Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 July 2000 - 12:02 pm |        |
| For starters, Kelly might clue us into whether we are dealing with a male, or female?. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 08 July 2000 - 01:55 pm | |
| David , we should wait and see what Kelly has to say before we judge if its ' crap ' or not ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 08 July 2000 - 02:11 pm | |
Kelly , please print up what information you have on this site , we ARE interested but there have been a lot of hoaxes associated with this case , so naturally we are cautious. We'll give whatever you have to say a fair hearing so don't be frightened to post it up.
Simon |
Author: kelly jones
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 05:06 am | |
hi everyone and thanks for the messages.
in answer to a simple yes or no.....no.
as for the questions
1. mary was born in 1864
2. she was not born in limerick or anywhere else in ireland as a matter of fact. she was actually born at sea on the voyage from ireland to wales. And thats fact and i have a copy of the ships log refering to her birth.
3. mary had 6 brother, although 2 died whilst young and one in a mining accident and 1 sister, the only member of the family she stayed close to.
4. marys father was called john.
5. mary's daughter (my great grandmother) was born in 1884. Her name was elizabeth. Althouh, she had 2 other children later on in life.
6. mary's children had 2 fathers. the latter wer by a man she married but the first by who'm elizabeth was fathered was a musician. I have never known who he was other than he was well off.
No, i am not a young teenager.
SO. I am in the process of typing up what i know and will give it to you a poece ata time.
I am sorry if the sceptics do not beliecve this, but as i have said, i am willing to prove certain points by making documents available.
regards
kelly jones |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 06:36 am | |
G'day Kelly,
Interesting....Bruce Paley, who researched Kelly for over 15 years, says that Kelly arrived in London around 1884, went to work at a brothel, met a gentleman who took her to France, but for some reason Kelly cut the trip short.
If your Great-Grandmother was born around this time, could this explain the short trip to France?
Leanne! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 06:42 am | |
Kelly,
1.Had your great great grandmother lived with the musician for a long-time?
2.Was your great grandmother Elizabeth visited by her father or did she know nothing more than was told herself?
3.Do you know the nationality of your great great grandfather?
4.Did she had her other 2 children before or after 1888.
5.How many times was she officially married?
6.Was she a widow predating 1888?
7.When you say you will make documents available, do you mean posting them up here on the board, or will you give them to official instancies for checking?
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 12:30 pm | |
Kelly
This sounds wonderful.
I don't understand what the secracy is about. If it because you are frightened of being wrong, then don't worry - you've only made a mistake or been misinformed. Kelly was a very common name as was Mary in 1888.
If you are correct then great as we know very little about MJK. Give us everything now. PLEASE. Please scan in the documents and e-mail them to me. Preferrably this week as I am on holiday and will have time to study them. |
Author: Oliver Franz
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 05:35 pm | |
I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Don't you think that in all this time they were together, Mary would have run it by Barnett that she had THREE children. If she did he would have almost certainly told the police or at the inquest. Also, if it is indeed true, I'm amazed at how Kelly's family could keep this under wraps for over a hundred years.
That being said, I'm open to further developments and certainly wouldn't mind to be proven wrong as I'm as anxious as anybody to learn more about MJK's background.
Oliver |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 05:53 pm | |
Oliver , I think Kelly means that Mary had her two sons after she left Britain in the wake of the Ripper affair.
To me as a Conspiracy theorist , this explains a lot. Why Mary might have been employed as a nanny for Alice Crook , because she had her own child. And how JK Stephen saved Alice Crook , he could have explained to the Ripper that the baby was Mary's own child ( who I presume didn't live with her). And thus Baby Alice slept through the whole affair. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 06:35 pm | |
G'day,
When Mary Kelly arrived back in London, after her short trip to France, she drifted over to the East End and lived with a man named Morganstone. Then she lived with Joseph Flemming.
Bruce Paley doesn't mention who the man was that took her to France, but it appears that she took to drinking heavily, once she returned.
Margaret, a friend of Kelly's, told the press after the murder: "She told me she had no money and intended to make away with herself".
Lizzie Albrook said: "She told me she was heartily sick of the life she was leading, and wished she had money enough, to go back to Ireland where her people lived."
If these 2 statements are true, then I can believe that she wanted to 'disappear'.
OLIVER: Kelly didn't have to tell Barnett anything about her child, if she had one! She may have been ashamed! Kelly's family were strict Catholics. They may not have even known.
