Archive through July 8, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through July 8, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion: Mary kelly: Archive through July 8, 2000

Author: kelly jones Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 07:26 am
i have studied these boards for a while now and feel i should set this to rest mary kelly was not the rippers victim in mitre square. I should know, she was my great great grandmother. and what's more, if need be, i can prove this, despite my family's wishes kelly jones
Author: Jon Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 07:50 am
Well, I think you need to study them a little more...... Kelly was found in Millers Court....Eddowes was found in Mitre Square. We have geneologists available, should you wish to indulge us in your family history. Kelly's background has been researched before, but we are always open to some new information, should it prove valid and provable. I'm sure you realize that specific details will be required with all supporting paperwork. If it is available, and you can share it then we will all be interested in hearing your story. Regards, Jon
Author: Diana Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 02:26 pm
How exciting! Finally some family info. on MJK. I really hope your info. pans out. Finding Kelly's antecedents could fill in some big gaps in our knowledge. Of course eventually documentation will be necessary, but for now, please whet our appetites with the details. If Kelly was indeed your great great grandmother then one question is already answered affirmatively: Did Mary Kelly ever have a child? Are you descended, then, from the husband killed in a mining accident? Please tell your family that at this late date nobody is going to think less of them because of anything connected with Mary. Welcome to the boards, Kelly. I'll be excited to hear from you again.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 03:36 pm
Hi Kelly ! I totally agree with you that Mary Kelly did not die in ( not Mitre Square but ) Miller's Court , as I have been trying to argue for some time now. There is evidence that she did not die , but if you have any new information please print it here ! I know personally that some of Mary's descendants are living in the Isle of Wight ( off the south coast of Britain ) but I am not at liberty to divulge any more. Take it I have it from a VERY GOOD source indeed. Are you one of those descendants ? If you don't want to divulge the information in public I would be very interested to know it privately. Just click on my name in blue at the top of this post and you'll get my e-mail address. Welcome to the boards Kelly !
Author: David M. Radka Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 05:56 pm
1. Simon says put your finger on your nose. 2. Simon says put your hand above your head. 3. Mary Kelly's relatives are living in the Isle of Wight. Uh-oh! David
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 07:42 pm
G'day Kelly, If you are the great-great-grandaughter of our Mary Kelly,then it's true that she did have a son, that was maybe adopted out and not living with her, at the time she was murdered in Millers Court! Maybe your family don't want you to get involved, because your 'Mary Kelly' wasn't our 'Mary Kelly'! 'Mary' was a popular name, and so was 'Kelly'. Leanne!
Author: kelly jones Friday, 07 July 2000 - 06:02 am
hi everyone and thanks for your comments. And for the sceptics, yes I know you have experts who could establish if what i have to tell is the truth, and knowing this, do you think i would waste my time and effort trying to set the records straight. There is a lot to tell and for the person who mentioned the Isle of Whight, you are cquite correct, there are decendants of mary there, infact, mary stayed there for a while with her daughter, but that is later on in the tale. So, for starters, i will make a few points clear. 1. At this stage I am not prepared to offer full names or details of the desendants as they heartily dissaprove my wanting to tell the world. 2. I am a desendant and feel no disgust or shame about that. 3. Yes, I know who JTR was and am not prepared to say at this stage, but I do have proof of this an the form of letters sent to mary before she fled. 4. In the many writings about JTR there are actually many truths as to his identity, but his identity is not straightforward. 5. you may choose whether or not to believe what i have to say. 6. in our family there are many documents which prove the family tree. The only one I am prepared to offer at this stage is proof of my own history. I will post more after i have read your comments on this matter kelly jones
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 07 July 2000 - 06:25 am
G'day Kelly, That would be great! THANKS! Why would her/your decendants 'heartily disapprove'? Are they frightened of being harrased by people? Don't tell anyone the names of decendants. Maybe you could just inform an expert to say that these details were given by a proven decendant, who wishes to remain annonymous! Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 07 July 2000 - 06:31 am
G'day Kelly, With the battle that's going on with the 'Diary of Jack the Ripper', no one would blame you for wishing to remain anonymous! Leanne!
Author: Diana Friday, 07 July 2000 - 07:43 am
Try dishing it out in small tidbits, Kelly, and see what happens. One caveat. Are you a teenager? I would not want to be guilty of telling a young person to go against her parents wishes.
Author: Jeffrey Friday, 07 July 2000 - 09:21 am
Hello All ! Well, what an interesting turn of events we have here ! Hi Kelly ! Welcome to the boards and I hope that you are able to contribute to these discussions, however, please excuse my sceptisism over your startling claims. Point 1) There have been many claims made here on the boards and in the public domain by those who have solved many of the mysteries around this case, yet are not prepared to offer full names, etc., etc., 2) I am extremely happy that you sound so well balanced. 3) Woooaah ! That's a real biggy, and I am sure is worth mega, mega bux ! Your family should re-consider their disapproval and if there is such "proof" in existence of the killers identity, you should take very good care of it and most definitely seek professional advice. 4) I believe that there are many truths hidden amongst the many writings that there has been on this subject, and I may be a little less sceptical of your claim if you were able to give even a minor example. 5) I could sit here and claim to posess a diary of events written by the actual killer as proof of my claims but ...... oh, hang on... darn, someone is already milking that cash cow, even to the point where previously considered honourable, learned men, with considerable knowledge of the Whitechapel murders and with utmost integrity have decided that the buck is mightier than the truth. 6) Proof of your own history would be a very good place to start. I have no intention of denouncing your claims Kelly, unfortunately, as if things weren't bad enough before, a few unscrupulous individuals and a certain drugged-up cotton merchant have significantly contaminated many areas of research into the Whitechapel murders. I believe we know more of the true facts surrounding these murders today, than even a few short years ago, I apologise sincerely if you or your family are caused any distress, but unfortunately, that was Mary Jane Kelly (as we have come to know her) on that bed. Many Regards Jeff D PS; Jill, excellent work on the drawings of victims wounds. I haven't been able to reply or have much to say lately, but I still read when I can. I did want to congratulate you on your work, and say many thanks. A diagram speaks a thousand words!
