her head down for a few hours. ;-)
              I have some thoughts on this, but won't derail the thread. Sent you a couple of PM's, Gary.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                I have some thoughts on this, but won't derail the thread. Sent you a couple of PM's, Gary.
                Thanks, Jerry. I’ll have a look.

                I’m trying to wring as much of Alice’s back story as I can out of the 1889 press coverage and inquest testimony - excluding the stuff dug up by the local press about the Pitts family.

                Knowing that she lost her only (?) child, a boy, a few months after his birth, makes her fondness for George Dixon and her concern for Catherine Hughes’/Hayes’ son, whom she had apparently ‘nursed’ when he was little, rather poignant.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

                  Thanks, Gary. Yes, I thought the weight difference was too big a difference to not be questionable. Unless Alice was maybe pregnant at the time?
                  Probably utterly irrelevant, but I thought I'd mention it. There was an Alice Taylor, 26, in St. Saviour's Union workhouse, Southwark, a month earlier than the aforementioned arrest who may have been pregnant. A somewhat mysterious note states 'supposed[ly] in labour.'

                  She leaves at her own request on 2 August 1873. Of course, there's no immediate way of knowing if this is Alice McKinsey alias Taylor, and she's listed as Roman Catholic.

                  See Post #120 if you want to know what I am yammering on about!

                  And this is 4 years before the 1877 reference to 'McKenzie alias Taylor.'

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

                    Probably utterly irrelevant, but I thought I'd mention it. There was an Alice Taylor, 26, in St. Saviour's Union workhouse, Southwark, a month earlier than the aforementioned arrest who may have been pregnant. A somewhat mysterious note states 'supposed[ly] in labour.'

                    She leaves at her own request on 2 August 1873. Of course, there's no immediate way of knowing if this is Alice McKinsey alias Taylor, and she's listed as Roman Catholic.

                    See Post #120 if you want to know what I am yammering on about!

                    And this is 4 years before the 1877 reference to 'McKenzie alias Taylor.'
                    That’s very interesting, RJ!

                    The fact that we’ve only found one child for Alice has always bothered me.

                    The possibility that Alice might have given birth to a child in the East End and lost it shortly afterwards has occurred to me. Let me check it out and get back to you with my reasoning.

                    Comment


                    • I'm not immediately finding any Alice Taylors in 1871 that would explain the entry, but I haven't been thorough. There's one in Lambeth but she's the daughter of a retired baker and presumably reasonably affluent.

                      Comment


                      • I was thinking of Catherine Hughes’ statement that Alice had once ‘nursed’ her son. Did she just mean Alice looked after him while he was sick? Or might she have meant that she wet-nursed him?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                          I'm not immediately finding any Alice Taylors in 1871 that would explain the entry, but I haven't been thorough. There's one in Lambeth but she's the daughter of a retired baker and presumably reasonably affluent.
                          The reason why Alice crossed the river for a bit is another mystery.

                          Comment


                          • This is a wild shot in the dark, but there's a 'Male Taylor' born St Olave, Southwark, 3rd Quarter, 1873. Maybe the father wasn't around.

                            Aye, yai, yai. No one ever uses the alias Kobrowski or Birdwhistle. It's always Smith, Jones, Taylor, and Kelly.

                            Comment


                            • That Male Taylor’s mother’s maiden name was apparently Nolan. But please keep those wild shots coming, RJ.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Gary. I'm a good two years behind you and I'm proceeding slowly, so I'm probably missing things, but here's something that struck me.

                                You may have noticed this, but returning to Deb's info in Post #83 about the Alice MacKenzie arrested and convicted in August 1873:

                                "Alice MacKenzie age 27, height 5ft 4.5in. hair auburn, eyes hazel, complexion pale, scar under left eye, laundress, convicted Southwark, 31st Aug 1873, charge D&R, sentence 7 days, can read and write, weight in 9st 10lbs, out 9st 6lbs"

                                Doesn't this jive with your Alice McKenzie getting beaten by George Palmer in 1869? That report read:

                                [Palmer] "struck her on the eye with his clenched fist and injured her face."

                                Four years on, it's now a scar?

                                However, it should be mentioned that Bagster Phillips mentions no such scar in his post-mortem report from 22 July 1889:

                                "Old scars & signs of injury.

                                There are old scars & bruisings over patella front of shins & three distinct cicatrices on Dresum of left forearm,

                                Loss of terminal joint of left thumb from some cutting instrument, which has left half the nail."


                                No mention of a scar on the face.

                                That said, I fancy I can see a pale diagonal scar under the victim's left eye in the mortuary photograph, but I could be imagining it, and certainly Phillips would have mentioned it, had it been obvious. Maybe it all but faded by 1889. Twenty years is a long time.

                                P.S. those finger/thumb injuries involving the nail often don't heal. My father cut off the very tip of his forefinger as a child, and the nail grew back crooked. Seven decades later, it was still like that.

                                Edit: I take back the bit about the mortuary photograph. What I'm seeing is under her right eye, unless the photograph was somehow reversed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X