A New Theory as to the Killer's Identity

[David Orsam]

from my pool of data sources

Illustrated Police News, 2 March 1878

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
She was known in the court as Mary Jane,, Barnett for ''affection'' called her Marie Jeanette , most likely a tease for the time she spent in Paris.
Her real name most likely was Mary Davies,maiden name not known [ at least to the media].
Regards Richard,

[DJA]

The irony of it is that he told me he was his own worst critic and he badly doesn't want his theory to be true anyway (for the sake of the British nation) so I thought I was helping him to achieve his goal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6JKinrhrfc

[MysterySinger]

Mary was buried under the name "Marie Jeanette Kelly", not Mary Jane, and I have a feeling that the death certificate was also in the name of Marie Jeanette. Can't lay my hands on the reference just at the moment. It seems that she was known more as Marie than Mary.

Best wishes
C4

Her death certificate had the name "Marie Jeanette Kelly otherwise Davies" which is the information provided by Joe Barnett. However, it seems he was the only one who knew her under those names.

[David Orsam]

The irony of it is that he told me he was his own worst critic and he badly doesn't want his theory to be true anyway (for the sake of the British nation) so I thought I was helping him to achieve his goal.

[RockySullivan]

OK David. It doesnīt matter what I write. Your only interest is to destroy anything I say.

Hahaha I checked this thread because of Abby's post. I'd rather read about William Ripper than sources and data. Your only interest is to destroy anything I say! Destroy Destroy Must Destroy Data not computing

[curious4]

Mary was buried under the name "Marie Jeanette Kelly", not Mary Jane, and I have a feeling that the death certificate was also in the name of Marie Jeanette. Can't lay my hands on the reference just at the moment. It seems that she was known more as Marie than Mary.

Best wishes
C4

[David Orsam]

And as I said, this is my fault, since I canīt publish it yet.

But why not? Why can you not reproduce the text of the letter, with certain words redacted if necessary?

After all, you have told us it isn't even part of your theory!!!!

[David Orsam]

But when I write about sources that are only confirming this theory, you destroy the statements by giving the impression that you donīt understand them and you use strong words like "doomed" and "lies".

There you go again, falsely misrepresenting my own posts. I have not used the word "lies" at all.

Language is important and you need to express yourself accurately.

[Pierre]

There is no difference at all there Pierre. You are trying to claim that there is a difference between saying the letter contains "the name of Mary Jane Kelly" and saying it contains "the name Mary Jane Kelly"? Seriously? I'm afraid there is no way out of this for you. You told us that Mary Jane Kelly was named in the letter and she was not. It was a false representation and should never have been made.

OK David. It doesnīt matter what I write. Your only interest is to destroy anything I say.

So this is my last post directed to you. The next time I find that you are writing lies about me, I will direct myself to other people.

[Pierre]

I said your theory is doomed Pierre not you. It's not true to say that I know 'nothing' about your theory because you have told us some of it but of course you have not told us very much. I can only read what you post and your arguments in support of your claim about the letter written in advance of the MJK murder have been weak and frankly downright silly, along the lines of my William Ripper/Alexander Pope theory, which is one reason why I don't hold up much hope for any other part of your theory.

It is true since you do not know anything about my theory of his ID.

But when I write about sources that are only confirming this theory, you destroy the statements by giving the impression that you donīt understand them and you use strong words like "doomed" and "lies".

Of course you think the letter Iīm talking about is silly. You donīt understand it, thatīs why. And as I said, this is my fault, since I canīt publish it yet. But that is no reason for being dishonest and use the expressions you use.

[David Orsam]

Yes, David. Mary was her name as we know it. "The name OF Mary Jane Kelly" is not the same as "The name Mary Jane Kelly". But you of course choose to pretend you donīt know the difference.

There is no difference at all there Pierre. You are trying to claim that there is a difference between saying the letter contains "the name of Mary Jane Kelly" and saying it contains "the name Mary Jane Kelly"? Seriously? I'm afraid there is no way out of this for you. You told us that Mary Jane Kelly was named in the letter and she was not. It was a false representation and should never have been made.

[David Orsam]

I must be "doomed" (your word, David), together with my theory about the ID of the Whitechapel killer, of which you know nothing

I said your theory is doomed Pierre not you. It's not true to say that I know 'nothing' about your theory because you have told us some of it but of course you have not told us very much. I can only read what you post and your arguments in support of your claim about the letter written in advance of the MJK murder have been weak and frankly downright silly, along the lines of my William Ripper/Alexander Pope theory, which is one reason why I don't hold up much hope for any other part of your theory.

[David Orsam]

Naturally, you will go on with your crusade against me and you will continue to lie about what I say

There is no crusade against you Pierre. Perhaps I should remind you that you have made quite a lot of posts in this forum in many different threads telling us that you think you have found the killer. I have been trying to establish why you think you have done so. In other words, I am trying to get at the truth.

But it is not helped by the fact that a large number of my questions (as well as the questions of others) have gone unanswered by you and the answers to the questions you do choose to answer are usually opaque and impossible to understand.

I also haven't lied about what you said. That is perfectly clear from the fact that I have quoted your own words so that everyone can read them. The fact that you claimed that you didn't even read the post in which I quoted your own words is telling.

[David Orsam]

" If the words "13 Miller's Court" do not appear in the letter...".

Yes David, it does "appear in the letter" in metaphorical wording.

In which case the words "13 Miller's Court" do not appear in the letter and you are misrepresenting the contents of the letter.