Author: Jon Friday, 07 July 2000 - 12:39 pm
Kelly I'm sure you realize that confessions & rumors "I was Jack"..."I knew Jack"....."I know who he was"....etc...etc...could fill a book. We are all quite prepared to make allowances, but you also, for your part must understand, that you're entering into a topic that will put you up for ridicule if you are not well prepared. What constitutes proof in your eyes may not be actual proof, it might not meet certain requirements. The foolish 'Diary' nonsense is living proof that absurd claims can cause volatility between everyone concerned. I hope you are who you think you are, we all would like to hear your story. But be prepared, many on here know almost all there is to know about the Jack the Ripper mystery, either individually or collectively. To be able to substantiate your claims you must be prepared to have facts, in writing, not family stories. Do you have an old photo of Mary? Can you present a family tree, with support of birth/marriage/death certificates? Can you substantiate, in writing, a life for Mary after 1888? You will face lots of searching questions, mainly because its a fact of life.....no-one wants to be gullable, and get taken in by some unknown person claiming to be a decendant of Mary. The claim is only your's to prove, the onus is entirely on you to prove your case.....not for us (others) to disprove your story. The next move is your's, Kelly. Regards, Jon
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 07 July 2000 - 02:03 pm
Thank you for confirming my story about the Isle of Wight and Mary , Kelly ( see David , I am right ! ). The stage is now yours to present whatever material you may have to us , your willing audience , while obviously maintaining respect towards living descendants of the lady everywhere. I know about the Isle of Wight descendants as I am privvy to confidential information which is to be published in a book about the case soon. To confirm we are on similar lines about the Ripper , I have seen documents privately relating to J.K. Stephen. Kelly , do you agree that this man had an important role to play in the case of Mary and the Ripper ? A simple Yes or No will be enough. Would you agree to any documents and letters you have being historically dated to prove their accuracy ? Simon
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 07 July 2000 - 04:13 pm
Kelly - I could add nothing more than the reactions so far: I'm curious, but sceptic, although not a blockhead. I can listen with open and clear mind, but you'll have to be able to back up your story in the end. You must be strong against stormy attacks. Simon - Maybe Kelly's relatives don't like her to tell, because of the book that other relatives want to publish. Jeff - Thank you
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 07 July 2000 - 06:17 pm
G'day Kelly, Please answer these questions, to make sure your Mary Kelly, is our Mary Kelly: 1. In what year was she born? 2. How many brothers and sisters did she have, and was one named Charles? 3. In what town was she born? 4. Was your great-great-grandfather a carpenter, and what was his name? 5. What year was your great-grandmother or grandfather born? (Mary Kelly's child). 6. What was your great-great-great-grandfather's name? (Mary Kelly's father). Leanne!
Author: David M. Radka Friday, 07 July 2000 - 09:58 pm
It's a load of old crap! How many times do Ripperologists have to be taken for a ride in the woods before they learn to trust only their reason, and not every next imposter? David
Author: Diana Friday, 07 July 2000 - 10:04 pm
Kelly, by now you've figured out that we are quite a crew. Some of us are naively enthusiastic. Some are very suspicious. And there is every degree in between. If you have a valid claim don't be intimidated.
Author: Roger O'Donnell Saturday, 08 July 2000 - 07:08 am
Maybe before we start jumping to conclusions, we should at least dispassionately view the evidence. David,It is not naivety, its simple an enquiring mind, so lets keep some perspective. There are all sorts of wierd family traditions which may or maynot be true. I know from the 'Skeletons' in my family closet that often when examined they turn our to be warped bike frames :), but until the traditions and evidence are examined, no matter what one personally thinks, any conclusion is just opinion dressed up with logic. As a personal request, can we at least try to keep this thread, as long a sit runs, free of the vitriol and bile of some of the others, since I (and I am not alone) am heartily sick of it. Its waste of energy, time and bandwidth. Kelly, if you have something then show it, if not let the thread die now :)If the evidence is solid, it will speak for itself. so '...on with the motley, whatever that means' Roger
Author: Diana Saturday, 08 July 2000 - 08:17 am
Kelly, you may have only family stories, but with a little work we may be able to prove or disprove them. At least those stories would be a jumping off place.
Author: Diana Saturday, 08 July 2000 - 09:27 am
Folks, I think for several reasons which I don't want to go into that we may be dealing with a teenager here. That does not necessarily reduce the validity of her claims but if it is true it places several obligations on us. First of all, lets go gently. Beneath all that bravado, she may be scared. Secondly, we have to consider the ethics involved. Is it right to extract private family information out of a (I'm guessing) thirteen or fourteen year old girl against her parents wishes? Kelly, if I'm wrong about your age and status please excuse me. If all communication ends, it may be because one of us frightened her off, or it may be because her parents found out and put a stop to it. If the latter is true IMHO we should respect that. Parents (especially parents of teenagers) have a tough row to hoe these days and it behooves us not to add to their burden.