|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 609
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 7:35 am: |       |
Hi Richard,
Any idea why a guilty Joe would have felt the overwhelming need to spit on Mary’s grave after what he had already done to her? Why pis* into the wind when you’ve just been responsible for the ultimate storm? Bit of a limp afterthought, isn’t it?
In short, if he didn’t do everything humanly possible on 9th November, by way of expressing the extreme displeasure you claim he felt towards Mary, he obviously wasn’t trying hard enough.
“And here’s another thing, you r-r-r-rotten c-c-c-cow – take that! Hhhhoik!”
Love,
Caz
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1822
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 7:49 am: | |
Reminds me a little of Lamb's schoolmaster :
"I've a good mind to thrash you within an inch of your life!"
(LEAVES ROOM AND COMES BACK HALF AN HOUR LATER)
"And I will!"
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 237
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
Dan
My Father was a mason..sure I have dreams..but they're not (on the whole traumatic!)
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 977
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
"If so, well, then you recklessly traumatized everyone who read this thread by posting such psychologically damaging information here, and we should all sue you for therapy bills."
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 247
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Glenn
What??? where lies the trauma..fathers...masons or dreams??
  
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 980
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
I am sorry. I was in a hurry; that was a quote from Dan regarding Richard's spitting incident and his reasoning about the traumatic experience of the funeral. I think Dan had a point here; I for my part have a really hard time trying to grasp Richard's point about the trauma. Why would a coiple of teenage girls find the Kelly funeral traumatic and how does this lead to the spitting incident? I don't get it, and I agree with Dan's objections to it. It wasn't directed to you, Suzi.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 12, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 249
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 6:13 pm: | |
Good!
Have been fiddling about putting a photo onto my profile!! Like yours!
Suzi |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 169
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 10:11 pm: | |
Richard,
The basic problem with the "Grave spitting" evidence is that it is not reported until years later. The event, as described, conflicts with the contemporary report posted by Alex. Finally, the quote does not finger Barnett as you suggest in the opening post of this entire thread but if we take it as "fact" it clears him of being the grave spitter.
When did the spitting occur (if it did)? After the morners have left. Barnett was one of the morners. Who did the spitting? A man who stayed behind. I have previously posted this implies the priest is the spitter (the one man who is not a morner), but that was with tongue firmly in cheek. However, what the person is telling us is that a man, who was not one of the morners, stayed behind and spat on the grave. They specifically say the morners left, and Barnett was one of the morners. So, he's gone when the spitting is supposed to have occured. What is described is some fellow, not part of the ceremony, who's hanging around until everyone has left who goes over and spits on the grave. If the fellow who spat was one of the morners, then the quote would be something like "When the ceremony was over, the women left and the man stayed behind... etc". By using the indefinate "a man", the quote separates the man from the morners (meaning, not one of them - not one of the morners, and though technically one could then finger the priest, even that is unlikely as the use of "a man" suggests "someone not of the funeral party").
Anyway, as the contemporary report indicates that the filling in was observed by a small crowd of people, this indicates that our "years later story of spitting" should not be viewed as anything more than folklore, with no evidential value what-so-ever.
- Jeff
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 572
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 3:15 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
As far as I can asertain is, the mourners consisted of six women, at least one of them representing McCarthy, and Barnett.
A Total of seven , add on Father Columbran eight.
There would have been a small gathering of reporters, hence the sketches close by, also the grave fillers, the public, would have been confined to the outer perimeter of the church, and would from that position been unable to see the actual service, also people attending graves in the cemetary, were allowed to remain.
My point is after the actual service was completed, out of respect for Barnett, if he requested a moment of privacy, the six women, and priest, and any other close by persons, would have moved away, leaving him alone with his thoughts.
The specific words , used by Farsons imformant, does not mean anything , but after the service one man stayed behind.
As for the statement, a small crowd of onlookers, witnessed the grave filling, i agree, proberly so, but at that time , Barnett, would have left and joined the rest of the party.
