Talk:Mary Jane Kelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I see we now have a photo of the mutilated corpse in the article... I'm not sure how wise that is. Obviously if someone wants to look at it they should be able to, but it's kind of over the top gruesome for a page someone would wander across. Any other thoughts? its not grusome but the bed dosn't look comfy to me2601:205:300:72D:A82E:3E8C:A05A:56A2 (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

DreamGuy 02:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems to be the only surviving photo of our subject. The other canonical victims have photos of them (both whem alive and after their death) provided in the external link. She is an exception. There are though a couple of drawings by contemporary press if you are suggesting a replacement. But would not people who visit this page be already interested in the murder? User:Dimadick
Yes, I am well aware that no photo of Mary while alive has been found. Actually, of the other victims, only Annie Chapman currently has a photo of her while she was still alive, which was only found a couple of years ago (and as it was only published recently the family is claiming copyright and restricting its use). None of the articles here have photos of the victims, alive (not that that's possible) or dead, so I don't see why this one would necessarily need one. An interest in murder does not necessarily mean they want to see a thoroughly mutilated corpse. We also have kids doing schoolwork. Reading about a crime for school or personal interest is a bit different from seeing it in all the gory details. DreamGuy 15:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) Dreamguy its not in color and that would make it more grousume2601:205:300:72D:A82E:3E8C:A05A:56A2 (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I have reverted the page back to the version with the crime scene photo. I do personally feel that it is encyclopedic and should be included on this page. I take on board your concerns regarding children seeing this image, but I am not sure that it is a strong enough argument to warrant removing this picture (there are other pictures that are equally distressing on Wikipedia, and also the article contains graphic descriptions of the crimes anyway). I feel that the image adds value in its portrayal of the true extent of the crime. Could I suggest that you might want to list the image on the Images for Deletion page, which would bring the debate to a wider audience? Cheers. TigerShark 22:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) TigerShark is right i beleve that it is a needed photo to help us know what she looked like along wit the crime discription2601:205:300:72D:A82E:3E8C:A05A:56A2 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I've moved the photo down to the "Murder" section, so that it isn't the first thing readers see. I also shrank it down to a thumbnail, which minimizes the gruesome nature. Interested readers can click on it for a closer view. -Willmcw 23:10, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) Nice job it fits well there2601:205:300:72D:A82E:3E8C:A05A:56A2 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, -Willmcw for minimizing that photo. What freaks me out is that I think that is her face mutliated ... omg I think if that picture was enlarged, I might of been scarred worse. I'm already feeling sick. Stay strong, must stay strong. 14:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC) A previos victum had her face mutilated.
The picture is bloody nasty. The whole body is ripped apart, and the face has been slashed so you can't recognise the poor slut. Did that make you feel sick? Nasty eh? Gerrado 16:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not that bad! I understand that you would be concerned about children stumbling across the photo, but I myself am only 14 and I feel that the picture isn't that bad. The only mutilation you can see if the cut in her neck and it isn't even that noticable. I didn't notice it until i read how she had been killed and looked at the photo for a second time. Any way if children would not be given this kind of subject if they were not of an older - more suitable age and if they are looking up Jack the Ripper for personal interest I seriously doubt they are going to be seriously disturbed by the photo. Maybe the photo is not necessary, but I see no need to remove it. Oh, and by the way I am not a some sick strange child that would not be disturbed by a real life murder scene. I am just your normal 14 year old girl doing a school assignment, who has a very weak stomach and thinks the entire Jack the Ripper case is digusting!

