Mary Jane Kelly found?

[GUT]

One finds out the difference between facts and fantasy by paying attention to all of the research that commenced as soon as the 4 free chapters hit the internet. Most of that exists not here but on JtRForums.

JM

But why buy the book if the author isn't prepared to give you the fact, might as well just buy a novel.

[jmenges]

I've got to be honest it turns me away.

Give me the facts and I'm happy, start dressing speculation and opinion up as facts and I start to doubt even the FTC themselves. If they are prepared to pass opinion off as facts how. Do we know where it ends?

One finds out the difference between facts and fantasy by paying attention to all of the research that commenced as soon as the 4 free chapters hit the internet. Most of that exists not here but on JtRForums.

JM

[jmenges]

But what seems to be the NORM in ripper world, over egging the pudding.

Absolutely. It's another book about the case claiming a major discovery written for a general audience, and therefore by its very nature will be entirely disappointing to all of us.

JM

[GUT]

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

I've got to be honest it turns me away.

Give me the facts and I'm happy, start dressing speculation and opinion up as facts and I start to doubt even the FTC themselves. If they are prepared to pass opinion off as facts how. Do we know where it ends?

[GUT]

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

But what seems to be the NORM in ripper world, over egging the pudding.

[jmenges]

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.

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

[jmenges]

Against my better judgement I purchased this book and sadly it appears that the whole thing is made up .

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

[pinkmoon]

It's only me again...I forgot to mention about the authors claim that he has permission to dig poor mary up there is no way that's going to happen based on the authors "facts"so don't get to excited.

[pinkmoon]

Hopefully this book will disappear and we won't have another "shawlgate" farce .

[pinkmoon]

Has anyone read the book by Wynne Weston Davis regarding the identity of Mary Jane Kelly ("The Real Mary Kelly"? How does it seem?

Against my better judgement I purchased this book and sadly it appears that the whole thing is made up .The "motive" behind the murders is a load of old rubbish and the author supplies us with absolutely no information about where he got his evidence from.A couple of years ago another book called "the fifth victim" appeared and this to was made up both books are written in a similar style I wonder if Mr Davies is just the front man for the book and the real author is the person who wrote the fifth victim

[The Good Michael]

I listened to the podcast which was well done and I commend JM for his thorough knowledge of the contents of the book which was evident in the QandA. The author's case for Elizabeth being MJK makes sense, but there is no evidence. The logical path before Craig is introduced is indeed there, though it is still speculation. Probably the most difficult thing to dismiss about the MJK we know is her early history that we get from Barnett, but which is corroborated somewhat by a few others. The stories of Flemming and Morganstone (stern) as told by Barnett seem real, but very could well be an embellishment of depth of relationship, though the Flemming romance has also been corroborated. Of course Craig need not have known about either of these things, and we are left with a completely new story with regards to MJK the child and MJK the pre-London, young lady from what we feel we knew about her. That knowledge, right or wrong, is so ingrained, it's difficult to give up on.

Mike

[jmenges]

This is just a re-run of the classic "Dr Stanley" story by Leonard Matters. Nice story, no facts. Try again, Dr Weston-Davies, and do check out these boards before putting pen to paper - did he really use a photo of Lizzie Williams in his book and claim it was Mary Jane Kelly?

Graham

No. There are no photos of Elizabeth Weston Davies or Lizzie Williams in the book. Whoever started that rumor has obviously not bothered to buy it. Big surprise.


JM

[Abby Normal]

all
theres a ton of threads on here already regarding this. youd do yourself a favor by finding them and reading them. Whatever, you think of his theory of the killer (not much IMHO), he has a legitimate claim to the ID of Mary Kelly-his relative.

And no he didn't use that photo. read up before anyone criticizes too harshly.

[Graham]

This is just a re-run of the classic "Dr Stanley" story by Leonard Matters. Nice story, no facts. Try again, Dr Weston-Davies, and do check out these boards before putting pen to paper - did he really use a photo of Lizzie Williams in his book and claim it was Mary Jane Kelly?

Graham

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Lets be perfectly honest, none of us know, who Mary Kelly was, or her killer. regardless of ''Case closed'' or D.NA. possibilities.
Sorry for the negativity, but I have been around a long time..
Richard.