Mary Jane Kelly from Liverpool

I agree, Buono.

Thanks, Wally.

You can always tell when there is a good solution to the case, the critics usually disappear and refuse to discuss it or get personal, with attacks on the author or theorist with all those who have gone public being the biggest targets.

The funny thing is that the hardliners are usually those who think the case is still unsolved, and Jack is a completely unknown subject or maybe didn't exist at all. They are like fundamentalist agnostics!

On the other hand, Karen has her final solution but she doesn't attack anyone's theories like that. You'd think it would be the opposite but it isn't.

As for Mary Jane Kelly, the mainstream discredits anyone claiming to be a descendant. (See the immediate response to the new book The Fifth Victim.)

The reasoning is that MJK didn't have kids, therefore has no descendants and, if she did, we would have found them already. And that the MJK in question is associated with that Freemason or that Royal or that Surgeon, etc.

The display of anger and violent reaction is borne out of ignorance, lies and the inability to see the truth.

Those who know the truth are confident, hold their head high and never sway from their convictions.

I couldn't have put it better myself, Buono. When I read some of the Ripper forums etc, it kinda makes me cringe a little in the way that some folks blatantly attack people for their beliefs and/or findings. Anyone would think they were trying to solve a crime, Ha!

Karen, I wouldn't dare profess to knowing who the Ripper is or anything like the knowledge you and others have, but I do rather enjoy the research part, and ofcourse I have my own theories and suspect, although for me, it's more for fun that trying to convince anyone, if that makes any sense.

Thanks again, Wally.
I also like the research part, especially with regard to Mary Jane Kelly, what with public access to census records and other documents. Now that DNA tests are available to the public worldwide for 200 dollars or less, I am able to have DNA kits sent anywhere and have genetic testing done.

I am now in the process of arranging a DNA test to prove whether or not Liverpool Mary Jane Kelly was a truthful informant when she said her son William, born in 1887, was fathered by her husband, Robert Wilson. He later mysteriously denied being a Wilson.

Blimey. That's interesting, Buono, I cant wait to hear of the results. I'm not altogether familiar with the Robert Wilson thing, I'm afraid, so my apologies for my ignorance. Wasn't she supposed to have had a child earlier in the 1880's or have I read it wrongly somewhere?

Mary Kelly presumably could have had a child during her alleged marriage to a Davies. There were rumors that she had a child anywhere between 6 and 11 years old. Barnett is reported to have said she had a 6 year old.

Liverpool Mary Jane Kelly had a daughter in June 1880 who would have still been six when Mary Kelly met Barnett.

Mary Kelly intrigues me just as much, if not more than the Ripper. She certainly had time to have children, and lats face it, in those days women all too often abandoned their children through poverty, depression and a whole host of other reasons.

That's exactly what I think may have happened. Mary got pregnant during her time with Fleming and hid the pregnancy and the birth from Barnett.

Or maybe Barnett didn't want anyone to know his girlfriend had someone else's child.

I have a thought that Joe Fleming and Kelly buggered off somewhere whilst she was with child to Fleming.
Just a thought, Buono.

Mrs Carthy reported that the man "from the building trade" Kelly went to live with, presumably Joe Fleming, wanted to marry her.

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/castofthousands.carthy.html

Could it be she was pregnant with his child?

Yes, that was what I read too. Interesting theory. It would certainly be a reason to run away, I guess.

Wally wrote:I have a thought that Joe Fleming and Kelly buggered off somewhere whilst she was with child to Fleming.
Just a thought, Buono.

Does this thought include the Mary Kelly survived scenario?

I was one who believed she survived. Pregnancy could have changed her mind about marriage. Liverpool MJK has no known death record so I believe she is either Marie Jeanette Kelly died fourth quarter 1888 or she survived.

I personally think she survived. The witness statements are too compelling to ignore. Abberline is too important to ignore and the memoirs of Walter Dew stating that he would never forget the 'hazel' eyes staring at him on entering Millers Court, when infact Kelly had 'blue' eyes according to her ex landlady of three months, which she lived with.
Interesting to say the least.

People are always saying I have blue eyes.

In fact, they are hazel. On forms, I say they're green.

So I would lump those witness statements with all the others. Bottom of the pile.

I would actually rate persistent rumor as having more weight than witness testimony. But the only source for survival rumors are romantic, comic book fiction.

That was a statement from a prominent police officer though, Buono. And the Landlady, well, we all know women are far more attentative to small detail. !

It has been reported that eye colour changes upon death. This may be what happened when Inspector Dew reported Mary's eye colour in Miller's Court as hazel.

Glider wrote:...the pupils dilate on death and if you look into the (now very large) pupils a few hours after death, you will notice a distinctive blue-white 'haze'. This is the change that people report.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/511-eyes-after-death/

Dew reported that he only saw Mary previously walking on the street in company so he likely never got close enough to note her eye colour until he saw her dead in Miller's Court.