Removal of photo from the main page[edit]

I'm not for deleting it altogether. I just believe that it doesn't NEED to be visible on the main page. There are many other articles that have graphic photos that you have to click on a link to view. For example, see Uday Hussein and Qusay Hussein's bio. You can still look at their death photos but you must for click on the link do so. There's no encyclopedia reason to post graphic photos on main pages of articles. The only reason that I come up with is that people just want to shock and be provocative. Can you please explain to me why we all need to see a picture of a butchered and mutilated woman on the main page?Dude beacause it shows what people in those days saw and just imagaine what it whould look like in color Lmao2601:205:300:72D:A82E:3E8C:A05A:56A2 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 --Rambone (Talk) 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. Let's talk about the criteria that we'll use to decide this. I have listed below the criteria that I believe Rambone is proposing, along with some comments.
  • Need: There is no encyclopedic reason to post the photo on the main page.
  • As the point of an encyclopedia is to provide information on a subject, and this is information on the subject - I think we need to start from a point of view that the information is relevant, unless we can find a reason that it is clearly not relevant. However, I would propose a couple of reasons why it is relevant:
  • The photograph is in itself notable (or at least well known)
  • The photograph demonstrates the multilation, which is a prominent aspect of the crime
  • Precedent: There are other articles which are bios of dead people, but which do not contain death photos
  • Precedent can be useful, but also has flaws:
  • Firstly how do we decide which article sets a precedent and which should follow it? For example, somebody arguing for an image to be added to another article could reference this article as a precedent.
  • Secondly, when applying a precedent we really need to compare like for like. For example, there was nothing about the state of the Uday Hussein's body that is relevant to his death. As mentioned above, the multilation of Mary Jane Kelly's body is a notable part of her death.
Along with the above, I would suggest that there is at least one other criteria, that of harm - in other words what harm does the inclusion of the photo cause, regardless of the previous two criteria? When discussing this, we should consider the discussion of censorship in WP:NOT.
I'd be interested to hear anybody's thoughts on the above. Cheers TigerShark 17:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you're missing the point. I don't want to delete the picture from the article, as you're suggesting I am. BTW, I just made the edit to the article. The picture is still available for viewing but it isn't visible on the main page. The reason why it doesn't belong on the main page is because it's sick to look at. If someone wants to look at it...they still can. However, it doesn't NEED to be front-and-center on the main page. --Rambone (Talk) 22:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't just remove it, I have made some fairly extensive comments above. Please try to respond to each of them. With regard to it being "sick to look at", that is not a criteria for removal of images from Wikipedia. Please read the discussion of censorship in WP:NOT. Thanks TigerShark 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dude, are you retarded? For the 100th time, I'm not removing the image...I'm simply opting for it not to be staring you in the face when you're trying to read the text. Many other Wikipedia articles have implemented the same thing. There is no purpose other than sheer shock value to put on the main page where you don't even have the option of not looking at it. I'm editing it so that if you want to look at the picture, you can. For the rest of us who don't want to look at it, we don't have to. Both parties are satisfied. You still haven't explained to me why it is so damn important to have the picture visible on the mainpage?
About Uday Hussein's body not being relevant to his was totally relevant because those photos were released simply for the purpose of having public look at them. --Rambone (Talk) 23:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rambone, I think I have made my reasoning fairly clear above, and I would ask you to please respond to the individual items that I have raised. For example, you say that "many other Wikipedia articles have implemented the same thing" - but I have already commented in detail on the issue of precedent, and you have not directly addressed those comments. You also say that "there is no other purpose other than sheer shock value" - but again I have discussed reasons for including the image and also discussed how we should judge these reasons, again you have not addressed those comments.
  • Regarding Uday Hussein's body, I still don't think it fails into the same category - because the state of the body was not relevant. In the Kelly case it was very relevant. The article itself tries to describe the injuries - a picture surely helps. Thanks TigerShark 23:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You're still missing my point...I'm not removing the image!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you speak english or are you just stupid? I'm simply turining it into a link that someone can click on and VOILA!!! have your picture of a mutilated woman. I'm not denying anybody access to that picture. --Rambone (Talk) 23:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I fully understand what you are suggesting, I am just not yet in agreement with that course of action. Let's discuss why we should or shouldn't change it from an embedded picture to a link. Again, I have laid my thoughts out earlier and I would really like to hear your responses to the individual points that I raised. Thanks TigerShark 23:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay...first off...

