|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 181
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:19 pm: |       |
But when you get there Glenn, you'll be Assistant Commissioner Anderson. You're not a doctor by any chance are you?
Leanne, I understand your comments about newcomers, but on the other hand even though I have been posting here since August I still feel like a newcomer myself. I know some very annoying people come here just to tell us all what idiots we are because we don't realise that Cornball/Edwards etc have already solved the case, but some of them stick around and have something useful to contribute.
Glenn, I'm going to object to James Kelly's omission, particularly as he is the candidate I am closely looking into right now. And (although I know it will annoy at least one person on this thread) I would consider him a far more credible candidate than Barnett, Maybrick, Sickert, Tumblety, the Prince or Gull and his cronies. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1322
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:29 pm: | |
Hi Alan
I keep meaning to read up on Kelly again, as it's some time since I read the book. Any certified lunatic has to be worth a look.
PS Once Glenn becomes Asst Cmmr, watch out for your sandwiches.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 707
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 10:50 pm: | |
Robert, Leanne,
Oh boy! You guys are beautiful. So kissing up and corruption didn't work with any of you either. 
I'm about to grasp the idea that I'll never see those extra £500 000 for my department budget. Well, there goes those extra 200 PC:s in Spitalfields for sure...
"'Walter Sickert' and 'The Royal Conspiracy' is just to keep newcomers happy. People still come here for the first time and want to know why they aren't favoured"
Well yes, that's why I thought they should be there. I don't favour any of them the slightest bit, but I believe they would be expected to be included by quite a number of people. However, I must admit I wouldn't miss them...
It could very well be that Wolf and a few others would like Cutbush to be included. But is he really that widely discussed or well known? Could be that I am mistaken, though. As I said, I haven't got the hang of all the suspects yet, but still...
Alan,
OK. I didn't know you you were into Kelly. But I'll ask the same question here as I did regarding Cutbush. Is he really among those that have most actuality and are debated to that extent, then? I'm just asking, because I really don't know. But I don't think the issue in this context was which suspect that was the most credible one, but who were the more debated and central ones, and I can't remember ever seeing James Kelly that central in that respect (even though he very well may be credible), but if I am wrong, I'll take that back.
Most suspects here have a certain number of followers, and if that was the issue, then the whole idea of parting the central characters from the other additional ones would fall to pieces, since everybody has someone they favour and that should be considered. Who is going to decide which ones that are credible and those who aren't, then? I for my part don't have a favourite suspect.
It was just a suggestion, anyway.
"But when you get there Glenn, you'll be Assistant Commissioner Anderson. You're not a doctor by any chance are you?"
No I'm not a doctor, just Master of Arts. But please, you may very well call me "Sir".
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 413
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:07 pm: | |
Robert Glenn, Leanne et.al.,
I will accept the position of Colney Hatch lunatic under restraint, if Leanne will agree that the case against Barnett MIGHT not stand up in court.
All The Best
Gary
(She has to agree to that much as I have thrown in a qualifier.) |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 184
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 2:05 am: | |
Glenn,
I could make him more central. Every now and then I will finish a post by saying "but from what I have learned about Kelly....  .... it'll be in the book!"
(Sorry Leanne  ) |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 2:53 am: | |
G'day Alan,
Why bother spending all that time writing a book, if you discuss all the points you raise and the material you research before the book is out?????
I've had to bite my tongue so many times, it's numb! 
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 426
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 3:02 am: | |
Hi,
I Second that,
Leanne , and myself could start lots of intresting threads, and discussions would be in abundance, however, that would be rather unprofessional, in the circumstances.
Richard. |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 10:56 pm: | |
Guys, I see no way that the suspect list could be in any other order than alphabetical.
We all change focus as we gain knowledge or someone says something that changes our perspective. For instance, my first candidate from the "list" was Barnett. I haven't totally excluded him yet, but I, in my heart, still believe it is someone either known to us fragamentarily or not known at all.
Keep it alphabetical is my opinion, for the two shiny farthings it worth.
