Comments on: Romanticizing Mary Jane Kelly http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/ Everything you know is wrong. -Weird Al Yankovic Tue, 08 Jun 2010 04:00:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: admin http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/comment-page-1/#comment-54 admin Sat, 30 May 2009 05:08:25 +0000 http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/#comment-54 Ray, the trouble with this candidate and the link to the Royal Conspiracy Theory is that it's basically made up out of whole cloth. It all traces back to Stephen Knight's 1978 book, Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, which has been pretty thoroughly discredited and this so-called Mary Kelly is a product of the same kettle of fish. Here's a link that might help: http://www.casebook.org/suspects/knight.html Ray, the trouble with this candidate and the link to the Royal Conspiracy Theory is that it’s basically made up out of whole cloth. It all traces back to Stephen Knight’s 1978 book, Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, which has been pretty thoroughly discredited and this so-called Mary Kelly is a product of the same kettle of fish. Here’s a link that might help: http://www.casebook.org/suspects/knight.html

]]> By: Ray Burr http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Ray Burr Fri, 29 May 2009 16:46:23 +0000 http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/#comment-53 How many matches to witness testimony would suffice to qualify a candidate as the real Mary Kelly? Here we have 2 women who state that their respective great or great great grandmother had a daughter who "sang on the English stage" and had a father John and that she disappears from the records after 1881. Census records substantiate their claims and show that she had a brother Henry and a sister who was a merchant.... How many matches to witness testimony would suffice to qualify a candidate as the real Mary Kelly?
Here we have 2 women who state that their respective great or great great grandmother had a daughter who “sang on the English stage” and had a father John and that she disappears from the records after 1881. Census records substantiate their claims and show that she had a brother Henry and a sister who was a merchant….

]]> By: admin http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/comment-page-1/#comment-48 admin Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:26:10 +0000 http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/#comment-48 All are hoaxes. All are hoaxes.

]]> By: Sophia http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/comment-page-1/#comment-47 Sophia Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:00:33 +0000 http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/#comment-47 Do you mean the version of the Royal Conspiracy involving Prince Eddy and the cover-up of his affair and child with Annie Crook? Or some other Royalty? Is Mary Kelly the subject of some renewed claims to the throne? From a different bloodline of France? Are they all hoaxes? http://museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/6776/P22 Do you mean the version of the Royal Conspiracy involving Prince Eddy and the cover-up of his affair and child with Annie Crook?
Or some other Royalty? Is Mary Kelly the subject of some renewed claims to the throne? From a different bloodline of France?
Are they all hoaxes?
http://museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/6776/P22

]]> By: admin http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/comment-page-1/#comment-38 admin Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:10:25 +0000 http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/#comment-38 Burr, If it were that easy, it would have been solved for centuries. We don't know who Mary Kelly was, or even if Mary Kelly was her real name. This bit shows up every now and again and is strongly linked to the Royal Conspiracy Theory. Not the greatest source. Sorry. Burr,

If it were that easy, it would have been solved for centuries. We don’t know who Mary Kelly was, or even if Mary Kelly was her real name. This bit shows up every now and again and is strongly linked to the Royal Conspiracy Theory.

Not the greatest source. Sorry.

]]> By: Ray Burr http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/comment-page-1/#comment-37 Ray Burr Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:55:17 +0000 http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/#comment-37 Can anyone verify this one? I think she's 30 with descendants from Glasgow and Winnipeg. You can find her by searching Mary Jane Kelly Descendants. http://www.topix.com/forum/ca/winnipeg-mb/TE53B2AQTJ4KEH4T7 Can anyone verify this one? I think she’s 30 with descendants from Glasgow and Winnipeg. You can find her by searching Mary Jane Kelly Descendants. http://www.topix.com/forum/ca/winnipeg-mb/TE53B2AQTJ4KEH4T7

]]> By: admin http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/comment-page-1/#comment-36 admin Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:13:35 +0000 http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/#comment-36 Again, Harry... What do you base this on, other than your own personal speculation and broad generalizations. Nothing like this gets us any closer to the truth. Sorry. In fact, it actually muddies the waters quite a bit. Again, Harry… What do you base this on, other than your own personal speculation and broad generalizations. Nothing like this gets us any closer to the truth. Sorry. In fact, it actually muddies the waters quite a bit.