Need: There is no encyclopedic reason to post the photo on the main page. As the point of an encyclopedia is to provide information on a subject, and this is information on the subject - I think we need to start from a point of view that the information is relevant, unless we can find a reason that it is clearly not relevant. However, I would propose a couple of reasons why it is relevant: The photograph is in itself notable (or at least well known) The photograph demonstrates the multilation, which is a prominent aspect of the crime

I agree with you there. We're not at odds on this issue. The photograph IS notable because it demonstrates the mutilation. I believe it should be readily available to anybody who CHOOSES to look at it. Many people are probably just fine with reading the very explicit description that's already within the article. I believe that we should accomodate those people while at the same time giving people like you the option to view the picture. My solution would please both parties.

Now on to your other point....

Precedent: There are other articles which are bios of dead people, but which do not contain death photos Precedent can be useful, but also has flaws: Firstly how do we decide which article sets a precedent and which should follow it? For example, somebody arguing for an image to be added to another article could reference this article as a precedent. Secondly, when applying a precedent we really need to compare like for like. For example, there was nothing about the state of the Uday Hussein's body that is relevant to his death. As mentioned above, the multilation of Mary Jane Kelly's body is a notable part of her death.

I agree with your first point, however, I have to disagree with the second. The pictures of Uday Hussien and his brother are 100% relevant when it comes to the condition of their bodies. They both appear bloated and they look quite different than they did in life. Because of this, people who still feared they were alive believed that the corpses in the photos weren't them. I remember quite clearly that many people in the media kept showing the pictures to try to convince people that they were in fact dead. At first, this was met with some skepticism. Now, it's simply a fact.

However, this is a moot point. Your argument only applies to this aspect of the discussion if I was lobbying for the pictures to be removed altogether. I've made it quite clear that I don't want to do that. I apologize, though, for deleting the pic at first. I did this until I could think of a resolution that would please someone from my point of view and someone from yours.

By moving the picture to a link, like I did, and sticking the link right next to the description of the mutilation...if someone wants to look than all they have to do is click on a link. Simple as that. I'm not hindering people from looking at it and, at the end of the day, it is still considered part of the article.

Before I finish my statement, let me say this...there are several articles of beheading victims on Wikipedia that take the same steps that I want to implement on Mary Kelly's page. There are links in those articles to pictures of their beheaded corpses (which is the same argument you've made about Kelly's style of death being relevant). However, there are enough reasonable people on Wikipedia who don't think that their severed heads should be visible on the main page. In fact, someone tried posting it on Nick Berg's article and it was removed immediately and the overwhelming concensus was to place a link in the article without making it visible within the article. --Rambone (Talk) 23:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rambone. I have tried to comment on all of the issues that you raised above.
Firstly we seem to agree that the photo is encyclopedic but, as you say, the question is whether it should remain on the page or just be linked to. Linking certainly means that the photo is available, not question there. I do wonder however, whether it is quite as accessible as if it is actually included on the page. My thinking here is that a casual viewer of the article may not be as aware that the image is there (i.e. that a link to an image is not as noticeable as the image itself). Any thoughts on this?
On the issue of precedent, I still don't think that Uday Hussein and Nick Berg are a good comparison. The issue with the image of Kelly, is that it demonstrates a unique state that cannot be easily put across in words. In the case of Hussein and Berg, the pictures show little that cannot be conveyed simply in words (e.g. "bloated" or "decapitated"). However, as you say, this isn't really an important point, because we agree that the image is directly relevant to the article. I just think that we shouldn't rely on these as precedents to decide whether it should be directly included, because of the relevance of the information they convey. Thoughts?
You also touch upon the fact that many articles have linked photos of severed heads rather than directly included. I think that this comes down to a value judgement of benefit vs. harm. The issue of benefit comes down to relevance which, in turn, comes down to the issue of accessibility. I would suggest for example, that the severed heads are not very relevant (for the reasons I have mentioned earlier) and so there is no a strong need to ensure that they are easily accessible (back to the question of whether a link is as accessible as an inclusion).
With regard to harm I think that this is something that we have not really discussed. You have mentioned your thoughts on the image being "sick" but could you perhaps expand on the harm that you think the image might cause. It comparison to the images of the severed heads, and aside from the differing levels benefit mentioned above, I would say that there are some other issues to consider:
  • The image is in black and white and not of very great quality, so is perhaps not as graphic as some of the other images you mention
  • The image is very old, and very less likely to evoke an emotional response than recent images relating to current events (e.g. recent terrorism/wars/murder) which people may more closely identify with
Look forward to your thoughts. Cheers TigerShark 15:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You still haven't articulated to me how moving it to a easily accessible link hinders the users ability to view the picture. If you look at one of my last edits of the page, I placed the link inside the text and right beside the description of her body. If anybody overlooks it then they must be blind as a bat. As far as arguing how much "harm" it would cause to look it the picture...I'm simply saying that it's quite distasteful to look at if you're not INTENDING to look at the picture. The text description of her body is extremely graphic as is. Many people will be satisified by just reading that. However, I'm FOR keeping the picture in the article via hyperlink because some people will want to see it. My main point is...why air on the side of shoving the picture in everybody's face on the main page??? --Rambone (Talk) 18:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't find the link. ^_^;;; Help! Oh well, there's still Google Image for all of my pulped-up Mary Kelly needs.

