|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 6:18 am: | 
|
Hi Everyone,
Now I have reached the century of posts, I will continue on with a subject that I personally believe holds the answer to our mystery.
There is no doubt in my mind, after some thirty years following this case, that the answer to this mystery lies with Mary kelly.
There is a mass of facts that draw me to this conclusion, but I will state just a couple of points for now,
The quote from an elderly nun ; If it were not for the Kelly woman none of these murders would have happened; is an intresting statement, as it is obvious that that was the thought amongst people in that area at the time.
The spitting on her grave, is a vital peice of evidence, although people could say pure hearsay, I have strong beliefs this should be taking seriously , for it shows personal bitter hatred for kelly.
The removal of the heart, the massive disfigurement of her torso, is a indication of pure hatred.
Barnett Is a strong suspect, he can be nothing else, if he is innocent then it has to be somebody close to her that hated her intensely, a former lover, or a husband , or indeed a relation.
All other suspects to date in my mind have not convinced me , unless one of them can be proven to have known Kelly personally.
These are my thoughts..
Regards Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 7:31 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
Isn't it far more likely that the elderly nun was simply giving her own opinion, in much the same way that you are doing now? 'There is no doubt' in your mind that the answer lies with Kelly. In her mind there was no doubt about it either. The problem with her statement is what's missing from it. Anyone hearing it firsthand, and getting the impression that the nun knew more than she was saying, would have asked her what she meant and what information had led her to such a conclusion. We are left - as is so often the case - with the bit that sounds promising but doesn't deliver the goods. Ask yourself why the statement alone was remembered and passed down to us, yet not a sausage about what inspired it. Either the nun wouldn't reveal what she knew (in which case why say anything at all?) or what she knew, or believed, was not as noteworthy or memorable as the surviving statement.
Love,
Caz |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I should have explained that particular tale further.
A nun was interviewed by the BBC in 1972, and she said that when she was a young nun at the Dorset street convent around 1915, she remembered an elderly sister mentioning that. she obviously did not remember any details why that was the case.
Oral history mayby?.
But the fact remains,the nuns in the convent at the time of the murders or after, came to that conclusion, I trust you will agree that members of the holy order are unlikely to prejudge matters unless they believe that to be the truth.
I thought that this piece of imformation was worthy of mention, and might give an insight to why the murders occured.
Regards Richard. |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 6:53 pm: |
|
The problem, Richard, is it doesn't. It's only a bit of heresay evidence; it's a pity the nun did not remember any more so, at least, we could put it into context. We can only sit and wonder what all this meant (if, in deed, anything) and already we've got enough of things like that in the whole Ripper saga.
And as for members of holy orders prejudging "matters unless they believe that to be the truth"? Well I think the facts and history answer that one.
Cheers, Mark |
Daniel R
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 7:32 am: |
|
In the field of arcaheology (a practice I am currently majoring in at University) most professionals will not even consider a new idea or theory unless at least three separate pieces of evidence point towards this one trend.
This is exactly what Brian has brought forth; three separate pieces of evidence. Though they be laragely hearsay I am sure it is worth looking further, and giving his proposal consideration.
As he clearly states '...There is a mass of facts that draw me to this conclusion, but I will state just a couple of points for now.'
I am keen to hear what you have to say, as it would possibly indicate why there was such 'massive disfigurement of her torso.'
Though your major points would have to be substantiated further, you may be on to something very interesting. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for your post, apart from the nuns remarks. and the grave spitting , there is also the famous or infamous 39 theory which has been well documented on these boards. which points directly to Joseph Barnett, the very fact that Kelly resided at 26 Dorset Street , room 13, and he left her on the 30th oct killed 9th nov, also he moved in with her on the 9th april 87, left her on the 30th , also she was killed on the same day of the month, as he started to share his life with her, plus all the significance of the murder dates which all correspond with 39, all that and the leytonstone cemetary affair, and the Statement from Barnett to a relative many years later.; I always felt sorry for her killer , for he could never come forward for fear of being topped; suggests to me that this man has to be the prime suspect in being Jack The Ripper,
I hate to be repetitive on these boards , but name any other suspect that was present at Kellys funeral had a connection with the number 39 , with any victim, and who made a statement many years later, in a cryptic mannner.
I cannot find one , Barnett until proven otherwise has to be suspect number one...
Regards Richard. |
Daniel R
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 8:43 am: |
|
Richard,
i have noticed in other recent threads your physical comparisons b/w victims, suggesting perhaps that inital killings were a case of mistaken identity.
Are there any pre-murder scene photos of mary kelly? |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 113
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Hi Daniel,
I wish I could say yes , but alas no photo of kelly in one piece has ever been seen.