If you visit her burial site,and you are standing with your back to the church, you would be not be observed by, the people outside of the church, nor would you be observed from people standing behind you, waiting for you to finish your last respects.
But you could be observed from the side , or from the front.
Folklaw, is of course a possibility, but remember this incident, was reported to have taken place at Leytonstone, and the funeral of Kelly, not any of the other victims, and as one of the current suspects was in attendence, we should not dismiss this account without a lot of thought.
Richard.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 618
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I just don’t see Mary’s killer having any desire to spit on her grave, assuming he had done all he needed to do to destroy her as a person by the time he left her room, including removing her heart. To the murderer, it would have been merely a broken object in that grave – a piece of meat at most - intentionally and irrevocably robbed of anything that gave it the human capacity, alive or dead, to ever again provoke his contempt. To him it would be like wasting emotion on a pork chop.
For any other observer, the woman in the grave would no doubt retain enough humanity to allow for a final gesture of disapproval for the kind of life she led. For Jack, such a gesture would be akin to an admission that he had failed to remove all the traces, despite his best efforts.
So it doesn’t work for me whatever the truth is. If Joe was the spitter, I think it could actually argue against him having been the butcher.
And if Joe didn’t do the spitting, or if no one did any spitting at all, it wouldn’t help clear him of suspicion, but then it wouldn’t have to if we could accept that the police did their job properly at the time and didn’t miss any evidence against him.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 13, 2004) |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 170
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
Richard,
If the words of the story teller don't matter, then what does? Is it the fact that one of the infinite number of ways to interpret this ambiguous (and most likely fanciful) statement can be used to provide evidence against Joe Barnett? I know Joe is your fav. suspect and all, but there's a difference between finding evidence that points to guilt and evidence you can "make" point to guilt. The latter is indended to imply you can also "make" the same evidence point to innocence, as we have with this grave spitting evidence. First, the story is unverified by any other source and second it contradicts contemporary reports. These two problems suggest the story is not of a "real" event, and there's nothing solid to suggest otherwise. There's only the intangible possibility arguement (it's possible it's true) to put up against the tangible (we have a written account from the time, etc). This opens the gate to the possiblility that the "man" was not a man but a large shaved monkey (and I see there are even stories now that are backing up my monkey stories; I see we have a Jack the Monkey thread now. Honest, I had nothing to do with that! ha!)
Anyway, if we ignor the "reality" problem (is the event described real or not), then we have the problem that the statement is ambiguous enough that the spitter could be 1) one of the morners 2) the priest 3) a person separate from the funeral party; in other words, the only thing we can be sure of is that the spitter was male.
Mind you, with the Pearly Poll was a man notion that was floating around awhile back, since the story tellers didn't see the man uninate into the grave, maybe we can't even be sure it was a man; maybe it was a women dressed as a man!
Anyway, the statement doesn't finger Barnett any more than it does the priest or some other male not part of the funeral party. So this story is not evidence against Barnett. And Barnett being at Mary's funeral is not surprising; Barnett being at any of the other funerals would have been but nothing indicates that he did attend them.
Anyway, combine the fact that evidence points to the story as a fable with the fact that it doesn't single out any particular male, trying to use this as clear evidence that Barnett spit upon Mary Kelly's grave is not a good idea. And if this is the best evidence against Barnett so far (as you imply in the opening post of this thread by calling it the most crucial piece of evidence), if there's nothing better than this grave spitting then Barnett is looking more and more innocent all the time.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 576
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
The Ripper case is a baffling one, people have there own opinions [ rightly so].
Opinions vary, depending on ones experience, some people read one or two books, and consider a suspect or two, and are totally convinced of their guilt.
Others tend to look for more concrete evidence , before they can form an opinion, but alas all the evidence to date is now present.
