Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A few ramblings.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A few ramblings.

    Hi,
    This new, and apparently interesting book coming out , regarding the identity of the Millers court victim, could alter the whole way we view this murder, could be the start of identifying Jack the Ripper.
    We are floating around two surnames..Kelly, and Davis.
    it is being claimed that Davis, was indeed the victims birth surname, so where did Kelly originate from?
    If we go back to a statement made by the landlord McCarthy, it states, ''She came to live with a man called Kelly, and posed as his wife, thus becoming known as Mary Jane Kelly...
    Apparently Kelly was indeed Joseph Barnett, but when was this surname known, was it known before Nov 9th or since police investigations.?.
    Is this the reason Barnett disappeared after the murder, reverting back to his alias, for many years ahead, until assuming the name Barnett once more,
    Was Mary Jane, being divorced, did her husband visit Millers court prior to her death.
    Who was the mysterious Lawrence, that called on Mary Jane frequently, who a nearby resident believed was the victims husband, he was expecting legal papers to be delivered, and wanted her to take them in.?
    This is a tangled mess, but if one dismisses the story of a dead husband, and her birth name was Davis, and if one takes that Kelly was Barnett's alias, it may be that She was buried under the name she was known as common law, with the 'aka Davis '' added...
    Regards Richard.

  • #2
    Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
    Hi,
    This new, and apparently interesting book coming out , regarding the identity of the Millers court victim, could alter the whole way we view this murder, could be the start of identifying Jack the Ripper.
    We are floating around two surnames..Kelly, and Davis.
    it is being claimed that Davis, was indeed the victims birth surname, so where did Kelly originate from?
    If we go back to a statement made by the landlord McCarthy, it states, ''She came to live with a man called Kelly, and posed as his wife, thus becoming known as Mary Jane Kelly...
    Apparently Kelly was indeed Joseph Barnett, but when was this surname known, was it known before Nov 9th or since police investigations.?.
    Is this the reason Barnett disappeared after the murder, reverting back to his alias, for many years ahead, until assuming the name Barnett once more,
    Was Mary Jane, being divorced, did her husband visit Millers court prior to her death.
    Who was the mysterious Lawrence, that called on Mary Jane frequently, who a nearby resident believed was the victims husband, he was expecting legal papers to be delivered, and wanted her to take them in.?
    This is a tangled mess, but if one dismisses the story of a dead husband, and her birth name was Davis, and if one takes that Kelly was Barnett's alias, it may be that She was buried under the name she was known as common law, with the 'aka Davis '' added...
    Regards Richard.
    Hi Richard,
    Without too many spoilers, the new book claims that MJK's real name was Elizabeth Weston Davies and that when she married, she described herself as a widow of the name 'Jones'. The man she married believed this to be untrue and designed to cover up the fact that she was not a virgin and was in fact, a prostitute. So Elizabeth Weston Davies/Jones then became a Craig and subsequently Mary Jane Kelly in a bid to conceal her real identity. Confused? You will be!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Silverpaw View Post
      Hi Richard,
      Without too many spoilers, the new book claims that MJK's real name was Elizabeth Weston Davies and that when she married, she described herself as a widow of the name 'Jones'. The man she married believed this to be untrue and designed to cover up the fact that she was not a virgin and was in fact, a prostitute. So Elizabeth Weston Davies/Jones then became a Craig and subsequently Mary Jane Kelly in a bid to conceal her real identity. Confused? You will be!
      Already am, how they propose to prove that is anyone's guess.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • #4
        The book is coming out in August, yes? I hope there are some good links to what we already know about Mary, which is very little at all! However, one or two brothers in the Army as well as a Welsh and Irish connection would be a start!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Rosella View Post
          The book is coming out in August, yes? I hope there are some good links to what we already know about Mary, which is very little at all! However, one or two brothers in the Army as well as a Welsh and Irish connection would be a start!
          Ah well there you have it GUT and Rosella, Prosector can prove the woman existed and is related to him but beyond that evidence is circumstantial and as far as I can see, could be applied to a number of woman of the time. Elizabeth Weston Davies was Welsh and there is an interesting connection with a story MJK told about her brothers.

          Comment

          Working...
          X