It would be intresting if we could compare her with profiles of the other victims, although I was not including her in my original idea.
The Kelly woman in my mind was the victim of Barnett, no one could have mistaken her , she was far younger and better looking then the other poor souls.
Richard. |
Kris Law
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Dear Richard,
I know this thread has been laying dead for a while, but hopefully you check up on it periodically, as i would be interested to hear more about the spitting on her grave story, as i have read nothing about it in any of the books i have read on the Ripper.
who spat? who told about the spitting? how long ago?
i'm fascinated to read about it. i haven't been through all the message boards as of yet, but i am going to search around for this piece of info right now, but hopefully i will be able to get the story from you.
For the record, i think you are right on the money regarding Kelly being the answer.
Kris |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 417
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 3:41 am: |
|
Hi Kris,
Thanks fot the post, I am glad you find that incident fascinating.
I believe it is the most damming peice of evidence against any ripper suspect,[ although only circumstancial]
The late Dan Farson, author and Tv presenter, was involved in a series of documentarys in 1959 called 'farsons guide to the British' the last two programmes were based on the Whitechapel murders of 1888. at the end of the second programme, he appealed for any information , that might have some bearing on the case , from the viewing audience.
He received hundreds of replies, as you can imagine, 95 per cent, were junk.
One letter, he however took seriously, it was from an elderly lady, who mentioned many years before, when she was young her mother had told her, that on the day of a victims funeral[ kellys]she and a friend[ at the time they were both teenagers]were attending a friends grave at Leyton cemetary, and they were close by to the service,and witnessed it, after the service, had finished, one man stayed behind, and when he believed himself to be alone, parted the boards with his feet, and spat down several times on the coffin.
The girls were horrified, and told nobody at the time , what they had witnessed, as they were scared that something would happen to them.
The fact is , at the actual service of Mary Kelly, there were 8 people present, six women, one priest, and Joseph Barnett, sketches made at the time clearly reflect that.
There was a large amount of people,outside the perimeter of St Patricks' but they were not allowed to file through , until the grave was mounted, and flowers placed.
If one visits the location of her grave, it becomes quite apparent, that the position of her site, is a blind spot to the front of the church and if someone was left alone for a short period, as Barnett may well have been, he could have carried out that deed, without being noticed[ or so he thought].
so there you have it Kris. If this event did actually take place, then Barnett is the only person it could have been, for nobody else could have parted the boards, because the public were not present until the grave was filled.
Can we rely on Farsons letter, from the woman, I have always maintained 'Yes' for it would not be common for a elderly lady , to tell lies about her long dead mother, and it would not be the type of conversation, that a mother would invent to tell her daughter, over a cup of tea......
I believe, that if the police knew of such an event taking place, on that grey depressing day in november 1888, then Mr Barnett, would have some more visits by the police
Regards Richard. |
Kris Law
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 9:32 am: |
|
Richard,
That is a fascinating and creepy story. I completely agree with you that its not the type of story that a mother would tell her daughter lightly, she surely must have seen that, and it stayed with her for her entire life. What a damning piece of evidence.
I've often thought that there must be hundreds of people out there with stories relating to the murders that we have never heard. Who knows what the other people living in Miller's Court knew but didn't tell the police or the press, people sometimes forget how tight-lipped these kinds of neighbourhoods can be.
Not to mention the fact that Kelly and the other women had families, who we haven't heard much from. There was that pamphlet about Annie Chapman which had photos of her from before the killings, which i believe were loaned out by her family, but surely someone out there must be related to Kelly and knows it. Did she really have a son? Where is his family now? What about her sisters and brothers? The stories they could have might be poppycock, but you never know. |
luxy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 10:50 am: |
|
Hello
And this one : J.B. testified (he was in shock) it was MJ's mutilated body in the bed because that was what he expected to find.
Some hours later he met the people who have seen MJ on the streets that Friday morning and he started to doubt whether he saw MJ's body or the remains of another woman. As time flows away he realised MJ could have been gone without leaving a single trace and he felt all his hopes were deceivedto gain MJ back.
That's why he probably spat on "her" coffin.
Regards
Luxy |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 9:38 am: |
|
Kris. I completely agree with you regarding unheard of stories relating to the JTR murders, whatever the source.
Even though It's a hundred and fifeteen years since the murders, lets hope that some of them are still to emerge.
It's not that far fetched to think that someone out there today might be fully aware of who commited these murders(i.e. a family member). What I ask would it take to induce them to come forward?
I once read that a leading policeman, i think it was Major Smith, was contacted by a member of the public who had information regarding the murders.
A rendevouz was arranged which Smith kept, and observed a man standing in the arranged place at the arranged time. However, upon approaching him, and remarking something to him the man walked off. Thus nothing transpired. Did this man really know something? Did the meeting really take place, was Smith bull****ing?
