|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jenny
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 5:08 pm: | 
|
Personally I beleive James Kelly is Jack the Ripper due to the fact that he escaped from the insane sylam (sorry cant spell) and his wherebouts were unknown during the Ripper murders, he killed his wife in a similar way he could have done it again and again etc...i think he is the one |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 8:21 am: |
|
Hi Jenny
Not quite as sure as you about JK, but I do believe that he is the most under rated suspect.
The objections put forward to his candidacy are mainly as follows.
1. He cant be placed in the vicinity of the murders
However it is likely that in order to evade capture he required help. So the likliehood must be that after his escape he eventually headed back to where he had friends.
2. He stabbed his wife in the neck rather than "ripping" therefore he has a different M.O.
The killing of his wife was a spur of the moment domestic, where he grabbed the only weapon available, a pocket knife. Surely such a knife would be incapable of inflicting Ripper like wounds.
Add to this the fact that he was mentioned in official Home Office documentation in 1888 as a suspect in the killings. Why then has this not aroused the same interest as the unofficial Macnaghten writings from years later? The suspects werent even named in that document.
The police launched a search for him immediately after the discovery of MJK.
The authorities in general didnt want to know when he twice tried to surrender himself on the other side of the Atlantic. This at roughly the same time as they were taking all possible steps to return another wife killer (Crippen) across that same ocean.
His Home Office file is still subject to a publishing ban.
Despite all these points he warrants the merest of mentions on the Casebook suspects section. Why? |
Anthony Bush
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:08 am: |
|
Having read many books on Jack the Ripper, I have thought long and hard to come to one conclusion, The evidence suggests that James Kelly is prime suspect due to, The way he killed his wife in a more or less Unprovoked attack, and how he was Clinically insane. On escaping from Broadmoor, it is very likely he went between his birth place, Liverpool and London. It is also known he went to USA and was shipped back to the uk. Which if dates suggest, The killings were done while he was in the UK. I would also like to point out James Tulleys book Prisoner 1167 is very Convincing and the various people who have read it are of a similar opinion. |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Police Constable
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 7:36 pm: |
|
Whatho all,
No, I have to disagree. I do not feel James Kelly was the Ripper. Yes, he was an escaped lunitic. Yes, he did try to kill his wife. But these reasons are not strong enough to accuse the poor bogger. There is no proof he was in England in 1888 let alone the East End.
However, if you have not read it, I can reconmend James Tully's book The Secret of Prisoner 1167 - Was This Man Jack the Ripper? which gives the case against Mr Kelly.
Cheers, Mark |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 9:15 am: |
|
Hi Mark
I wouldnt say Kelly was certainly our man. The point I make is that compared to other suspects he is given scant attention, including in the casebook.
In the suspects section he warrants a miserly 4 or 5 lines.
We dont know that Tumbelty was even in the country, we know that Sickert almost certainly wasnt. Eddy was up here in God's country and yet there is much more space dedicated to these "also rans" than to Kelly. Why?
Alan |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Police Constable
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:12 am: |
|
Whatho Alan,
In deed some of the other candidates can be excused for the simple reason they were not actually in London at the time. This demonstrates the lunicy of the Royal conspiracy.
We do not know where Kelly was in 1888 so he could well have been in London which certainly puts him higher in the list than some.
Actually, I do like the look of Tumbelty but as you say, we cannot place him in England even though the police had earlier arrested him for gross indecency. He probably left the country in a hurry.
Cheers, Mark |
Dan L. Hollifield
Police Constable
Username: Vila
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 4:09 am: |
|
Hello everyone,
Kelly's status as being just as much a mystery as JTR himself seems to garner him some consideration as a suspect for being our Jack. If only his records weren't so few and detail-less.
Here is a known, escaped lunatic, who's movements cannot be traced for the times of the murders. Sounds pretty juicy to me.
Here's to being there when the rest of his scant records are unsealed!
Vila
|
Monty
Police Constable
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 11:37 am: |
|
Folks,
Jimmy was on the run for many a year....escaped lunatic indeed !!
I agree, he does look juicey but I cannot see why he would run the risk of capture at the height of the murders (with Whitechapel being riddled with Rossers).
He obviously took great pains to avoid capture (indeed he was only arrested after giving himself up)
I just cannot see him taking the gamble.
Monty
 |
David Smyth
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 8:49 pm: |
|
First one is that he shares the same 2nd name as Mary Kelly.If she was the last victim you have to ask yourself why did the killer stop after her? Or more like why did he leave whitechapel after killing Mary? Maybe he could be linked with her some how?
Ill assume Mary Kelly and James Kelly both had their extended familys checked out? If they were relatives in any way it might explain why Mary was so badly mutilated. For some reason the ripper had to depersonalise her.Maybe because he couldnt stand the guilt of who he has just killed?
The 2nd thing about this murder is the witness description of the man.With dark hair curled beard and pale complexion it looks just like James Kelly.Though this could be a coincidence. The pale/light complexion thing comes into the other murders execpt the 1st two apparantly where people could swear it was a dark skinned man they saw. Plus this dark skinned man seemed more willing to interact with the witnesses.By the time you get to Mary Kelly the killer says nothing. I think James Kelly may have killed at least Mary Kelly and a man of darker complexion i think killed at least the first two. The others? I dont know could be either of them
These crimes were in the news a lot back then.Copycat heaven.
DAve |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 8:50 am: |
|
Hi Dave,
Good point about Kelly/Kelly coincidence.
