Mary Jane Kelly found?

[DJA]

Recognised her blood saturated hair....really?
Have you looked at Cathy Eddowes blood saturated hair in the mortuary photos? Bet it didn't usually look like that
....and no way on earth would a supposed loved one be able to walk up and look closely enough into her eyes to recognise her.
'IF' Barnett was genuine then it would have been no more than a fleeting glance towards a body he expected to be Kelly anyway...

There are no photos of any of the CV5 with blood saturated hair that I am aware of.

Especially Eddowes who wore a bonnet.

My sister found my dead father when she was four years old.
She tells me although she did not understand,the image is clear to her after over 50 years.
I still have excellent recall,bring next on the scene.

[packers stem]

Because the coroner accepted , because of Barnetts say so,that it was Mary Kelly and if maxwell saw Kelly at that time then the body clearly was not Kelly...
Doesn't make Maxwell wrong,means that the coroner accepted the same as everyone else..there was a body in Kellys room,therefore it was Kelly

[GUT]

Recognised her blood saturated hair....really?
Have you looked at Cathy Eddowes blood saturated hair in the mortuary photos? Bet it didn't usually look like that
....and no way on earth would a supposed loved one be able to walk up and look closely enough into her eyes to recognise her.
'IF' Barnett was genuine then it would have been no more than a fleeting glance towards a body he expected to be Kelly anyway...
Caroline maxwell...... Our number one eye witness testimony from any of the murders
Broad daylight,knew her and spoke to her.Testified at the inquest....

And even the Coroner Didn't believe her it seems by the warning he gave her.

[packers stem]

Recognised her blood saturated hair....really?
Have you looked at Cathy Eddowes blood saturated hair in the mortuary photos? Bet it didn't usually look like that
....and no way on earth would a supposed loved one be able to walk up and look closely enough into her eyes to recognise her.
'IF' Barnett was genuine then it would have been no more than a fleeting glance towards a body he expected to be Kelly anyway...
Caroline maxwell...... Our number one eye witness testimony from any of the murders
Broad daylight,knew her and spoke to her.Testified at the inquest....

[GUT]

"The ear and eyes".

The fact that was all Barnett could recognize is curious and raises a few questions about their relationship.

Surmise her hair would set her apart.

though there wasn't a lot to see and could he bear to look

[Rosella]

Well, much of the rest of her was... sort of missing! Apart from her hair I'm surprised he could recognise anything.

I've always wondered why the killer left Mary's eyes open and untouched. So she could 'see' his handiwork perhaps?

[DJA]

"The ear and eyes".

The fact that was all Barnett could recognize is curious and raises a few questions about their relationship.

Surmise her hair would set her apart.

[Wickerman]

Her ears were cut off, or mutilated at least.
Her hair was her most distinguishing feature.

[GUT]

We don't know that the disfigured corpse wasn't Mary either. Remember, Joe Barnett, who knew her very well, identified her by her eyes and hair.

Or ear.

[Rosella]

We don't know that the disfigured corpse wasn't Mary either. Remember, Joe Barnett, who knew her very well, identified her by her eyes and hair.

[packers stem]

We don't know that the remains,disfigured beyond all recognition, found in millers court are Mary Kelly anyway...

[pinkmoon]

for this to be proven mary kelly will need to be dug up which won't happen so it will be the nasty authorities fault not Mr Davis that this can't be proven.

[pinkmoon]

I agree that the book is written in an unfortunate way. Wynne Weston Davies presents as "facts" what we now know (if one has listened to the podcast and read about current ongoing research) is the author's pure speculation. And although the book has many end notes, these end notes are entirely unhelpful if one is looking for any real corroboration of the contents. The end notes are not there to cite sources, they are there to add more fluff. It is very frustrating.

BUT, the whole thing is not made up.

If a Chris Scott or Debra Arif or any other Ripperologist researcher seeking to locate the real Mary Kelly were to have discovered:

A woman from Wales named Davies who had a brother named John and whose father was in a similar line of work, was around the right age, who possibly lied about a former marriage, took to drink, according to a court filing engaged in prostitution, spent time in the West End before going to the East End, and who cannot be traced past 1885...
and left it at that, I and many others would have been keenly interested in this discovery.

People reading these boards need to be informed as to what's there as facts and what is not. But I hope no one is turned away from the discovery of Elizabeth Weston Davies by reading such sweeping and incorrect generalizations as I've seen stated on these boards over and over. It is not a complete work of fiction. Even tossing out everything else in the book leaving only what's not made up, a discovery of a potential candidate such as the above would still have created quite a stir around here, and rightly so. The facts that we have about Elizabeth Weston Davies are the closest to MJK that we've yet seen. They are by no means definitive. Far from it. But it is worth looking into and what is there warrants much further examination.

JM

When the dust settles and some people do some digging into the claims it will become obvious that this is a work of fiction in fact by telling us that old Craig was jack the ripper I will go one step further and say this book is DISHONEST.

[Sally]

At the same time I hope no one is turned away from this discovery of EWD by the large amounts of speculation and opinion dressed up as fact that characterizes much of the book.

JM

It is unfortunate that the boundaries between established fact and personal conjecture are not clearly drawn in the book as it obviously makes deconstructing the theory that much more time consuming for anybody inclined to try.

It's frustrating, because much of the content of the book is in effect fiction, if not in intent. I think Ed has put it most succinctly over on JTRForums - that the lives and actions of the people in the book are represented as though they were known - when clearly for the most part, they are not.

Nonetheless, I have thought that WWD has a plausible case for the identification of EWD from first reading the book preview and see no reason to change my view to date. Further research may help to establish more about EWD's life, which would help; but ultimately, it seems probable that only the proposed exhumation and DNA testing will settle the question - as I've said before, I really hope that this proves possible.

That said, I've just watched the trailer for the book on YouTube, where WWD seems to suggest that if EWD was shown to be MJK it would show us her killer - Craig. I don't see how that logically follows, I'm afraid. In any case, there doesn't seem to be much of a case against him so far.

I've been reading the works of his father, Edward - referred to as E.T. throughout the book, as he often was in later life - and have to say that the picture painted of this man in the book, as a stubborn, intractable, cold and distant man isn't evident from his writing. In fact he comes across as an intelligent, broad-minded man with strong socialist ideals - who, as an aside, may himself have cohabited with his wife some time before they were married. He was a staunch Owenite - a well-established fact, I believe. It it true - and perhaps curious - that his biographers seem not to have known that he had any children. One thing which may be of relevance in the light of his son's marriage to a woman who drank - as presumably she did considering her lifestyle - is Edward Craig's views on drinking - particularly by women - which are on record. As he says in his account of Ralahine, published in the 1880's:

A drunkard is the most
helpless of animals, and a drunken woman the most
pitiable creature in existence. They become burdens
upon others, a curse to those they ought to cherish, and
a tax on the labour of society.


It's hard to see how he could have approved of his son's choice of bride if she was an alcoholic.

[jmenges]

Well, that's the format the author chose to reveal his discovery. There's nothing we can do about that. Would an article of just the facts and published in Ripperologist Magazine been more preferable? You bet.

JM