Mary Jane Kelly found?

[c.d.]

"I think most/all of us understand your position pinkmoon. I think many of us would also have preferred something like a Ripperologist article.
What's done is done and dwelling on things that annoy you, or you don't like etc just eats you up. I'm sure there's some great quotes*** that have said something similar and I wish I could recall one right now."

How about that great Irish saying never try to teach a pig to sing. You won't succeed and you'll only end up making the pig angry.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I should have added that it is probably because conspiracy theories are so much more interesting than using Occam's razor.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"Why does everything always have to be some convoluted conspiracy, (as in the name Kelly being significant) instead of several very unfortunate (not using that word in the Victorian sense) and I'll-fated women meeting a serial killer and being murdered by him?"

Now THAT is a damn good question, Rosella.

c.d.

[Ozzy]

No wonder people like Prosector stay away from the forums.

I think most/all of us understand your position pinkmoon. I think many of us would also have preferred something like a Ripperologist article.
What's done is done and dwelling on things that annoy you, or you don't like etc just eats you up. I'm sure there's some great quotes*** that have said something similar and I wish I could recall one right now.

Obviously by now making another similar post is pointless. We understand how you feel. If I had a solution I'd post it because I'd love to help you out pinkmoon.

I really don't want to see Prosector become so annoyed that it gets to the stage where he thinks screw it regarding a forthcoming Ripperologist article on possible medical knowledge seen in the C5 that Paul Begg asked him about in the podcast.

*** tried a google search and the top result gave me 50 Quotes on Letting Go of the Past. Bookmarked!

http://daringtolivefully.com/letting-go-of-the-past-quotes

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;350310]evidence and proof aren't the same thing and he has plenty of evidence that mary Kelly might have been his ancestor.

and he can do whatever he wants. his claims are more legit than 80% of the ripper related garbage that's published.

you don't seem to be able to grasp the difference.[/QU
The man is selling books on the strength of this in the not to distance future it will come out that this is a load of old Victorian shoe makers in other words a load of OLD COBBLERS

[pinkmoon]

Research ,evidence,proof then publish a book not the other way round

[Abby Normal]

You have written a book that tells us who mary kelly was and who jack the ripper was but offer us no proof or evidence you can't claim case closed and sell books on the strength of this it just isn't cricket.

evidence and proof aren't the same thing and he has plenty of evidence that mary Kelly might have been his ancestor.

and he can do whatever he wants. his claims are more legit than 80% of the ripper related garbage that's published.

you don't seem to be able to grasp the difference.

[pinkmoon]

Having stood back from these threads for a week or so now in order for the dust to settle, perhaps I could make a few comments.
The book is not 'made up' as Pinkmoon suggests. Of course all the evidence is, at this stage, circumstantial as almost all other Ripper evidence is. Certain things are verifiable fact and these are all referenced in the book - the birth and marriage of EWD, the divorce petition, affidavit and notes of Francis Craig, the facts regarding Craig's life, where he lived, how he died, what others thought of him - all of these are verifiable facts and the sources are given in the book.
One point which has bee brought up by some people, including at the Ripper Conference in Nottingham yesterday, is about Francis Craig being on the electoral register for Hammersmith between 1885 and 1888. I already knew that but it does not mean that he was resident there at the time. The Representation of the People Act linked the right to vote to property ownership. FSC owned property in Hammersmith and so that was where he was registered to vote. In the event of an election he would have had to travel there to vote if he chose to do so.
On the much vexed question of the exhumation: I am happy to show anyone who asks me privately the email I received from the British Ministry of Justce which gives that permission. I am not going to put it on the public internet as it is a private communication from a government department and it would be a breach of confidence to do so but if Pinkmoon or anyone else would care to email me privately I will share it.
I have said all along that the exhumation may not happen, simply because of the difficulty in actually locating her grave. There are plenty of people who are willing to underwrite the cost - indeed I will myself if necessary - but that is not the point, it is knowing where to look which is. Having said that I am now in communication with the person who, in 1970, placed the present headstone and has all the records of how he and the cemetery authorities worked out the position so that might bring the possibility a little nearer. My main objective from the outset has been to find out what happened to my grandfather's sister. Nothing would please me more than someone tracing EWD after 1888, particularly if she had gone on to have children and for there to be living descendants. However I have spent much of my life trying to do that with no success and I genuinely believe that the body in St Patrick's Cemetery is the nearest I've come.
I am sorry if people think I haven't laid out te tangible evidence well enough; if that is the case I apologise but what actually occurred between Francis Craig and Elizabeth Weston Davies must largely be speculation, a piecing together of the most likely explanation - call it fiction if you like - but then that has been the case with many of the other suspects from Aaron Kosminski to Montague Druitt. At this distance in time and in the absence of letters or diaries we can only conjecture. If there is any specific piece of evidence that anyone wants and cannot find sourced in the book I will do my best to try to provide it.
Prosector

