| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1077
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 6:53 am: |       |
Ok, now before I start with this I just want to point out that this is just a fun theory that I put together in the last 45 minutes. It is not supposed to be THAT serious, although I actually found some bits interesting myself, but that's probably just me. I worded it as a serious theory, but that's not really how it's meant.
Ok, critise away....
SUSPECT - MARY JANE KELLY (OR WHATEVER HER NAME WAS)
What we know about Mary (as told by Joe Barnett and friends):-
1) Mary came moved from Ireland to Wales when she was very young.
2) She married a man called Davies when she was 16 and possibly had a child.
3) Davies died, leaving Mary a young widow to fend for herself.
4) Mary's cousin was a prostitute and Mary (it seems) was brought into the business through her.
5) Mary moved to London's Wast End in 1884 and resided in a Gay House where she met a man who took her to Paris.
6) She didn't like Paris and returned to London.
7) She moved to the East End (for reasons we do not know).
8) She had a couple of relationships but they didn't work out (Morganstone and Fleming).
9) She moved in with Joe Barnett after only one day of knowing him and quits prostitution.
10) He lost his job after about a year of them living together.
11) Mary grew aggitated with Joe for not providing money and forcing her back to the streets.
12) Joe moved out on 30th October.
13) Mary was found murdered on 9th November.
Reasons for placing Mary as a suspect:-
1) The murders started after Joe lost his job.
2) Mary wanted to get out of prostitution and London (as told by Lizzie Albrook).
3) Needed an escape plan.
Her plot:-
1) She knew that if people thought she was dead then she could escape and no-one would follow her.
2) She needed to build up the mutilations in order to make it so no-one could realise that the body she left in Millers Court wasn't hers.
Evidence:-
1) One thing that stands out to me is what she said to Lizzie Albrook when she left her on 8th November, "whatever you do don't you do wrong and turn out as I did." This, to me, sounds like a sort of goodbye.
2) She often asked Joe to read to her about the murders (many criminals wanted to hear of their own work).
3) She goes out and picks someone up in front of George Hutchinson so as to create a suspect for her murder. (I realise that she would be doing this sort of thing anyway but I thought it could have been for this reason).
4) There is a cry of "Oh Murder" said to have come from her room at 4 am. This could have been staged as I find this cry to be strange. She may have cried this out to make people think it came from her room and also she knew that people didn't tend to pay much attention to it.
Witnesses:-
1) Obviously I believe that none of the witness statements described Mary at all, but that's not to say that none of the witnesses saw her.
2) The witnesses wouldn't have mentioned seeing a woman as, at that time period (and still very much today) people associated these sort of crimes with men.
Ok, now that's over with, I shall sit back and wait for the mocking.
Remember, as I said before, this is not meant to be that serious.
Sarah
(Message edited by Sarah on April 28, 2004)
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 224
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 9:21 am: | |
Sarah,
An interesting alternate scenario that at least was presented in a compact, readable fashion. But you can't be serious because you didn't copyright your post.
And yeah, I'm smiling.
Don. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 9:45 am: | |
Donald,
Ah, well, never mind. I'm not that serious and if anyone really is that desperate to pinch it then they're welcome. It's mostly just some thoughts. I suppose.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 225
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 10:17 am: | |
Sarah,
I know, I know. I was just having some fun with "El Mucho Pomposo" on another thread.
Still, your bit of whimsy makes a good point. You say you spent 45 minutes on the idea and I would imagine that if most posters spent five hours (rather than five years) in a like exercise they could frame a theory at least as logical as the "A Kominski in-law -- but don't ask me which one" effort. And I'm still smiling.
Don.
With no pretensions about copyrighting posts. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
Don,
Oh, thought so.
I personally prefer my theory to the one on the other thread. That's why I decided to make one up of my own.
The point, I suppose is really that, we could take anyone and make the evidence fit.
the "A Kominski in-law -- but don't ask me which one" effort
I like that!!
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Holger Haase
Sergeant
Username: Holger
Post Number: 33
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
The scary thing is that now that the theory is out, someone is bound to make it a serious suggestion. At least we know where it started. :-) |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 327
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 1:44 pm: | |
Sarah,
Ok, I accept it as a plausible scenario. I have only one question. Who did Mary kill to be identified as her? In other words, whose body is it anyway?