Billy |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 185
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 6:50 am: | |
Well I did say I was going to annoy at least one person on this thread. My work here is done. (Sorry guys, I was only yanking your chain. I'm actually really looking forward to the book so hurry up and get the thing finished!) |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 709
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 1:19 pm: | |
Hi all,
Yes, I do believe keeping it alphabetically is the best thing, since it's obvious that there will always be someone who'll be annoyed over the fact that "their" suspect is not included among the important ones. I expected that to happen. So I think there could be some problems with it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 939
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 3:53 pm: | |
G'day,
Well if you want to keep it alphabetically, why isn't Donald Duck up there?....'Quack the Ripper!'
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 22, 2003) |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 81
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 6:02 am: | |
I must have missed a thread here, what was the other option for the order of the suspects? Just out of interest?
Stephen,
I am not sure if you are aware but the spell checker seems to have gone haywire. I keep spelling don't as odn't (no idea why) and the spell checker has been picking up on this until today when it seemed to think it was a real word. Just thought you should know. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 3:00 am: | |
Is it possible to think about changing some settings to make each page of messages shorter? Probably 90% or more of my visits (and I suspect most other people's) are to check new messages, and things would be much speedier if there were shorter pages (obviously this would mean more archive pages).
Actually, I think the ideal would be for the current page of each thread to be short, but archives pages to be longer (i.e. several "current" pages archived into each "archive" page). But I realise the software may not have this degree of flexibility.
Chris Phillips
|
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 352
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 9:10 am: | |
I second Chris' idea . . . sometimes I come on to catch up and feel like I should just print full pages out and read them on the train . . .
-K |
carl burrows
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 5:31 am: | |
Hi Leanne,Glenn and all,
I missed this thread when most points were made a while back,I hope I'm not too late to add my 2 pence.
I disagree on the point of seperating the messege boards into the popular and not so popular.
what about into 2 catagories the probables and the improbables, in which the likes of Gull,Maybrick,Sickert,Jill the ripper,Prince Eddy etc would fit quite nicely.
In the probables, I would welcome more information and exploration of lesser known suspects such as kelly, Bury, Cutbush, Hutchinson,Thompson, Levy,Kosminski,La Bruckman etc
I visit this site most days and get tired of most threads turned into a Joe Barnet discussion, Joe has been covered quite comprehensively recently and it would be nice to try and learn more on the other less known suspects and who knows try and fill in a few more blanks to the case.... |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 658
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 8:53 pm: | |
Actually I prefer the convenience of being able to read several messages at once. The pages used to be 40 messages long each. I think 25 is an acceptable compromise. There are many threads that have more than that posted in a single afternoon and it would be annoying to have to switch to archive and current threads to keep up.
If you only want to read single posts, you can subscribe to the email feature which sends you copies of each post.
(Message edited by ally on June 23, 2004)
 |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 250
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 10:55 pm: | |
I'm with you, Ally,
I think twenty five back messages is a manageable number (rather than forty) but I can see Chris Phillip's point.
However, after consideration I must vote for the 'staus quo'.It's not too bad as is.
Interesting point by Carl Burrows. But once again, one persons hot suspect is another person's Joseph Barnett.......Who has the unenviable job of sorting them into VIP JTRs and "OTHERS"? |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 94
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 8:37 am: | |
Hi all,
I like the status quo as well but I have a pretty quick connection, so if those with slower connections wanted change, I might support it, for the greater good.
I thought I might float an idea I just had earlier today. I was going through some old threads on Annie Chapman and came across three seperate occasions where people were discussing their relationship (or believed relationship) to her. Anyway I thought it might be interesting and possibly informative to have a specific guestbook page where people who think they might be related to someone in the JtR story could sign and request information on their ancestors. I think as a community we might gain some great new information from such a page. It would also be a good place to see how some casebook regulars are related to people in history. Until today I knew Andy & Sue Parlour were related to someone, but not who or how. If a guestbook existed then the first time I had come across a reference to some sort of relationship I could have checked to see exactly what it was.
What does everyone think?
Scotty. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 915
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hi Scotty,
Great idea, although I would suggest that it would be an open invitation for hoaxers, to spin a yarn or two.
I live in hope that someone out there in computerland, could hold the key to this mystery, there must be ancestors of every victim around, albeit proberly not aware that one of their past relations was a victim of jack, however one never knows....
Richard. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 97
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Yes, I haven't been here long enough to tell how much of an issue that might be. I did think about it but I also thought of the possibility of one day turning up a photo of Mary Jane Kelly in life and thought it might be worth it.