Seriously though, I don't see the link. -Random Person

  • really, there should be a "CAUTION: this image shows a graphic murder" or something, kind of like Youtube's things where you have to click to confirm to continue for a graphic or flagged content". Her murder photos are horrible. A Chaps 04:47, 11 September 2021 EST)

  • I agree with Rambone. I'm an adult, and I found the picture extremely disturbing, especially since it just popped up as I scrolled - I wasn't expecting to see a photo of a woman with her face cut off. Why can't we just have a link to the picture for those who want to see it?

Stealthisusername 03:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, my empathetic tendencies upon seeing such images kicked in full force, and I was unable to actually read any fruther in the article once the picture came up. I managed to bear with it through the other articles pertaining to the victims and the crimes as a whole, albeit not easily. This one takes it up another level altogether. While I'm not saying we should cater to the lowest common denominator, I feel there should be some measure in place to still give access to such graphically grotesque things to those who desire it, while allowing those who have no desire for it or find it extremely distasteful to skip over it and still get the information from the article.

As to its necessity, is it really so imperative to post pictures of the deceased? Last I checked JFK's page doesn't have his mortuary photos, which I know for a fact have been posted online before. 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm 14. I usually have no problem with these sorts of photos, because I'm usually ready for them. But after scrolling through countless illustrations and interpretations of the ripper and his victims, I threw up when I saw the post mortem photo. I'm highly intrigued by the article, so i've had to block pictures from wikipedia. I'm seriously never like this, but something about this photo chills me. Consider the fact that people in my class look away when people are having stitches done in science videos. I'm not asking you to delete it by the rules, but I seriously think the photo would do better as a link with a warning. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlfieJMcKenzie (talkcontribs) 20:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

George Hutchinson[edit]

The article states that "Hutchinson's detailed description is considered dubious by many modern experts of the case because of the darkness of that night." I question the accuracy of this assertion. Philip Sugden frequently references Hutchinson's account as one of the most reliable of all witness testimonies during the case. Also, the night may have been dark, but if I remember correctly I believe I've read that Hutchinson saw Kelly and the man he believed to be the Ripper under at least one gas lamp. The fact that Hutchinson claimed to have given Kelly money in the past also explains why he would be interested enough to follow her and remember what her companion looked like. Hutchinson was probably one of the more reliable witnesses, certainly ahead of Mrs. Long and excepting maybe only Israel Schwartz. Furthermore, on the Casebook's dissertation page about witnesses, Inspector Abberline is quoted as having said, "I have interrogated [Hutchinson] this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true." 05:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Plot used in "From Hell"?![edit]

 – Film-related spoiler removed; the rest of this discussion belongs on the film's talk page.