SIMON: There is still no proof that Mary Kelly was ever a nanny!
Leanne! |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 06:41 pm | |
Now this is ridiculous.
Why can't we have all the information now Kelly? (Said in a truly childish fashion)
I see four possible reasons;
1 - You don't want publicity and intrusion similar to that of Barret. If so give all you have now to a respectable author on the site such as Stewart Evans or Paul Begg. They can write a book and field all the blows. As they are respected, they can question you and few will doubt their thoroughness.
2 - You wish to make money out of your information. Why not (but it wont be a large amount - if so the likes of Sugden would be sipping Champagne on a beach in Bermuda somewhere)? Letting us know what you have wont affect it. You have the original documents without which no publisher would allow anything to go to press. Therefore sharing the info with us could not result in stealing of intellectual property. Furthermore, everyone on the site would buy the book anyway as this is the type of people we are so you would not be denying yourself royalties.
3 - Your winding us up. I doubt this but if so please let us know. I note that you work for an internet company and I'm sure that you wouldn't abuse the internet.
4 - You are rightfully concerned that you are mistaken and are worried about loss of face. Don't be. We will all understand. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 06:41 pm | |
G'day Simon,
If Mary Kelly did have a child and hid that fact from her family plus Joseph Barnett, then took to drinking because she was emotionally upset, I don't think she would have been a nanny to someone elses child!
Leanne! |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 06:42 pm | |
| P.S. I always confuse Mitre Square with Miller's Court as well. |
Author: kelly jones
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 04:27 am | |
hi everyone.
i am in the process of scanning all documents that i am prepared to meake avbailable and will make them available for anyone on here who wants copies. I am also in the process of writing up all the info and collating it for you. And no, i am not 'winding' anoyone up.
But just to set a few records straight.
1. mary was married only once and this was after 1888, and had the other 2 children after marriage.
2. if elizabeth did know who her father was, she never told as far as i am aware.
3. all i know about the musician is that she 'went out' with him for around 12 months but as far as i am aware never actually lived with him. Elizabeth was looked after by and from what i can gather brought up by, someone refered to only as Brigitte.
As for making money, why??
kelly jones |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 06:03 am | |
Great
Can't wait.
Please can I have copies Ind@TomInd.freeserve.co.uk |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 06:05 am | |
| P.S. Do you want me to see if I can organise carbon dating? (No promises) |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 07:35 am | |
I would be very interested in these copies too:
jill.deschrijver@pi.be |
Author: Jim Leen
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 09:20 am | |
Hello Everybody,
Isn't this simply fascinating? Whether or not the account is true I, fancifully I fear, felt a brief link with events from the past.
Mr. Radka, would you please desist from aggressive, abusive, and downright smug invasions to an otherwise fresh board. Whether or not the account is fictional your last post was extremely impolite and unpleasant. A thinly veiled insult on everyone who is willing to take this story at face value until such times as it can either be proved or disproved. While it may be true that you have suffered from disdainful posts in the past, it still doesn't excuse your behaviour. If anything it reinforces the opinion of others.
Mr/Ms/Mrs. Jones, while I respect your wish for privacy, and wish you no offence, could you please clear some points for me.
Kelly Jones sounds Welsh and your first name may be assigned to either gender. In the interests of politesse can you confirm whether you are male or female.
Is English your primary language?
Did you research your story from family hearsay or, at the age of sixteen, were you told the story of your ancestor.
I must admit that some of the personal information that you have furnished does not have the ring of truth to it. Two of MJK's brothers died quite young apparently. It just seems strange when I consider that my late, great-aunt had fourteen children around that time and only five survived into adulthood. Perhaps that mortality rate is the true scandal of the piece, not the fact that a murderer eluded discovery for a hundred years.
Finally, as I get older, my patience decreases. Please reveal the identity at the soonest instalment.
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 02:25 pm | |
Rabbi,
You certainly are an impatient man. All I did was have some fun with the 18,548th false prophet of Ripperology. I was not "aggressive, abusive and smug," what side of the bed did you get up on this morning? And if Kelly is really an impressionable teenager, what business is it of yours to push your impatience on her?
David |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 02:59 pm | |
OK folk
Lets kiss and make up
The written word can be interpreted in many ways. David did not intend to offend and apologises if he mistakenly did. Lets forget it now and get some information from Kelly.
Kelly - just for my impatients. When do you think you will have everything ready for us. Tomorrow or a week or what? Its just that I return to work next week and would love it before then. |