Mikey |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 835
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
I send a similiar theory to the News Of the world in 1973, only my scenerio was the murders were committed by kelly and Barnett, and the whole plot was hatched in that sordid room, she befriended the victims, and led them to the relevant spots.
I felt it was a good piece of fiction, but alas I received a 'Dear John'
Richard. |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 226
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
But you can't be serious because you didn't copyright your post.
bwahahahhaahahha :P
/me falls out of his chair.
Thanks, I feel better now.
Very interesting Sarah, very interesting indeed.
crix0r |
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 12
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Good job, Sarah!
And it still doesn't matter whose body is in the bed.
Mags |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 180
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 7:03 pm: | |
Whats up Everybody?
I just have a question about....well....Im not a big Barnettite like I know some of you are, but,
and Im sure this has been addressed elsewhere on this board, but, I'll ask anyway.
Who was in the room with MJK before Joe got there? Sugden says Maria Harvey and she testified at the inquest as such..But Other sources say lizzie Albrook was. Why is there so much confusion on this. Someone please help.
Sarah...To give feedback regarding your thread...
I'm gonna get a fish thrown at me, but I dont care. Its just too far fetched that MJK faked her own death, Im sorry. I do not believe it...
not even a little bit. I know that you Barnettites want so bad for Joe to be Jack the Ripper. I understand that, and thats cool. But
as far as the conspiracy is concerned, It didnt happen. MJK is Dead. But I respect your theory and your thoughts. So....ya'll can start throwin
the fish now. haha 
Paul
(Message edited by paulj on April 28, 2004) |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 181
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 7:26 pm: | |
That Joke about Mary being Jack the Ripper gave me real fits. haha
Sarah...I forgot to add that I liked the funny thought of Mary being Jack. Hard to swallow as
a bowling ball, but funny.
I know some of you want, so bad, for someone else to have been in Mary's bed that night. But It was her. She is dead. Its just to far out that she would have faked her own death...for whatever reason. But the thought is interesting. Best Regards.
Paul |
brad kelley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
THE FRENCH CONNECTION.
Yes...even further damming is that Mary Kelly spent time in France...so did Walter Sickert...he was a master of disguises according to Cornball with stage experience...is it possible that Jack was in fact Sickert and Sickert was in fact Mary (and Mary was in fact Jill)? By killing off his alter ego (Mary) in the form of the other French (there's that connection again)prostitute as seen in From Hell,he broke the psycological tie with Jack and henceforth the killings ended. I have heard the cry of "oh murder" sounds staged...Sickert had acted on the...stage. Also this could validate the painting Jack The Rippers Bed Room. Was he actually making a reference to Millers Court? Of course he would have been far to clever to actually draw that room where he had lived(and died)so he drew his current room instead knowing the police were fools and would never figure it out. And as for Joe Barnett's stutter...I think he was the only one to actually figure it out...but then again who wouldn't stutter after realizing that the strange deformed thing he'd been cuddling with for so long was in fact...well i think you can fissure out the rest...In pulling this off he totally upstaged the current rave of London, Jekyll and Hyde thus proving his critics like the police fools and satisfying his need for critical acceptance. So there you have it...Jack was Walt and Walt was Mary...except Mary never really existed, apart from in Walters sick mind and perhaps in some of his Sick-Art. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
I don't understand. As long as Sarah's new fun theory is new, and not copied from someone else's previous work, she automatically owns the copyright.
What could be a more effective way of doing so than by having one's written work timed and dated officially on this site under one's own officially registered, recognised and verifiable identity?
The only problem I could foresee would be if one was using a computer at work for one's posts, and the boss found out and wasn't best pleased that he/she/the company/taxpayers or whoever was subsidising or paying for it all.
Carry on chaps.
Love,
Caz
X |
d g cornelius
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 11:19 pm: | |
dear Ms Long,
upon first reading the title of your post i wondered if you had rediscovered my old theory: no one was murdered, they were all suicides.
respex,
d g cornelius |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:33 pm: | |
I must admit it is a good, concise theory - and at least you did not claim that you finally solved it.