I am removing the 'information' about the movie "From Hell" from this page, because:

1) It is a huge spoiler;

2) It is not true. The person who wrote the article seems to have made the conclusion that the other girl was killed instead of Mary Jane, but I haven't. This possibility is only mentioned in the movie and it's something Johnny Depp's character clings on as the only faint hope he has, but there's absolutely no proof of it given in the movie. Maybe the person who wrote the article has misunderstood the scene at the end of the movie, in which Mary Jane seems alive and well and seems to meet Depp's character in an idyllic-looking countryside; but this 'happyend' is immediately exposed as false, as the sequence turns out to have been only an opium-fueled fantasy of Depp's character. -Nightandday 12:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... I don't think we really need to mention it either way in the article, but I think you misremember how the movie ends. The woman killed has a hair color completely different from Mary Kelly's, a point which Abberlie specifically notes and reacts to, and then tries to hide, so obviously was not Mary Kelly... and in the movie Abberline has visions of things that have really happened, etc., often assisted by opium, and it's one of those visions which sees Mary Kelly and knows she made it safe and sound. She is very, very much alive at the end of the movie. DreamGuy 13:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK then, that's how you see it. No, I don't misremember the ending. He had a good reason to wish for her to be alive, and I thought he was clutching at straws. I certainly did not have a feeling that he "knew he was safe and sound". In any case, it couldn't have been "obvious" that it wasn't Mary Jane Kelly. At best, you might say that the movie leaves it open for interpretation, certainly not that it is a FACT that someone else is killed instead of her. (Though I don't know what difference it should make anyway - she's chosen to be the love interest in the movie, so what? Someone was murdered and brutally mutilated in any case. Maybe I don't want to believe that the directors would use such a lame attempt at a so-called "happyend"... or maybe they just wanted to leave it open, so people who are into Hollywood-style "happyendings" would believe she was alive, and people who weren't would believe otherwise... ;) ) -Nightandday 06:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the idea of Mary Kelly being alive wasn't made up by the movie directors or screenwriters - it appears in the graphic novel that this movie was based on (although writer Alan Moore, on page 33 of the appendix, seems to indicate that he doesn't Really believe that it was anyone other than Mary who died that night). In the novel [SPOILERS!], Mary Kelly invites several prostitutes to doss at her place (as mentioned in 'Jack the Ripper, the Uncensored Facts' by Paul Begg). On the wednesday before the murder, Thomas 'Indian Harry' Bowyer witnesses Mary talking to a man whose identity matches that of prince Eddy (same source). Prince Eddy, guilt-stricken because he has caused the crimes to happen, informs Mary on which night she is going to be murdered (writer's invention). On the night of the murder, Mary and Joe visit the Horn 'O Plenty (mentioned in 'The Jack the Ripper A-Z' by Begg, Fido and Skinner), after which Mary takes at least two customers into her room (same source). After she leaves with her second customer, a woman enters the room, whom the reader at first assumes to be Mary returning a third time, now unaccompanied. Shortly after, 'Jack' enters the room and slaughters the dark-haired woman sleeping there (this is a black-and-white comic so most of the women have black hair). During the investigation, inspector Abberline talks to two people who insist that they've seen Mary on the morning after the murder (same source). In the final chapter, the murderer, locked away in St. Mary's Asylum in Islington (from 'Jack the Ripper : the Final Solution' by Stephen Knight), has a vision of Mary alive and well, living in Ireland (writer's invention obviously). So, what proof do we have that it was Mary Kelly's body that was found the next morning and not one of her 'sleepovers'? Did everybody just assume that it was hers, because it was found in her room? Mwvandersteen 19:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The idea of Kelly being alive first began with statements to Police by witnesses who insisted they had spoken to her on the morning her body was discovered. Detectives dismissed the statements as they conflicted with the time of death. One or two witnesses can be mistaken, but not the five or so witnesses who claimed to have seen Kelly. One theory is that Kelly was not working as a prostitute that night, but as a pimp for some other hooker. After finding the body Mary left town, she had nothing to gain from talking to the police and probably would have been thrown in prison. Johnwrd (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

"Don't blame me, blame the Jewes"[edit]

The Dr. Bond quote " There was also a note. It said, "Don't blame me, blame the Jewes." is highly dubious.. Source please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diddlesthecat (talkcontribs) 14:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


