|
Post by Isbeau on Aug 27, 2018 14:51:01 GMT -5
The rich guys still went to Whitechapel because that was close to the docks where they worked and they got anonymity there. All the royal rich blokes who went to Cleveland Street or picked up courtesans were exposed.
Mary Jane Kelly only went to the East End I believe after she could no longer afford the costly dresses she needed to work in the West, or her supplier/madam, probably Rosalie Bernstein, went broke and wanted full payment.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Aug 27, 2018 17:31:34 GMT -5
The rich guys still went to Whitechapel because that was close to the docks where they worked and they got anonymity there. All the royal rich blokes who went to Cleveland Street or picked up courtesans were exposed. Mary Jane Kelly only went to the East End I believe after she could no longer afford the costly dresses she needed to work in the West, or her supplier/madam, probably Rosalie Bernstein, went broke and wanted full payment.
Rich guys didn't work on the docks. There's also a difference between a rich bloke and a "royal" rich bloke. The average man who frequented whore houses was never exposed because the courtesans knew to keep their mouths shut and other men who saw them there couldn't say anything without exposing themselves.
If Mary Jane Kelly had wanted to work in a brothel, the madam would have gladly loaned her a dress until she made enough money to purchase her own. Back then, ordinary women didn't own closetsful of dresses like they do today.
|
|
|
Post by Isbeau on Aug 27, 2018 21:58:58 GMT -5
Mary didn’t want to work in a brothel. That’s probably why she left Paris after two weeks. She said she “didn’t like the part”. Obviously she left the West End too if she was really there when she didn’t have to as you say if she was still desirable.
Merchant traders like cotton brokers were always working at the docks and the mills making deals and getting supplies. James Maybrick had an office right in the border of Whitechapel with his partner.
|
|
|
Post by Graveyardbride on Aug 28, 2018 9:14:07 GMT -5
Mary didn’t want to work in a brothel. That’s probably why she left Paris after two weeks. She said she “didn’t like the part”. Obviously she left the West End too if she was really there when she didn’t have to as you say if she was still desirable. Merchant traders like cotton brokers were always working at the docks and the mills making deals and getting supplies. James Maybrick had an office right in the border of Whitechapel with his partner. James Maybrick’s office was in Liverpool, not London.
|
|
|
Post by Isbeau on Aug 28, 2018 13:47:08 GMT -5
Okay Graveyard bride. It was his former partner Gustav Witt who had an office on Cullum Street only 400 yards from Mitre Square. My point is he knew and worked in the area. I can’t say if he visited prostitutes on the street there. I know he liked the bordello in Norfolk Virginia where he had another office. But if someone wants to kill prostitutes, he’s going to hit the street. forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7948&page=4j
|
|
|
Post by Isbeau on Mar 30, 2019 21:00:45 GMT -5
Okay, folks, here's the latest update on this "mystery". Liverpool Workhouse Records have been added to the collection of Findmypast and WJW's workhouse admission and discharge records have been found. He was found in the Workhouse with his sister and his "mother" in June 1888 and the "mother" died there in July of 1889. This would seem to be definitive proof that William John Wilson's mother, Mary Jane Wilson ne Kelly, was not the Mary Jane Kelly killed by Jack the Ripper. Hold on there! This mother in the workhouse called herself Jane instead of Mary Jane and she said she was born in 1847 instead of 1854. "Jane Wilson" happens to be the name of Mary Jane Wilson's sister-in-law and she was born in 1847. Why would Mary Jane Wilson suddenly drop the name Mary at age 34 and call herself Jane like her husband's sister and add 7 years to her age so she'd be the exact age as her husband's sister? Was this really her? Or was her husband's sister pretending to be her to cover up the illegitimacy of William John Wilson? WJW did say he was raised by two aunts and he only had two living ones after MJW's sister died in the first quarter of 1888. His 1887 birth certificate was suspicious and had already raised questions (among MJK "birthers") about someone perpetrating a fraud and posing as the mother. www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=31232&page=11
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Mar 31, 2019 5:15:00 GMT -5
If these folks were in the poor house, a lot of them probably had records for theft, public drunkenness and other petty crimes. People sometimes changed their names and birthdays and even assumed the identities of relatives so that they wouldn't be arrested, or could find jobs.
Isebean: I wondered what happened to you? Why did you disappear for so long?
|
|
|
Post by pat on Mar 31, 2019 10:42:50 GMT -5
Why would anyone want to pose as his mother? If you're saying that Mary Kelly was his mother, why couldn't he have been born in 1887? What is the exact date of his birth?
|
|
|
Post by Isbeau on Mar 31, 2019 23:17:36 GMT -5
His birth registrations says he was born on Sept. 1, 1887. The registration was 12 days after the legal limit of 42 days. She had never registered late before so this is suspicious. The registration was in Liverpool. Mary Jane Kelly was in London with her boyfriend, Joe Barnett. They had been living together four months since April so the child wouldn't have been his unless it was premature which is unlikely since he survived.
