Anyone familiar with Ripperology will not fail to recognize the name of Chris Scott, probably the most indefatiguable researcher of the last 120 years. I believe that the major achievement of so-called Ripperology has not been in advancing a credible theory as to the killer’s identity (there isn’t one) but in the collection of data about what would be an otherwise ignored pocket of 19th century poverty. Scott seems interested only in the latter, a just and noble cause if ever there was one. Here his contribution has been mighty; nearly every fascinating detail to emerged in the last few years has been unearthed by Scott.
Ripperology has two Great Mysteries. The first is obvious. The second is the quote-canonical-unquote last victim, Mary Jane Kelly. Simply put, no one knows a damned thing about her. Her name was almost certainly an alias (one of many), it’s unclear where she lived before moving to London, and no family ever claimed the corpse. She was significantly younger than the other victims and her body was discovered in her own room– as the others were killed in the street, this has lead to not unjustified speculation that perhaps Kelly was an associate of the killer.
Most details of her background were supplied by her live-in lover, Joe Barnett, an unreliable witness whose press interviews contradict his inquest testimony. Some have seen this inconsistency as evidence that Barnett himself was killer. This is idiocy.
Scott’s recent (2005) book, Will the Real Mary Kelly…?, is an attempt to take all the known data (we hesitate to use the word facts) about Kelly’s life and compare it against census & B/M/D records to see if he can’t find a candidate who might have been Mary Jane Kelly. As Scott posts regularly about this topic to the Casebook forums, I don’t think I’m giving anything away by saying that Scott isn’t able to find a match. The conclusion is obvious. Mary Jane Kelly was a fiction invented by an unknown woman for unknown purposes. But along the way, Scott demolishes many stupid rumors and establishes new facts and truths, and gets us closer to an understanding of a fundamentally unknowable figure.
One of the book’s highlights is its writing. Without naming names, it must be said that Ripperology has never been distinguished for the calibre of its writers, especially the further down one gets into the nitty-gritty. Scott’s book is readable and way more than competent and huzzah for that!
A final note: I can think of no greater argument for the validity of print-on-demand publishing than this book. This is the kind of niche for which POD was almost invented: a serious work on a serious subject that appeals primarily to hardcore enthusiasts and researchers. It’s mind-boggling to think that ten years ago such a work would have been impossible.
P.S. Scott has another work dealing with the lives of many ancillary figures available on the Casebook. Worth it if you care, although like every long form article on that otherwise great site, the layout makes it incredibly difficult to read.