The lead section of this article does not comport with WP:LEAD. What it is now is a summary of her looks. All of that material needs to move to an "Appearance" section. The lead is supposed to summarize the gist of the entire article. 14:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


This is just insufficient and suggests bias in this and other Ripper articles --> "A small minority of modern authors consider it possible that Kelly was not a victim of the same killer as the other Whitechapel murders. At an assumed age of around 25, she was younger than the other canonical victims, all of whom were in their 40s. The mutilations inflicted on her were far more extensive than those on other victims, but she was also the only one killed in the privacy of a room instead of outdoors. Her murder was separated by five weeks from the previous killings".

Almost nothing connects Kelly to the other 4 Ripper victims. Her age, the fact she was killed indoors and the fact she was attacked the same night as one of the others. To overlook MO - for whatever reason - is to bias the article. That Kelly may well not have been killed by the Ripper ought to be in the lead or, at least, deserves a full paragraph and heading. Most modern Police forces would consider her to be have been killed by someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm mystified by your claim that Kelly was attacked the same night as one of the other victims. She was not. Presumably you've confused her with one of the 'double event' victims, Elizabeth Stride or Catherine Eddowes. Akld guy (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The main thrust of the argument was flawed. Just someone with a strong but baseless opinion. DreamGuy (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Move box[edit]

The box labelled "The canonical five Jack the Ripper victims" needs to be moved from the "Murder" section to the top of the page to make the page layout consistent with the pages of the previous four victims. I think it used to be that way, but the entire "Murder" section got moved down at some stage. Akld guy (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No response, so done as specified. Akld guy (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


Has there never been any attempt to check Irish birth records or Welsh census records about her background? Admittedly Mary Kelly could be a very common name in Ireland. PatGallacher (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Many, many attempts made. No person by that name who matches what was known about her has ever been found, though a few authors have tried to identify her as an individual who still appeared in census records after this person's death. (Like everything else in Ripperology, conspiracy theories followed.) The name and/or age she gave to others could have been false. DreamGuy (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


About the fact that they waited for Warren, but didn't know he had resigned: it is not exact. They were waiting for the bloodhound, under the advice of the doctor Philips. Sir Charles Warren did resign the day before, but he would still keep his job until a replacement was found. Sir John Falstaff (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Including Mary Jane's Portrait picture?[edit]

Why's her portrait picture not on her wiki page, yet shows up when you google her wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Just so there's no confusion, that isn't her. It appears to have been used on the cover of a Kindle book about her, but is actually someone else. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


Sir Melville Macnaghten of the Metropolitan Police Force, who never saw her in the flesh, reported that she was known to have "considerable personal attractions" by the standards of the time.

Rather an odd comment. Presumably, he meant she was better-looking than most of the 'unfortunates' of Whitechapel, who were bottom of the heap. Valetude (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


How much time did he need to do what he has done to her body? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

At least two hours. Now within the article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hallie Rubenhold[edit]

For a discussion on Hallie Rubenhold's The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper see Talk:Whitechapel murders#Prostitutes? --John B123 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspect description[edit]

I saw at one point in the article, it describes a stout ginger haired man carrying a can of beer, the important part is the latter, as on a separate article on beer cans, it said that "The first commercial beer available in cans began in 1935 in Richmond, Virginia." [1] . This in in the US, and hadn't even arrived in Britain yet, so how could he be carrying a beer can? I would be grateful if somebody could provide me with a possible explanation for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stedes6789 (talkcontribs) 15:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, aluminium beer cans are 20th-century, but before then beer was often decanted into the customer's own container that they would have brought with them to the vendor. It was not unusual for drinkers to take a jug, pot, tankard or old can to take-away after filling by the publican. DrKay (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


Resting place[edit]

The other victims' coordinates were all incorrect. So as MJK had coordinates for the gate of St Patrick's Roman Catholic Cemetery, Leytonstone for consistency, I've adjusted these to be closer to where she is "reported" to be laid to rest & where her gravestone is.

The coordinates were on the web. Thanks for rectifying them.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)