Do you think that the placement of the sections of Mary's substitute's body were code words to her dressmaker or hat maker or some such nonsense?
Or maybe the dissected organs and parts were supposed to be a play on the word "JUWES" and the phrase "family jewels" (admittedly stretching things, but recently a theory demonstrated how far one can stretch ideas from nonexistant threads).
Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1690
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 10:18 pm: | |
"...I wondered if you had rediscovered my old theory: no one was murdered, they were all suicides."  
(Message edited by Glenna on April 29, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1087
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 4:18 am: | |
Paul,
I just found it funny that you are insisting Mary IS dead. LOL Well I would have thought she would be dead by now anyway.
There is no proof that the body in the room was Mary's though and that's why I put this little theory together. I just looked at some of the things, like what she said the Lizzie, the asking to hear about the murders (when she could have just read them herself) and the picking up of the client in front of GH.
But anyway, I'm not being serious, just thought it was an interesting notion.
Jeff,
Ah, yes. I forgot all the symbols that Mary was obviously trying to relay to Joe. The placing of the victim's body parts all over the room clearly must have meant "ha, ha, I'm gone and you will never know where".
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 13
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
.....and don't forget the burnt clothing in the fireplace! We ladies always like to start off a new phase of our lives with a whole new wardrobe and to leave the old one behind.
Mary probably even cut her hair and changed her name to Flossie Marchstone.
Mags |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 8:08 pm: | |
Sarah,
I know you were just making up a funny theory...
thats cool. It is interesting. I was just referring to the theory that Mary faked her own death. I know a few people like to think that it happened that way, and thats cool too. But,
for me, it would be just WAY too much trouble.
Being the kind hearted person that people say she was, I find it hard to believe that she would agree to having some girl hacked up and
placed in her bed without giving it a second thought. I think, too, that someone, somewhere, would have known about the plot and told someone else and so on....but I dont know of any rumors like that in Whitechapel back then. Certainly the News would have gotten hold of it. Anyway,
I think your Theory of MJK being the ripper is neat, all the same. Best Regards..
Paul |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 695
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Sarah!!!
BRILLIANT GIRL!!!! Got 'em allgoing eh.....
One thing to say.....KEEP SMILING AFTER A WHILE PEOPLE WILL THINK ITS WIND!!!!
(hopefully)
Cheers Suzi
 |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 4:59 am: | |
Suzi,
Girl you do make me laugh. Where have you been anyway?
Paul,
What do you mean about Mary "letting" someone be hacked up. I'm saying Mary herself did it because she was in fact a very coniving and cool young woman and not the sofftie that she led people to believe and when it came to the crunch, she'd rather kill all those other women than stay there much longer. Also, actually, why do you think that someone else would know about her plot? What makes you think she would have told someone? I don't think Joe was in on it, in case you misunderstood.
Dear oh dear....when someone solves the case, like me, some people will always dig at you.  LOL
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Rico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 8:42 am: | |
Reverend Sykes did it with a letter opener as pay-back for the severe case of clap he caught and transferred to his wife and three daughters. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 6:59 am: | |
Rico,
LOL. Sykes?? I didn't know Bill Sykes was a reverend.
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Norma Rundle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 7:13 am: | |
I've been reading up on the JTR for some time now and have read most of your messages, as a non police person, it seems to me that you are all going round in circles, covering all the old ground that has been covered time and time again.
Is it possible that you should be thinking outside the square a little. Remember, the police originally thought the Ripper was a butcher, well a thought just occured to me, did they look seriously into this possibility.
As there was a large Jewish polulation in the east end, at that time, and no doubt there would probably be a number of Kosher butchers in that area, and bearing in mind that the Ripper was possibly recognised by a fellow Jew, is this an area that has not fully been explored.
I welcome feedback on this subject, and any info that may be available that I'm not aware of, of any serious look at this possibility. |
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 28
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
Lorna Doone
In the kitchen
With a cookie cutter
Mags |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2453
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Carver Doone's your man, surely?
