Author: Jon
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 12:44 pm |        |
| Please excuse my ignorance, possibly my speed reading skills are still in first gear......I dont recall Kelly telling us whether we are addressing a male or female? |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 03:28 pm | |
Hi Jon:
I do not believe Kelly has answered your very reasonable question about whether he/she is a male or female. I am assuming female since their name "Kelly Jones" happens to be, we are told, coincidentally the same name the woman we know as Mary Jane Kelly once used. Am I correct, Kelly?
Thanks
Chris George |
Author: Oliver Franz
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 06:13 pm | |
Kelly,
conc. point 8:
I believe I speak for everybody here in saying that I would really like to see this picture as soon as you can get around to scanning it. If it should turn out too large for posting it here, I'll be happy to provide some webspace.
Oliver |
Author: Thomas Ind
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 06:57 pm | |
Kelly
Do you have a scanner? Please say yes. If you scan the documents and e-mail them to Stephen Ryder he will make them avaialable to us.
As far as we are concerned what we wish to do now is see the documents. We then have to validate your story. That will involve checking the genealogy and double checking events listed - such as weddings, ship timetables etc. We will also need information from you to help this such as dates of birth of the people you mention and places where marriages, births and deaths occurred. (As far as you can remember).
If this all checks we will need to carbon date the documents and do an ink check. This is the minimum required. If it all checks out I suggest that you contact CMD, Paul Begg, or Stewart Evans to get a book written (but don't make US wait for all the info please.
I will go to bed tonight and dream of waking up to find all the documents scanned in and waiting for me in my intray. Ind@TomInd.freeserve.co.uk incase you can't find it.
Can you please update your provile. We have your e-mail address (and I've written it down incase it is removed) Feel free to look at mine if you want an idea. P.S. that applies to everyone on this site - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR PROFILES |
Author: Thomas Ind
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 06:59 pm | |
| P.S. Please excuse Seeepeelling |
Author: Oliver Franz
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 07:15 pm | |
Gee Thomas, calm down... Probably better not to get your hopes up that much.
Oliver |
Author: Michael Lyden
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 07:51 pm | |
Congratulations Kelly,
All this lovely attention must be doing you a power of good!
yours skepticaly,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 09:26 pm | |
Oliver
Any pic supplied could be anyone's pic......we dont have a face to compare.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 11:47 pm | |
G'day Kelly,
I am not immediately doubting your claims here. I am just trying to get the picture of that night:
Why was Brigitte undressed, if she just went there to fetch a crucufix?
'The Ripper and the Royals' (I think), mentioned something about Kelly's SON being sent to Canada by nuns, but you claim that her DAUGHTER travelled with her!
'The Jack the Ripper A-Z' tells me that Joseph Barnett told the 'Star' newspaper on 10 November 1888, that Kelly had a little BOY aged 6 or 7, living with her and occasionally visited a fellow prostitute in the Elephant & Castle neighbourhood. (Brigitte?)
Another thing bothers me: Brigittes face was mutilated beyond recognition. Was Jack doing MJK a favour and supported her escape from England?
Mary was taking a risk, by escaping England, with the thought that doctors and police may eventually discover that the body wasn't hers and wonder why she took off!
Leanne! |
Author: Oliver Franz
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 05:54 am | |
Jon,
of course I realize that. What's more she would be well in her fifties on this alleged picture. Nevertheless I would like to have a look at it.
Oliver |
Author: kelly jones
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 06:12 am | |
hi
i find it difficult to believe that people could think that i should get confused over the identity of my own relatives. ie are you sure it's the same mary kelly!. Like i'd spend my time making a story up!!!!!
1. Yes I am female and as i have said, kelly jones IS my real name
2. no, mary's crucifix was never found
3. Part 5 was missing. I deleted it by mistake ( NO NO CONSPIRACY THERE EITHER!!!)
Mary got the money from Brigitte's place. When she did not return mary was worried, and when she read of the death she knew what had happened. She took maoney and jewellery from brigitte's place, pawned the jewellery and kept it hidden on her person.
4. Yes, It was the same Brigitte that looked after her daughter
6. No, it was NOT a son, it WAS a daughter. I should know.
Now for more.