(Message edited by Scotty on June 24, 2004)
Scotty. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 911
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 9:47 am: | |
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Hopeful though Scott!!!! hardly likely though unless Mary was in the background of something or other!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 23
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
If we could find her family member that was on the stage, or a photo of her brother who served in the army we might just get somewhere. I've tried but not found a scoobie.
Busy Beaver. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 107
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 2:05 am: | |
Hi Suzi,
I don't see it as so unlikely that one of these family members might have a photograph. Family photos tend to get passed down through generations. We have photos of Annie Chapman now in life, why not others?
Scotty. |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 26
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 4:45 am: | |
Photographs were probably an expensive commodity. I've often asked my dad, why we don't have pictures of my gt gt grandparents, who would have been alive in the 1880's to have their photo's taken. My dad replied- "People where too poor back then, to afford that sort of thing". However,I'm trying hard to prove him wrong. Another thing that happened was when people moved or died, family tended to throw everything out, such as paper work and photos- they couldn't be bothered going through the hassle of searching through drawers. Only things that they could see such as furniture, vases, knick-knacks or photos hanging on a wall survived.
Busy Beaver |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 3:38 am: | |
Hi Busy Beaver,
1888 saw the introduction of the first mass produced roll film camera, by the Kodak company. Because of this you may find that any family "snaps" will be after this date, whilst anything before will be more likely taken in a portrait studio.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 113
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 10:25 pm: | |
Hi all,
Just to clarify, photos would be only one possible type of useful information that we might discover, some of our more active investigators would relish the opportunity to flesh out a bit more of a family tree or merely clarify suppositions as fact. the flip side is that we as a community can do the same in return for our guest. I see it as a win win situation.
Scotty. |
Robert J. McLaughlin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 6:02 am: | |
Within the last few years photographic portraits have gradually been diminishing in price, until at the present time they have become a regular article of street commerce.
In the eastern and southern districts of London, such as in Bermondsey, the New-cut, and the Whitechapel-road, one cannot walk fifty yards without passing some photographic establishment, where for sixpence persons can have their portrait taken, and framed and glazed as well.
Taken from Mayhew's London (1851)
By the 1870's, the number of photographers in the Ease End had declined from Mayhew's day, but they were still plentiful when one looks through the Kelly's Directories. The poor could afford photographs - how else did the local photographers survive?- and would often have pictures taken on special occasions such as weddings, and even the death of a loved one.
The possibility of a Mary Kelly photograph turning up is remote. If she had her picture taken in life, how would one recognise it today? The same problem exists regarding more mortuary photographs of the Whitechapel victims and Kelly at Miller's Court. Unless labelled, they could easily be dismissed or overlooked. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 120
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 8:18 am: | |
Hi Robert,
Great post, thanks for that info.
I agree entirely, we could have every photo of people in the east end of London in the decade 1878 - 1888 in our possession and still be staring blankly at unknown faces. That is why my suggestion refers to people who may be ancestors of people associated with the case. Only through these people might we be able to identify that, for example, this old photo handed down for generations and reported to be that of Great Great Aunty Mary might actually be the Mary. Mary is just the example I use it could be anyone associated with the case.
Scotty. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 932
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 1:10 pm: | |
Hi,
It has been stated that there is a picture of Barnett ,kelly, and brother Dan in the safe keeping of scotland yard, although I would doubt of such a existance.
If there was that would be rather special.
Richard. |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 36
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
There was someone on these boards whose father, I think, was invited to the Scotland Yard Black Museum, mayby they could tell us. Sorry I cannot remember who did the post.
Busy Beaver  |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 44
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
Wow, would it be amazing to find that picture of Joe, Dan, and Mary. I can't even explain. I don't think anybody would be able to. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 121
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 2:17 am: | |
To back up my thoughts I notice that a lady by the name of Sharon Eddowes has started a thread in the last couple of days hoping that someone here may be able to help her with her family tree. It seems likely that she is somehow related to Catherine somehow, probably distantly. Great that she had the courage to start a thread, I just wonder if some others are not so courageous and might slip through the cracks.
Scotty. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 6:37 am: | |
A question to mr Ryder.
I want to upload some images to the Casebook, but don't know whether they will be too large.
Are you capable of sizing them up for proper display. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page