Talk:Mary Pearcey

Untitled

I see I forgot to sign this. Sorry! J S Ayer

May 2006 DNA articles

In May 2006, a number of articles were run in newspapers around the world saying, in essence, "envelopes letters believed to be from Jack the Ripper were tested for DNA and seem to have been sealed by a woman. Mary Pearcey is the only widely recognized female suspect." Editor Victrix removed all references to this, saying "news coverage over the DNA test results has been thoroughly awful, printing things that are simply false... removed bad info taken directly from this example of poor journalism."

It may be that the articles are erroneous, but I think it is wrong to simply delete the reference because an editor disagrees with it. Instead, present competing sources and argue for their superiority. I will revert the text to include the DNA discussion, recognizing that it may need improvements. Uucp 03:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And reverted back to remove false and pointless info.

Modern newspaper coverage of anything related to Jack the Ripper is pretty much always terrible sources of information, as they go for what sounds dramatic over what is actually correct. Sources on equal footing should have info from both posted so that the reader can choose and decide, but in this case the books are far superior and news reports are just not at all acceptable as reliable sources.

For example, the claim that Pearcey was the only female Ripper suspect named is just wrong. Mary Kelly herself has been suggested as having been the Ripper, as well as the alleged female Russian agent whose name escapes me because it's just some nonsense some nobody came up with.

As far as finding some DNA on a letter that showed female traits... uh, so what? These letters were not held as crime scene evidence and protected over the century, any number of people have been able to access and handle the originals at the archives and could have left their DNA on it. Patricia Cornwell being the most obvious possibility. There's nothing to indicate that this unknown female wrote the letter, and absolutely no reason to think that the person who did write the letter was Jack the Ripper.

It's complete and utter nonsense, so much so that it isn't even discussed on the Jack the Ripper article. Listing it here as if it in any way had anything to do with Mary Pearcey is ridiculous.

Sorry, but that's why they have multiple people edit this encyclopedia. Victrix 00:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In May 2006, Mary Pearcey was discussed in the Daily Mail (London), Sunday Mail (Glasgow, Scotland), The Mirror (Ireland and U.K. editions), The Herald (Glasgow), Belfast Telegraph, Hobart Mercury (Australia), The Independent (London), and the AAP Newsfeed (Brisbane), some more than once. I would be glad to e-mail you the text of every one of the articles. You may have issues with some of the conclusions in these articles, but deleting any mention to them is inappropriate. Your declaration that they are "complete and utter nonsense" is nothing but POV. I have added a discussion of the 2006 press and removed an inappropriate assertion in the article that Pearcey was insignificant. Uucp 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Russian text

The four lines of Russian that were briefly part of this article say, "Mary Pearcey in 1890 with exceptional cruelty murdered the wife and little daughter of her lover. She was arrested practically at once; the murderess had walked the night streets, pushing before her a baby carriage not her own. Investigation showed that she suffered from epilepsy and amnesia. She had killed, and remembered nothing about it." J S Ayer (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)