Mary Jane Wilson was locked up a couple of times but not for anything that would put you in the news when stealing a watch would put you in the papers.
It always surprised me how immediately skeptical people are even when they're interested in esoteric subjects and unsolved mysteries. I work on building up the case and avoid debunkers who are ready to jump in when you're only half way through. That's why I switched to True Crime because there's a chance there you can prove your case once and for all.
Anyone can use familial DNA nowadays, not just homicide detectives, so if Mary Jane Kelly had a child in 1887, her descendants would have her DNA and the DNA of the real Mary Jane Kelly's boyfriend or lover. If it was one of the known ones, then you have definitive DNA evidence.
You can even possibly dig the boyfriend up once you have a familial match to see if he's really a great grandfather which has the same shared DNA as a first cousin, 7-14 percent, even if they can't dig up Mary Jane Kelly because it was a shared plot.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 1, 2019 22:29:29 GMT -5
There are several problems with what you're suggesting. (1) The body of the Mary Kelly murdered by Jack the Ripper cannot be located, so there is no DNA. (2) Mary Kelly was a prostitute and if she had a child, the father could have been any of her johns. (3) If some of her johns could be named and they were using their real names and buried under those names, you'd have to locate their graves, dig them up and get their DNA. (4) You can't randomly dig up bodies just because someone thinks a man may have been the man who may have fathered a child by a woman who may have been a victim of Jack the Ripper.
|
|
|
Post by Isbeau on Apr 2, 2019 0:50:02 GMT -5
In response to the problems posed: 1. The DNA test would be done with the descendant of MJK candidate, Liverpool Mary Jane Kelly, also known as MJW, or Mary Jane Wilson. 2. There was already a AncestryDNA distant cousin match between this MJW descendant and MJK's boyfriend's fourth cousin so he is the presumptive father. An exhumation and another DNA test would just directly confirm the match. 3. We know exactly where this man is buried in London. He's in an unmarked grave but they know where it is, exactly. 4. Author Wynn Weston-Davies basically tried to do just that. He got permission to apply to dig up Mary Jane Kelly by just saying she might be his aunt Elizabeth Davies. He had no proof, other than she was named Davies and Mary said that was her married name, and she went missing too. Patricia Cornwell and the University of Leicester got in on this exhumation but the logistics were just too much. I don't think there are the same problems with digging up her boyfriend.
|
|
|
Post by pat on Apr 2, 2019 7:49:40 GMT -5
[ 1. The DNA test would be done with the descendant of MJK candidate, Liverpool Mary Jane Kelly, also known as MJW, or Mary Jane Wilson. 2. There was already a AncestryDNA distant cousin match between this MJW descendant and MJK's boyfriend's fourth cousin so he is the presumptive father. An exhumation and another DNA test would just directly confirm the match. 3. We know exactly where this man is buried in London. He's in an unmarked grave but they know where it is, exactly. 4. Author Wynn Weston-Davies basically tried to do just that. He got permission to apply to dig up Mary Jane Kelly by just saying she might be his aunt Elizabeth Davies. He had no proof, other than she was named Davies and Mary said that was her married name, and she went missing too. Patricia Cornwell and the University of Leicester got in on this exhumation but the logistics were just too much. I don't think there are the same problems with digging up her boyfriend. People thought they knew where Mary Kelly was buried, but she wasn't there. It's very hard to find exactly where people are buried who haven't been dead very long and after more than a century, what are the chances of finding the bones of someone buried in an unmarked grave?
|
|
|
Post by Isbeau on Apr 2, 2019 13:45:11 GMT -5
Chingford Mount Cemetery is relatively new, opened in 1884 in an outlying borough without the same burial problems as in the inner city.
Joseph Fleming was buried there among the war dead and the interned would be treated with more respect. He has a plot number and I don’t think the cemetery layout was changed like Mary Jane Kelly’s cemetery.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 3, 2019 3:53:30 GMT -5
Chingford Mount Cemetery is relatively new, opened in 1884 in an outlying borough without the same burial problems as in the inner city. Joseph Fleming was buried there among the war dead and the interned would be treated with more respect. He has a plot number and I don’t think the cemetery layout was changed like Mary Jane Kelly’s cemetery. You'd be surprised by the number of people buried in the 21st century whose graves are difficult to locate, even in numbered spaces. Sometimes bodies are simply buried in the wrong space, though this happens more in places where the ground freezes and those who die in the winter are held in holding tombs until the spring thaw.
But if everyone knows where this man is located and DNA is available, why don't they start digging?
|
|
|
Post by Isbeau on Apr 3, 2019 12:25:50 GMT -5
I don't know why their not digging up his grave. Maybe I can get the "giant" researchers interested because the lunatic asylum records say he was 6'7".
|
|