After mary had married and had the 2 children, her husband found out she was having numerous affairs with other man, beat her up and threw her and her children out declaring that he could not be sure the kids were hers. She went to the Isle and stayed with Elizabeth for around 6 months. Liz's husband was aware and sympathetic of mary's past. He had business interests in Stoke on Trent and purchased a pub/ coaching in there and made mary manager. I cannott remember the name of the pub but know it was in Port Hill. Near woolstanton marshes.
I cannot give a family tree of marys other 2 children at this stage as they would dissaprove and it could cause major family rifts. Likewise I cannott tell you the names of the surviving relatives, but both childrens lines are still current. One line live still in Stoke-on-trent and the other in the West Midlands, with one part of one line in Blackpool.
The "last" of the line, ie the youngest now in 30-40's have, as far as i am aware, no knowledge of their family history. It seems that Liz ( my great grandmother) was the only child of mary that was not ashamed of her past. I feel the same
Kely Jones |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 07:29 am | |
G'day Kelly,
NO ONE IS ACCUSING YOU OF MAKING THIS STORY UP!!!
We all have our own theories of what happened, and we hope that you can 'fill' some of the gaps for us.
None of your, (Mary Kelly's), family should feel ashamed! You should feel like a hero, and I think your great-great-grandmother would be very proud of you for clearing this up at last!
Leanne! |
Author: Thomas Ind
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 07:32 am | |
| Fair Dinkun |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 07:36 am | |
G'day,
If Brigitte was undressed, maybe she thought that she could 'earn' a few bucks on Mary Kelly's bed, before she returned with the crusufix?
See Kelly, this information will help us to determine that nights events!
Leanne! |
Author: paul branch
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 09:23 am | |
Hi everyone,
This is a very interesting subject right now, thank you Kelly for your valuable participation. This is just the sort of break that ripperologists dream of I am sure.
I have been observing the boards for at least a year now and been very impressed with the high standard of the discussions. BUT I have detected a subtle change in the tone of Kelly's postes over the last few days, it seems to me that all the excited questioning may be putting a little too much pressure on our new friend ( calm down Mr. Ind :-) ). ALL IN GOOD TIME.
May I respectfully request a little restraint (I know its difficult, we all want answers!). We do not want to overpower and frighten off someone with such interesting and potentially valuable information.
Kelly,(My wife’s daughter's name incidentally) please continue the story and do not take the pressure too personally. Try to remember that in their enthusiasm posters sometimes pose questions that appear critical and seem to cast doubt on your integrity. These questions are not intended to be so, its just the thirst for more knowledge on a subject plagued by lack of real evidence, contradictions and sometimes deliberate misdirection, then you announce yourself, wow !
Anyway, take heart, no-one is out to prove you wrong, they just want to verify what you have said. You are the heroine of the hour, so on with show.
Regards to All
Paul |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 01:17 pm | |
Chris:
I've been watching this series with interest. Ms. Jones has provided some interesting information which could be checked but I think we have to wait for the important bits which would have to be direct evidence from "Mary Kelly " such as a contemporary letter from her stating that she was the woman thought to be the last ripper victim. I'm not at the moment doubting anything that Ms. Jones has to say but the names that she has mentioned are dreadfully common ones. I'll try to check things when I have a few moments. There do seem to be about 450 Kelly Jones in the UK!
Peter |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 03:00 pm | |
Incidentally, Blackbeard's ghost, the Shroud of Turin and the Holy Grail have also just been confirmed. Check the tabloids at your local newsstand.
David |
Author: Thomas Ind
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 03:15 pm | |
David - be careful.
I will post this first and if it works post my question.
The reason this post looks odd is that I have modified it and removed a big picture - see a smaller version in a subsequent post |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 03:18 pm | |
Hi David et al.:
I do find it curious that in Kelly Jones's story that Joe Barnett does not appear to figure at all, yet in the evidence that we have that has come down to us he is probably the major player in the drama other than Mary Jane Kelly and Jack of course.
Chris George |
Author: Thomas Ind
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 03:21 pm | |
Well sort of. It came out a lot larger than I was expecting. Can anyone make it smaller?
Apologise to genealogists as I am sure i have the code wrong.
The red bits are missing info. Kelly wishes the Henry House, Albert Carter and her sisters line kept confidential and I understand that I I think we should respect it.
Kelly can you fill in any of the missing red bit.
m - married; b - born; d - died
D - Day; M - Month; - Y - Year; L - Location |