]]> By: Harry O http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Harry O Sun, 30 Nov 2008 06:16:57 +0000 http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/#comment-35 Mary Kelly was probably in her 30s and not 25 since the Irish have baby-faces that make them appear younger. She likely had several children, all of whom would probably have emigrated to Australia or the Americas. Publicity will improve the chances of the relatives, who may be doing online genealogy, to realize and come forward. Mary Kelly was probably in her 30s and not 25 since the Irish have baby-faces that make them appear younger. She likely had several children, all of whom would probably have emigrated to Australia or the Americas.

Publicity will improve the chances of the relatives, who may be doing online genealogy, to realize and come forward.

]]> By: admin http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/comment-page-1/#comment-24 admin Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:48:10 +0000 http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/#comment-24 Problem is, Harry, it's all just a lot of speculation and what ifs you're offering. Nothing verifiable. May be a hard truth to live with, but it's the truth just the same. We could all play guessing games and what if till the end of time and it'd get us no closer to the truth. Problem is, Harry, it’s all just a lot of speculation and what ifs you’re offering. Nothing verifiable. May be a hard truth to live with, but it’s the truth just the same. We could all play guessing games and what if till the end of time and it’d get us no closer to the truth.

]]> By: Harry O http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Harry O Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:53:40 +0000 http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/#comment-23 Morgenstern's first wife in the '81 Census went by the name Jeanette. She reportedly died in 1884 and Mary Kelly took her place and her name, it would seem. Was "Marie Jeanette" Kelly snared by a man involved in the international traffic in prostitutes? Morgenstern’s first wife in the ’81 Census went by the name Jeanette. She reportedly died in 1884 and Mary Kelly took her place and her name, it would seem.
Was “Marie Jeanette” Kelly snared by a man involved in the international traffic in prostitutes?

]]> By: Harry O http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Harry O Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:21:07 +0000 http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/#comment-22 The problem with Mary Kelly studies is not the romanticization so much as the defeatist attitute. Defeatists are those who say things like Morganstone hasn't been found. I personally believe Barnett told the truth about "Morganstone" and he was Adrianus "Thomas" Morganstern, discovered at least 4 years ago by Neal Sheldon I believe and followed up on by Louis Van Dompselaar. (Limehouse/Stepney, Gas fitter, near the Gas Works, widowed in 1884, even a relative said he raised his family in a house of prostitution.) No one else seemed to follow this up and the relative was ignored on Casebook forum. Who knows what else has been missed? The problem with Mary Kelly studies is not the romanticization so much as the defeatist attitute. Defeatists are those who say things like Morganstone hasn’t been found.
I personally believe Barnett told the truth about “Morganstone” and he was Adrianus “Thomas” Morganstern, discovered at least 4 years ago by Neal Sheldon I believe and followed up on by Louis Van Dompselaar. (Limehouse/Stepney, Gas fitter, near the Gas Works, widowed in 1884, even a relative said he raised his family in a house of prostitution.) No one else seemed to follow this up and the relative was ignored on Casebook forum. Who knows what else has been missed?

]]> By: admin http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/comment-page-1/#comment-20 admin Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:54:24 +0000 http://www.historyhype.com/2007/07/30/romanticizing-mary-jane-kelly/#comment-20 Harry, for the most obvious reason... it's just speculation, a best guess at best. When writing history/true crime, one must stick to the facts. Speculation is only valuable if it is proven out by discovered facts and so far, in Mary Kelly's case, there's scant few. Assuming she was a servent at Knightsbridge is assuming a lot not in evidence in Mary's case. It's safe with Annie because there's supporting evidence. World of difference, my friend. Harry, for the most obvious reason… it’s just speculation, a best guess at best. When writing history/true crime, one must stick to the facts. Speculation is only valuable if it is proven out by discovered facts and so far, in Mary Kelly’s case, there’s scant few. Assuming she was a servent at Knightsbridge is assuming a lot not in evidence in Mary’s case. It’s safe with Annie because there’s supporting evidence. World of difference, my friend.

]]>