If the meeting really did take place Could the man have suspected a friend, a workmate, a family member of commiting these crimes? To go to the trouble of meeting Smith the man must have harboured a strong suspiscion.
If this incident did take place, I believe the man pulled out at the last minute because the person he suspected was someone close to him.
The question remains did he pass on his information to a family member? Has this information been passed down to the present date?
Is there some one out there today who is related to this man and possibly to JTR himself?
Far fetched? Who knows.
Could a similar scenario like the one above have happened, and there really is some one out there who knows the identity of JTR.
Cludgy.
|
Kris Law
Police Constable
Username: Kris
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 9:16 am: |
|
That's true. It's not even impossible that this man himself was Jack, although that seems unlikely.
The only thing at this point that would probably bring new stories out would be the prospect of money, but you invite all manner of lunacy out once you offer cash. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 217
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 11:25 am: |
|
I think it's quite likely that someone out there knows something, but imagine knowing your great grandfather was JTR. If you told people you would probably have to try to prove it and everyone would think it was hoax. Even if they believed you, all sorts of things could happen, just look at what some people did to James Maybrick's headstone when the diary came out.
Sarah |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 9:56 am: |
|
Kris you wrote.
. "The only thing at this point that would probably bring new stories out would be the prospect of money, but you invite all manner of lunacy out once you offer cash".
Like the Maybrick Dairy.
I hate to say this, as I know some people who contribute to these boards think that the Maybrick Dairy is genuine, but I think the Maybrick Dairy is a classic example of Cash for an apparent hoax.
Cludgy.
|
Kris Law
Police Constable
Username: Kris
Post Number: 9
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:39 am: |
|
Cludgy, you are totally right in my opinion.
And Sarah, you have a good point, not to mention the fact that you would have to live PUBLICLY with the fact your great grandfather brutally butchered innocent women. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Hi Sara  Money makes the world go around. If my great grandfather was jack the ripper and I had prove that was coclusive and that could stand up to scrutiny I would come forward. I would think the world needs to know. I feel that jacks victums could finally rest and what ever anyone would do to my grandfathers headstone he would deserve. There are less noble reasons proveing Cornwell wrong  and of course CHA-CHING the money from the book and movie rights. I dont think people would hold anyone responsible for the sins of a reletive Kris. I know I wouldn't and any way you would have your 15 minutes of fame and then become a foot note in history of course if someone did come forward we would have to pack up our laptops and move to the zodiac case.lol Take care CB. |
Angel
Police Constable
Username: Angel
Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 8:28 am: |
|
Hi all,
Just a thought... what if the nun wasn't referring to MJK but to Catherine Eddowes aka. Kate Kelly, when she supposedly made her statement "If it were not for the Kelly woman none of these murders would have happened"
Something strikes me odd about about the Eddowes murder, though I can't put my finger on it. Her mutilations are rearly discussed on these boards to the extent that MJK's are. Yet if we are to believe the time frame Jack had to work with in Catherine's case, he did an impressive job under difficult conditions when compared to the MJK scenario.
**Angel**
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 8:09 am: |
|
Hi Angel
Interesting point!! The propensity of Kellys in this whole thing get almost as confusing as the no of Mc Carthys!!and of course the 'relationships' there!
I know what you mean about the Kate murder,there is definately something that doesnt tie up there but what.......?If only we knew!
Cheers
Suzi |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 9:58 am: |
|
I would have thought that religious establishments - monasteries, convents etc, were among the worst places for gossip. I can imagine that nuns disliking MJK might have commented that she got no more than she deserved, and then that view being embroidered to her boing the cause. No proof, but I don't think any reliability can be put on a statement like that unless there is corroboration, and even then it should be used cautiously.
I assume you are all familiar with the message which arrived at Army HQ saying: "Send three and fourpence we are going to a dance". The original message had been, "Send reinforcements we are going to advance"!!!
Something such could all too easily have gone on here.
I agree wholly with the view that "evidence" should only be admitted where it has backing from 3 or more sources. I explored the Roswell (UFO) theory once and, befuddled by the confusing stories said to myself; "OK, I'll use only what is confirmed by at least TWO sources."
I didn't get very far, because under that spotlight, there WAS no evidence. Just a web of hearsay, allegation, rumour and speculation. THAT is what much of the JtR material is.
take the "spitting on the grave" story - a great story full of import - but unsubstantiated and based on inference. We CANNOT TELL at this remove how many people might have attended MJK's funeral, let only conjecture who the culprit might be. this is a spider's web of supposition, nothing more.
We don't know who told the story originally, where they got it from, whether they even knew the people involved. It would not be the first anecdote to transfer itself from one event to another. (The FAR better documented story of "The east End Murderer I knew him", illustrates this.)