I without hopefully not sounding pompous, have analyzed every aspect of this case for countless years, and the basic facts that we know of, lead us absolutely nowhere .
Hearsay ,or oral history, or folk law, call it what you like, is vital in order to dive deeper into the case, because it is likely that the answer lies within.
I am amazed, that the suggestion of a spitting incident, is so readily dismissed, I Would say, that if , and I must stress if, an incident did occur, and Associated Rediffusion, back in 59, considered it a worthy Tv programme, and Farson recalls this specific incident, some 14 years later in his book, we should not readily dismiss it.
There is a well known lyric in a song 'Little things mean a lot'
I consider, that true, and most of us are guilty of trying to be to clever.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 255
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
Richard
I think you're right!...too much minutia (or should that be too many!!) spit or no spit..we can be sure that the funeral was conducted,the people (vaguely listed) were there and then they left...as far as I can see (apart from the name of the priest and the church) is all that we can be sureof 100%
Well?
All best
Suzi |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 7:12 pm: | |
Richard,
"Hearsay ,or oral history, or folk law, call it what you like, is vital in order to dive deeper into the case, because it is likely that the answer lies within."
First off, I have to doubt that the "answer" is to be found in oral history, folklore, etc. But even in the off chance that it is, with so much of it, how will we know the right answer from the 100s of wrong ones?
Conclusions formed based on sources as dubious as your 3rd hand spitting story prove nothing and get us nowhere closer to an answer. But somewhere in the vast collection of oral tradtion, folk lore, etc we can find SOMETHING to support virtually ANYONE as the Ripper.
Such sources should always be treated with extreme caution, and never given too much weight.
Regards,
John |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 986
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 7:18 pm: | |
Well said, John.
You beat me to it, and you said it a great deal better than I ever could have. I agree 100%.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 171
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 11:14 pm: | |
Richard,
I'm not sure examination of the data gets us nowhere. In fact, I suspect it will get us quite a long way. The difference, I suspect, is that I don't think getting to the point where we name JtR is the only valid destination. That might be the "ultimate goal", much like checkmate is the "ultimate goal" in chess. But, just as in chess, each step of the way must be made carefully and there are often sub-goals and more immediate problems that must first be solved before reaching the final move.
One of the biggest problems is not so much the lack of information but the overwhelming amount of "mis-information" that surrounds this case. Authors have presented us with all sorts of unfounded statements, "facts" that are not "facts at all" but rather conjecture and speculation phrased as if they are facts.
It is because of these tall tales, that are often much more interesting reading than physical descriptions, examinations of things like "how long does it take for blood to clot after death?" (apparently between 5 and 15 minutes but in some cases of sudden violent death the blood will not clot at all even after a few hours: see Crime library report on the web concerning Lizzie Borden. I've only just read this and don't know how authoritative this information is).
Anyway, let's say this 5-15 minutes is accurate. In Stride's case, when she was found, the blood was still flowing and had not clotted yet. The doctor, or a police officer, later states that clot was beginning to form. These statements would start to put her murder very close to the time she was found, and may have implications on the most common "interuption" theory; the pony cart scares away the killer, etc. This is just one example of how looking at contemporary statements about the state of the physical evidence, and applying modern information, might impact upon some very important questions. Like, was Stride a Ripper victim? No, this doesn't prove she was, and I'm not saying it should be viewed that way, but what it does do is suggest the "interuption theory" is plausible given the blood-clotting evidence.
Anyway, long before we start trying to fit the less reliable pieces, we have to first sort out the reliable ones. If it turns out that the best we can do is identify who the victims are, what evidence is related to the case, what is not, and who is not JtR, but cannot determine who JtR was, well, so be it. I see no benefit to picking a name if that name only gets picked because we only look at the data with an eye to make the data fit the person.
That's why the grave spitting incident gets ignored. It's an unreliable and unsupported pieces of information that, when looked at, a most tells us a man spit on Mary Kelly's grave. It isn't clear if the man was or was not part of the funeral party, and therefore if we make the leap that the man who spits is JtR all we can say is that JtR was a man.
