Identity of Mary Jane Kelly

[Michael W Richards]

You merely need to read what I have written, Michael, instead of speculating about what I mean, based on things I haven't written.

I wasn't mocking you for a theory you hadn't even suggested. I asked for 'nobody' to start suspecting Bowyer, on the basis that he claimed to be trying to collect MJK's rent arrears when he discovered her body. This was because you had speculated that she had no need to earn a penny in advance of his visit. Suspecting the men who discovered a victim has become a parlour game of late, but I didn't accuse you - or anyone in fact - of doing it with Bowyer.

Another little matter that drives me mad is how many times you have repeated the false accusation that I have ever insisted on 'The Canonical Group' - no more, no less - or that every victim was actively soliciting when their killer encountered them, whether or not they had admitted to any such intentions.

Please stop doing this, Michael. It gets you nowhere and it also makes you look like you have the greatest difficulty in absorbing and remembering the most basic details of what you are reading.

I have not posted any inaccurate commentary on positions which youve espoused over the many years here. Its those positions themselves that are inaccurate. Ive never suggested Bowyer should be looked at or the Millers Court murder, just for the records.

As to why we should believe that the woman in lucky room 13 is someone who is named Mary Jane Kelly legally I stand by the position that the only evidence we have is the recollected conversations of people closest to her at the time of her death. No-one has ever found an actual woman matching the stories she allegedly gave Barnett and others. If she isnt really someone with that name legally, then there are a few possible reasons that might be. To disappear might be one, to deceive another..

Its always so interesting to stand back and see that all of this is taking place with a heightened backdrop of political intrigue, espionage, terrorism, national security, spies and double spies, and that the Ripper investigations are being run by the very same men intimately involved in all those other activities. Imagine if Jack is really a rogue double spy under Andersons watch, for example. Does he expose that? Would he let it be exposed? Would Secrecy and National Security supersede public safety and the truth?

Just a what if....but showing that without new evidence, the intermingling of activities with Jacks is still a real possibility. And the reason the woman might not actually be someone named Mary Jane Kelly legally is due to that.

You see Caz I speculate using some sense of reality and reason, and with some actual foundations... I dont ignore any evidence whether it suggests a Jack the Ripper, or not. You do.

[caz]

I have not posted any inaccurate commentary on positions which youve espoused over the many years here. Its those positions themselves that are inaccurate. Ive never suggested Bowyer should be looked at or the Millers Court murder, just for the records.

Which 'positions' exactly, Michael? It's pointless throwing out accusations if you can't provide any evidence, but I'm not your only victim in that regard, so I'm in good company.

If you mean an adherence to the C5, I've never espoused any such position.

If you mean all the victims 'actively soliciting' when they met their killer, I've never espoused that position either.

You need both Nichols and Chapman to have been actively soliciting your suspect, while even that's not set in stone.

And just for the record, nobody suggested you wanted Bowyer to be looked at as a potential suspect for MJK's murder.

My point was simply that as Bowyer was coming in the morning, specifically to collect whatever he could towards her rent arrears, it's nonsensical to argue that she had no need to beg, borrow or earn a single penny the night before. Where was her next meal or drink going to come from, for a start? And how did she know she was not on borrowed time, and could be slung out and replaced by someone who could pay?