Mary Jane Kelly found?

[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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[packers stem]

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

[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.

[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.

[Wickerman]

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