Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Real Mary Kelly - Wynne Weston-Davies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by JMenges View Post
    I thought inviting a Canadian was threatening enough.

    JM
    Hello JM,

    I enjoyed the podcast enormously, as I have done all the others I have listened to. When are you going to interview the Lechmere boys?

    Gary

    Comment


    • #32
      I'd actually like to have Ed on (and considered it for the WWD show, but it became a pain to organize), whether to talk just about Cross or cover other stuff as well. Christer too, but I am a fan of Ed's.

      JM

      Comment


      • #33
        Guess I'm not up to date on Mrs. Van Turney (Venturini?). Thought the latest was she was Dutch. Van Turney like Van Gogh. In one of Wickerman's excellent compilations of the various reports she was referred to as "a German woman", which I know can mean Jewish, Russian, Polish, Hungarian....

        I think the interview with Dr. Weston-Davies was excellent. Everything about him, his research and the launch of the book is low-key. He came across as sincere, honest and still searching. I would have felt bad if he had been put on the spot and grilled.

        I am very sorry his book doesn't have the publicity behind it that the shawl did. Remember how that came out. I never bought that book because I believe the claims are more than can be proven. I will prize WWD's book because it is an honest search for truth IMO.

        If I was to interview the people behind the shawl debacle I would grill and skewer them.
        The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
          I would have felt bad if he had been put on the spot and grilled.
          This was a sticky situation as items were continually being discovered that disproved some of the material in the book in the immediate days and hours before the show was to record. Most of which he had not seen until right before I hit 'record'. So how I asked him questions, and what I asked him- knowing he hadn't had the opportunity to review the research that was taking place both on and off the boards-without turing it into a "gotcha" podcast was a little tricky and caused me a not a little stress. Lucky for us he turned out to be a completely agreeable and open-minded guest who appreciated the extra research being done on Elizabeth. He could have easily been an author who would have just hung up on us as soon as I mentioned any errors.

          JM

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by JMenges View Post
            I'd actually like to have Ed on (and considered it for the WWD show, but it became a pain to organize), whether to talk just about Cross or cover other stuff as well. Christer too, but I am a fan of Ed's.

            JM
            No WiFi in Happy Days, I suppose. I can just picture Christer standing on a table holding a saveloy aloft in an attempt to get some reception.

            BTW, I love the Oh dear idea. (Is OD just a Brit expression? I Use it all the time myself.)

            Comment


            • #36
              That's what I mean, Jonathan. WWD comes across like a fine gentleman. He seems to have done a lot of research and come to the best conclusions he can. Look at all the mistakes I still make with this subject matter and I have had an interest in the case for decades. Dr. Davies has had a lot of other activities in his life and I doubt learning the whole JtR case word for word is something he has or will be doing.

              I am involved on another forum, different subject matter, where an author working with family records has provided a new dimension to an old subject. Several of us on that forum have helped with peripheral research. I think it would be excellent if Dr. Davies' research continued and became part of the discussions here.

              I just drove hundreds of miles from yesterday to this evening and as I was driving I though a lot about what I know about 'The Real Mary Kelly' even though I don't have a copy yet. I kept working out various scenarios and what I really believe is WWD has valuable information. I just cannot at this time, believe Elizabeth is Mary and I could write pages of what I call "yeah, buts". Yeah, but...this or that... So why does it feel so close yet so far to me? I might even have an idea about that too.
              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

              Comment


              • #37
                easier

                Hello Robert.

                "And as for the identity of the Ripper, I think it is a side issue for him."

                That's good to know. His job will be MUCH easier in that case.

                Cheers.
                LC

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                  Debs, I think he's a fair-minded man. Also, I imagine that he wouldn't be heartbroken if it should transpire that his great-aunt did NOT suffer the fate of MJK. And as for the identity of the Ripper, I think it is a side issue for him.
                  Thanks, Robert.
                  Yes. I agree, he seems very fair minded.
                  As I said, I think it would be very difficult for anyone to prove what happened to Elizabeth Davies if she wasn't MJK. She isn't bound to have been helpful enough to include the name 'Weston' in any future documents that might help trace her and so her name and birthplace become exceedingly common.

                  I wonder if Wynne had felt some pressure to name the Ripper?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JMenges View Post
                    This was a sticky situation as items were continually being discovered that disproved some of the material in the book in the immediate days and hours before the show was to record. Most of which he had not seen until right before I hit 'record'. So how I asked him questions, and what I asked him- knowing he hadn't had the opportunity to review the research that was taking place both on and off the boards-without turing it into a "gotcha" podcast was a little tricky and caused me a not a little stress. Lucky for us he turned out to be a completely agreeable and open-minded guest who appreciated the extra research being done on Elizabeth. He could have easily been an author who would have just hung up on us as soon as I mentioned any errors.

                    JM
                    I think you handled it really well, Jonathon. I wouldn't have wanted to hear him being grilled over errors either. I was disappointed you didn't ask my Dr Bond question though-or did I miss it!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Davies did discuss Bond in the context of his theory about the medical evidence.
                      Best Wishes,
                      Cris Malone
                      ______________________________________________
                      "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        WWD does come across as an agreeable sort and although the book makes more certain claims - publishers invariably insist on this. He also writes well.
                        Nevertheless he was not challenged on a number of his claims. This does not have to be done in an aggressive or rude manner and he may have had answers.
                        I think that because he seems so pleasant and agreeable, people feel less inclined to cut to the chase.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by JMenges View Post
                          I'd actually like to have Ed on (and considered it for the WWD show, but it became a pain to organize), whether to talk just about Cross or cover other stuff as well. Christer too, but I am a fan of Ed's.

                          JM
                          A really good choice there - I´m a fan of his too!

                          But no matter who you go for, you will get the killer.
                          "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                            No WiFi in Happy Days, I suppose. I can just picture Christer standing on a table holding a saveloy aloft in an attempt to get some reception.
                            I did my military service as a radioman, throwing antennae up in forests and so on.
                            Strangely, I still cannot envisage myself in the role you describe.
                            And that´s not because I´m too short.
                            "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              In trying to trace EWD after 1884/5, we do indeed have many problems, as Debs said. Take marriage. Since I don't suppose she would have let bigamy stand in her way, we have the possibility that she may have re-married as Elizabeth Davies, Elizabeth Jones or Elizabeth Craig at any time from the mid-1880s.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cris Malone View Post
                                Davies did discuss Bond in the context of his theory about the medical evidence.
                                I was interested in his death certificate as WWD said on casebook he may order it to see if Bond's cause of death included that he was suffering pain caused by prostate cancer, as I found it said in the Westminster Hospital report in a memorial piece from 1902. WWD and some others I gather, suspect he had stricture of the urethra (from memory) caused by a venereal disease.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X