It is not a question of distrusting oral history, or doubting the bona fides of anyone. it is about evidence and being consistent in applying rules.
To conclude, I recall Bernard Levin, in the 70s in The Times writing about oral history. It appears that in 1912, 100 years after the Battle of Borodino, the Russian authorities tried to find anyone still alive who might have fought there. It was a time when many Georgians claimed to be well over 100. At last they found a man who said he had been a 12 year old drummer boy during the great battle. He told them all about it. "And did you see Napoleon?" they asked at last. "Oh yes!" came the reply, "he was a big blond man on a white horse!"
It's not to say the boy lied, he might have seen Marshal Murat, or Ney, and he may have been genuinely mistaken, but he was wrong!! I would apply the same logic to the nuns and the spitting unless there is adequate and relevant corroboration.
Just my view, of course,
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
As i was the one who started the 'Nuns account' and the 'Grave spitting' I Feel i should reply.
First of all the nun that appeared on the Barlow/ Watt tv presentation in the early seventies was a authentic nun of the holy order , not a actress, she simply relayed what she was told some 57 years earlier when a novice.
The person who relayed the sentence'If it was not for that kelly woman , none of these murders would have happened' was a then elderly nun who was present in Dorset street at the time of the murders.
Fair point that gossip comes into this, however she must have had some insight that gave her that opinion.
Regarding the grave spitting incident. we should remember that this imformation was not availiable in a public sense until 1959 , and if one takes the wording of the letter as accurate, it becomes clear by taking all the FACTUAL evidence we have surrounding the funeral that the only possible person that could have committed that act was Barnett, as the only two men present at the actual service were Father columbran and Joseph Barnett.
Taking the wording of the letter, we can also denote that the grave was filled and flowers mounted before any of the public were allowed to filter through,so that it would have been impossible for any of theose people to have parted the boards, simply because they were not then there.
I Personally believe that the grave spitting scenerio is the most important evidence whether it is considered circumstancial or not, that we have to date,
it should be taking seriously , Dan Farson did, to include it in his seventies publication. and Associated Rediffusion were even comtemplating doing a further episode of Farsons Guide to the British with that episode analysed.
Unfortunately a few sacks of mail which included all the informants imformation went missing from the office they were in, and it all fell through.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:57 pm: |
|
And that is so often the way with such hearsay evidence.
How much of the Roswell "evidence" is not around because it was "gathered up" or "went missing". And when stories are thoroughly investigated, there are other explanations, or important details cast doubt on what had seemed a good story.
Don't get me wrong, I would not seek to deny that these stories (nun/spitting) add colour and supply potential leads, but to erect a theory (say of Barnett's guilt) on them, is to build on VERY shaky foundations (IMHO).
The fact that the nun was genuine, spoke sincerely or not, she was relaying a story she was told my an elderly woman (the quality of who's memory, and who's motivation is unknowable) many years after the event. there is room for so much confusion and embroidery in that time.
It is just not good evidence, and would stand up in no court or academic thesis.
Surely we must have some standards. To me they would be that stories of this kind can add detail if we have more facts, but unsubstantiated as they are, they could mislead as much as guide.
If either story had been reported by the person who reported Druitt's inquest, how much value would you place on what was said? And that report was published and thus is frozen in time - and is verifiably contemporary with the events - yet it leaves much unsaid, almost certainly gets dates wrong, and does not give the name of the deceased!!
Yet that is better "evidence" than either of the stories you cite, IMHO.
Phil |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Urban Legends.....
My grandmother lived very close to where the Moors Murders we're commited......you would hardly believe the stories we heard....and was largely responsible for my interest in crime even from being very young.
Years later,when researching the actual crimes for a paper I was doing, my mind wandered back to her 'tales' of the evil killers that bore absoloutly no realtion to the real crimes or to Brady & Hindley.
Jack the Ripper IS an urban legend,especially in and around London, a bogeyman of whom tales were told to frighten children.Everyone had an aunt or an uncle who 'saw him one night with his evil grin' etc. Personally I would have taken what the nun said with a pinch of salt but the spitting on the grave........that is interseting. |
Joe Dawson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 12:36 am: |
|
What if the nun had little or no special information but rather had followed the stories and concluded (as many here have) that Eddowes and/or MJK had special significance to the killer? As an elderly nun her "informed opinion" would have meant much to a novice.
As to the killer being known by someone today, several friends or family members are said to have committed someone in Buthers Row (perhaps the "other" Kosminski) and Druit's family is supposed to have suspected him. Have relations of either of these men been located? |
S.R
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 11:33 pm: |
|
What if the nun in question was Jack the Ripper - that could explain a hell of a lot? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