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 761
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
On Axe Moor probably then.zzzzzzzzzzzzzz Suzi |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 88
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
Sarah;
Well done! Concise and amusing! I'm impressed but i don't think she did the last canoniacally accepted murder. Neil PS Hi Suzi! How are things in Portsmouth? |
maelstrom55
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 6:24 pm: | |
Sarah one Question,
Why?
Again Why?
How would Mary Jane Kelly fakeing her death and killing someone else get here back to... Say Ireland?
No.. murder.. always has a motive even if we do not understand what it is.
Mary was killed by a serial killer, not the first, and alas not the last.
Let us weep for her.
The best we can do is learn, and watch.
Maybe teach
|
Jere Coddington
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 9:06 pm: | |
Sarah---That's a great hypothesis. A couple of years ago, I posted a poem to the Casebook about Mary Kelly's experience on that terrible night. I suggested, in the poem, that she murdered the assailant . . . yes, a female Ripper . . . in self-defense and defense of her unborn child. Then, in what must have been an unbearable frenzy of hysteria, terror, rage---all the emotions we most fear---she hacked up that body beyond recognition, got it back into her nightgown, and then left London shortly thereafter. Fear, hysteria, and the maternal instinct of protection united, that night, in Mary Kelly to push her past the brink of conscientious thought---I think, for a few hours, her mind just shut down, leaving nothing but animal rage and fear. And I think she should be given credit for ending that terrible spree of murders. And for those who just cannot bear to admit that she might have escaped, I would like to know . . . what objective evidence fully and finally identifies that body as Mary Kelly. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1326
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 9:44 am: | |
Jere,
I wouldn't mind reading that poem.
what objective evidence fully and finally identifies that body as Mary Kelly.
Good question.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 10:24 am: | |
Hi Sarah, Jere,
objective that's a strong word,
Ok I'm struggling here and erring towards none even though that goes against what i think!!(well you know what i mean!)
Jenni |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 350
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 5:16 pm: | |
Hi Jere,
Well, there's objective and then there's absolutely 100% fully proven and indisputable objective. When making arguments that have been disputed by others, people like to argue for the second (stronger) version of proof, but then I think if you want that as your standard then you can't prove anything.
MJK was identified by a long time live-in boyfriend who could assess her hair length and color, eye color, height, approximate body shape (what could still be determined after the mutilations anyway) and so forth. Yes, it's within the realm of possibility that someone else could have fit all those descriptions and somehow ended up in her bed, but at that point you are choosing to believe in a set of circumstances that is extremely unlikely just to have a good, dramatic story instead of accepting the far more realistic (which equals boring to many people I guess) scenario.
And the idea that the Ripper just happened to be a female who matched all of those aspects of MJK would be not unlike a soap opera where the mad killer turns out to be the main character's evil twin, secretly hidden away and unknown for the last several decades.
Fiction is nice in that we get top write happy endings if we so desire and can be as fantastical as we like, but that's not a very good way to approach history.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Lindsey Millar
Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 45
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 12:34 am: | |
Dan,
I agree with every word you have said here.
Thanks for puting thing so eloquently.
Bestest,
Lyn |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1492
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 4:08 am: | |
Hi all,
Good to see there's life in this thread still!!!! Go Sarah!!!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1327
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Dan,
I agree with most of what you said. There is still the possibility that that body on the bed was not Marys. I doubt that she was the murderer of course but I reckon that would make a good story if the rest of the facts were kept in. I attempted to do this myself but I'm just no good at writing stories where so little is known about the main character when so much is known about her "death" and the rest of the victims.
Anyway, I just wanted to say something about Joe identifying her. Some sources suggest that he identified her purely by glancing very briefly through the window. If this was true then it would have been very hard to identify her, even by a long time boyfriend.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1498
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Sarah!
Good to see this up and about again!
I too agree with all the above stuff but at the risk of joining you in the 'daftness' cant quite get it out of what passes for my brain that maybe JUST maybe there's something a tad 'odd' about the Mary thing that could do with a good 'theory' Yours is as good as any and made me rethink a few ideas too!!!
Cheers
Suzi
PS By the way thats still my line and it makes me smile evrytime I see it!!!!!