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1847
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 5:14 am: | |
Hi Jeff
Re the properties of blood, Shannon's made an interesting argument about the Kelly murder, in which he claims that the murder must have occurred in daylight hours, because otherwise the blood would all have dried up by the time the room was entered. It'll be on one of the (innumerable) Barnett threads.
Welcome back, by the way.
Robert |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 167
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 5:27 am: | |
I heard the funeral of Mary Kelly was held at Spittlefields churchyard.
Surely, it would be easier for a mourner at the neighbouring funeral to sneek across and lob a dirty great "golly' down between the boards?
Others would have looked back at a lingering official mourner, and he could be observed from
the adjoining funeral anyway.
I suggest the grave be opened and DNA gathered from the depths.
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 172
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 2:19 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the welcome. Things were busy with exam marking and other end of term things. We're now into summer in NZ, and a nice one it is so far, so I was holidaying as well.
Anyway, will have a look for Shannon's blood arguement about the Kelly murder, but I would think the bed would be wet, though blood on the floor might have dried? Wish I knew for sure, but these are the sorts of things that require some kind of experiment (you know, pour some blood around and measure how long it takes to dry up, etc).
- Jeff
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 193
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 2:22 pm: | |
imagine he did spit on the grave (i don't know!!!)
does this make him JTR hardly in itself proof?
jennifer |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 278
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
Jeff
Have fun with that experiment!!..hope the old bill don't just pay a chance visit while you're in mid-experiment!!
Jennifer
O.K. maybe somebody did or didn't spit..can't help that think that in many quarters mary perhaps wasn't the most popular girl around..could have been anyone ..maybe just a grave digger/filler-in with an unpleasant habit!
Cheers
Suzi |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 7:54 pm: | |
Richard wrote:
"Hearsay ,or oral history, or folk law, call it what you like,"
Folklore! LORE, not law.
I don't normally feel the need to correct your mistakes in word choice, grammar or punctuation, but as a member of the American Folklore Society it's kind of my sworn duty to get people to say it right.
If it were Folk LAW, I'd be obligated to arrest you for murdering it so thoroughly.
"is vital in order to dive deeper into the case, because it is likely that the answer lies within."
If that's your position, I suggest reading through Beowulf, the collected legends of Robin Hood and The Encyclopedia of Fairies in order to further your research.
And if you come back and say that Jack the Ripper was obviously basing his kills on Jack the Giant Killer, well, at least it will be new nonsense instead of the same old nonsense. |
Vladimir
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 4:47 am: | |
Richard,
You said "I without hopefully not sounding pompous, have analyzed every aspect of this case for countless years, and the basic facts that we know of, lead us absolutely nowhere ."
Is that a double negative, Freudian slip?   }
(Joke, that is why smiley is there)
You also said,
"I am amazed, that the suggestion of a spitting incident, is so readily dismissed, I Would say, that if , and I must stress if, an incident did occur, and Associated Rediffusion, back in 59, considered it a worthy Tv programme, and Farson recalls this specific incident, some 14 years later in his book, we should not readily dismiss it."
Well, if being on TV were the end-all-be-all of who JTR (by the evidence given on the TV) should we think that Stephen Knight had it right. I mean wasn't there a BBC special based on his work?
Now is he right? Or you right? Both are on TV?
All I know is that we have to WORK to make the evidence fit the suspect, I think we need to move on to new evidence. (Or a new suspect)
Hope the book is coming along nicely.
Vlad |
Avril Ford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 9:40 pm: | |
Richard
The spitting incident is so "readily dismissed" because no one can prove it happend. If all you have to go on is a 3rd hand account then why dismiss the Royal Conspiricy theory or the statements given by Mr Crowley. All 3rd hand accounts and by your logic all perfectly visable. |
|
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