You have written a book that tells us who mary kelly was and who jack the ripper was but offer us no proof or evidence you can't claim case closed and sell books on the strength of this it just isn't cricket.

[packers stem]

Hi Sally
Yes,Eddowes did often call herself Kate Conway. So why call herself Mary Kelly this day.
The fact remains that on the day she died she was calling herself Mary Kelly for whatever reason and that is all that's relevant to the investigation really

[packers stem]

Hi rosella
Did you read where I mentioned about Eddowes being drunk?? The killer could have spent a few hours with her that afternoon for all we know. All we know is that she had no money but yet was found drunk.Someone bought her drinks.... Could she not have said her name was Mary Kelly during conversation? Yes,obviously this is conjecture, doesn't make it unlikely though..still more likely than not

[Rosella]

Hi, Packers,
You challenged me in an earlier post to find you another killer who ...had by chance found out that his last two victims were using a particularly uncommon name.

I pointed out and am doing so again that it's pure conjecture that the Ripper knew these women by any other name than 'Kate' and 'Mary', if that. Why would he ask their surnames in the course of a conversation with them and why would they offer them? As has been pointed out, Kate Eddowes often used Conway as her surname anyway.

[packers stem]

Hi Robert
I do think nichols and Chapman were killed by jtr yes but no I don't claim to know what the link is between nichols,Chapman and Kelly but we can't rule out the likelihood that they were known to each other living in such a small area,frequenting the same pubs and working the streets on occasion. It's more likely than not that they knew each other but not provable...
I've always suspected the murder of stride was silencing of a witness...Liz long -long liz..mistaken identity? obviously just conjecture, just something I've always thought more likely than not..
To answer the link between nichols,Chapman and Kelly you'd have to have a theory...I don't have a definite theory,always swung towards a fenian theme with Kelly, something attracted the RIC to her room... I don't go with the 'they were in London anyway' nonsense...something was found to bring them there I'm sure.
I am 100% convinced though that killing Mary Kelly was supposed to bring an end to it,whatever it was lol

[Robert]

Packers, you may already have answered this, I don't know, but here goes : how do you explain Nichols and Chapman? Do you think that a different killer murdered them?

[Sally]

Hi Packer's Stem -

You are right, Mary Kelly doesn't appear to have been that common. However, Eddowes had a legitimate reason for using the name Kelly [as I think has been pointed out before] and whilst 'Mary Kelly' may not have been that common, the Christian name 'Mary Ann' was. You might almost say that every Tom, Dick and Harry was called Mary Ann at the time, figuratively speaking.

In fact, Eddowes appears from what slight documentary evidence there is to have referred to herself more commonly as Kate Conway.

[packers stem]

Hi Sally, yes apologies Mary Ann Kelly, my slip up but just taking Mary Kelly we both know it's rare...
Hi rosella, not sure I can make any sense of the first paragraph...it's not conjecture that the last two victims were using the same, or very similar if someone wants to split hairs, on the day they died....it is fact..one of the few facts we have surrounding the murders
Obviously I don't believe it's random chance...
What makes you think Kelly wasn't a particularly unusual name? The 1891 census shows 48 Mary Kellys in London as a county.... Millions of people yet some people still believe that a random killer picked out two people using this name by chance and it refuses to go away...
Not just any two,but the last two..the odds against must be crazy.48 in London as a whole would probably mean no more than a small handful in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area....think of all the thousands of other people he could have come across if this was chance....you've got to be pretty blinkered to accept this as chance...
Also you don't disbelieve all the other witnesses,I'm not sure why.. Are you saying you just believe eye witnesses who back up what you believe?? Unfortunately a common mistakes of ripperologists over the years. Take what fits as ascertained fact and ignore what doesn't
People believed maxwell was mistaken at the time because no one questioned whether or not it was Kellys remains at the time....maybe they should have done.Wasn't just maxwell remember,there's Maurice Lewis as well....twice