Bet you didnt hear Wogan the other morning when he read the deoderant instructions......Take off cap..push up bottom' Am STILL LAUGHING here now!!!!!!
|
mvario
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 8:45 pm: | |
The body wasn't Mary's. In fact Mary arrived home in before Jack left and she dispatched him... for you see Mary was really a man (a la M.Butterfly), but no one knew that. |
mvario
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 11:57 pm: | |
My new updated theory(c)
Barnett was the ripper.
Mary Kelly was really a man
Barnett would follow "Mary" around at night.
All the victims were women whom "Mary" had trysts with.
Barnett was in love with "Mary"
He was jealous of his/her lovers.
He was in deep denial, both of Mary's true sex and his own homosexuality.
Mary wasn't murdered, the victim was another of his/her lovers. Barnett knew this but identified the body as May Kelly anyway.
Mary did not return home that evening and when she heard the news the next day he/she assumed a male guise and immediately left London upon realizing that Barnett was the Ripper.
That's my new theory(c) and I'm sticking to it! |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1328
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 6:13 am: | |
Mvario,
Very funny. Well, as silly as it is it's still tha same as or better than some others *coughA?Rcough*. At least in my opinion.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 68
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 8:42 pm: | |
Mvario,
I saw just this same scenario on Jerry Springer this morning (was at work, and the telly just happened to be on, I swear!)
Hey, as Sarah says, it's not as daft as some theories we're plagued with!
Bestest,
Lyn |
mvario
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 10:05 pm: | |
Sarah, Lindsey,
Darn, I guess I'll have to work on it.
But Mary Kelly was pretty tall, right? (I'm a Ripper newbie, so work with me), and we don't know much about her outside of what Barnett said. So if she was a man then Barnett may have been one of the few folks to know for sure. Or the Ripper could have been George Hutchinson for pretty much the same reasons. He seemed to have a crush on "her" and Barnett may have ID'd the body as Mary's rather than publicly admit he was gay.
Hmmm, gotta put a some work in to this but we could spin this in to a best seller ;-)
Now if we could only suggest that "she" was really someone well known....
-Mike |
Janette McLennan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 11:06 pm: | |
But you forgot the most important elements of this solution to the case!
Mary Jane Kelly was in fact the lesbian fenian satanist nurserymaid of some royal or other!
I am so pleased that someone has finally given this theory the attention it deserves.
Now finally perhaps we can give this and other excellent theories some exposure -like Arthur Conan Doyle did it because when he performed an operation on a woman when a medical student he lost his favourite pocket watch inside and thought these women were the patients and he was just looking for it!
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 164
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 8:48 pm: | |
Janette,
You have just described my cousin (Gawd.. hope she doesn't read this and knows I've spilled the beans...) She is indeed a lesbian, NI sympathiser, and was nanny to the Dutch royalty for several years. (I'm not kidding, folks.) However, she was born in 1960, so we know for a fact that SHE wasn't MJK.
But, good theorising there.
On the Conan Doyle theory, I'm not at all convinced. I know for a fact that he was Pompey's goalie at the time, and was far too busy letting in goals to have been rummaging around in any other business, other than writing his famous books. So, there!
(I did chuckle at the scenario you put forth, though!)
Bestest,
Lyn |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1775
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 3:07 pm: | |
Jeanette!
Damn there's my new theory out of the window there!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lyn
There is a ghastly uncanny likesess between said Cona Doyle and that pic of Hutch tho!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oooooooooh eh.....all roads lead to Pompey 'eh??
Suzi x}
|
mvario
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 12:27 am: | |
You are clearly mistaken, for you see Mary Kelly was really..... Montague Druitt! |
Philip Hutchinson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 6:20 pm: | |
MARY KELLY AS A MAN new info!!!
I quote from the song "Only a violet I plucked when but a BOY"!
A BOY!!!
See - she was giving us clues even then! Oh, that Mark James Kelly - the true inspiration for Little Britain's Emily Howard!
Can't wait for my registration to come through and get my posts up straight away! |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 1:51 pm: | |
You've convinced me.
Now the REAL challenge - convince kitty!!
Good luck,
Phil |