I dont think Mary Jane's extended family could have been checked because no one knows where or who they were, giving weight to the theory that Kelly was an alias. It has been suggested that MJ did indeed know James Kelly and adopted his surname as her own. Catherine Eddowes also used Kelly as a nom de plume.
Personally I am all in favour of anything which encourages discussion on this most overlooked of suspects.
There has been controversy up here in Scotland of late as a 100 year publishing ban has been placed on records referring to Thomas Hamilton,the perpatrator of the Dunblane massacre. Suggestion has been rife that the establishment is closing ranks. Similarly, I can think of no other reason why Kelly's files are still closed to the public.
Alan |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Whatho all,
I have been emailed by James Rice who points out James Kelly did not attempt to kill his wife but was actually successful. He is, of course, correct and therefore my above post of 27th February carries a mistake.
James asked me to edit that post to remove the mistake but I will not do that as I feel it may compromise this thread and if I make a mistake, it should be left there for all to see.
I thank James for correcting me and I apologise to you all for getting a fact wrong. However, I still do not think James Kelly was the Ripper.
Cheers, Mark (looking for an icon of humble pie) |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 5:41 am: |
|
As I have said before I cant understand why Kelly is treated with disdain by most students of this case. Even the normally accurate casebook is totally wide of the mark in its all to brief mention of Kelly as a suspect.
James Kelly was convicted of murdering his wife in 1883 and escaped in 1888. He surrendered himself in 1927 before passing away in 1929. According to the casebook this constitutes 3 decades in Broadmoor.
It also states that there is no evidence linking him to the murders. Well there is a mountain of circumstancial evidence. As for hard legal evidence, well if there was any of that against any suspect we wouldnt be here in the first place.
Alan
|
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 9:50 pm: |
|
I'm not so sure that people here think James Kelly is a bad suspect, but rather, with so little evidence about him during the "critical period", there's not much to more to say about it. Until his whereabouts can be determined during late 1888, suspicion against him boils down to: he's an escaped violent offender, a lunatic, who killed a female (his wife) with a knife, and finally, his location during the murders is unknown. This last point means we have as much evidence to put him in Whitechappel (yah!) as we have that puts him Paris, Glasgow, Berlin, Montreal, New York, etc (boo!).
So for the moment, there's just nothing to really hang onto in order to build a case. Lots of men fit the discriptions as well as he does, there were other people killing with knives, there are suspects who at least can be placed in the area. When his files are released, however, maybe some interesting information will become available. Maybe not. And possibly someone will research his life some more and find the details that will make him interesting. Unfortunately, if someone does research him and finds out he's definately not the Ripper, we're unlikely to ever hear about it (unless it's then posted here). Personally, I can't see a book titled "Portrait of a lunatic who is not Jack the Ripper" being all that successful.
- Jeff |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 5:49 am: |
|
Geoff,
Perfectly good point about his whereabouts but inaccurate on other points. The constitution of the suspicions against him are much more substantial than you say.
He was actively pursued by the police on the day of the discovery at Miller's Court.
He was mentioned in official Home Office communications as a suspect.
No reason that I am aware of has been suggested as to why a common domestic murderer's H.O. file is still closed to the public other than some sort of cover up.
Likewise I know of no suggestion as to why the police would be so reluctant to re arrest him when they were informed of his whereabouts on both sides of the Atlantic.
The only way he was taken back into custody was when he knocked on the door and asked to be for God's sake.
Not conclusive proof of anything I agree, but when compared to the frenzy caused by MacNaghten or Littlechild for example then it seems strange how little discussion takes place regarding Kelly.
Alan |
Mr Orange
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 10:58 am: |
|
Hi all-great site/boards, just having a browse through. This thread caught my eye as I think Kelly is one of the stronger possible candidates. Largely circumstantial I know but the book's pretty good/reasonable in tone and will be fascinating (or disappointing!) to see what is eventually made public from the remaining records. |
John Malcolm
Police Constable
Username: Johnm
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Mr Orange,
Do I smell a rat in the house? Poor Mr White trusted you, but now we all know better...
Like many "suspects" who have been proposed over the years, the James Kelly story is presented in a believable format, but ultimately just another attempt to pin the tail on the donkey. |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 8:36 am: |
|
Dear Mr Smith,
You say:
"No reason that I am aware of has been suggested as to why a common domestic murderer's H.O. file is still closed to the public other than some sort of cover up."
I think you'll find it is common policy not to release personal information held on official files until 100 years after the last entry. For example the Census is sealed to public view for 100 years after the census date.
Are you suggesting there is a 'cover up' here as well?
all the best
Bob |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 10:20 am: |
|
Mr Hinton
If that is the case then you are the first to answer me on this point despite me asking on the boards on several occasions. Thank you for that. Dont think the sarcasm does you any favours though. Reminds me of the bloke some time ago who spoke in similar terms about the writing prowess of the author of "From Hell" (Which incidentally I found to be an excellent read)
John
I agree with you but the really interesting point about JK is that the police at the time tried to pin the tail on this particular donkey.
Alan
|
Richard Lawrence
Police Constable
Username: Rl0919
Post Number: 2
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 7:16 pm: |
|
Although Kelly is an interesting suspect, I think the accusations of cover-up are overblown. Keeping files sealed for a long time is typical government practice. In this particular case Kelly was alive until 1929, so a 100-year seal on his files will keep them off-limits until 2029 or 2030. It is also very common for old files to be lost, stolen or destroyed.
|
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Hi Alan,
Ooops, you're right. It's been awhile since I've read up on Kelly. The first two points you mentioned (searched for after Mary Kelly's murder and listed as suspect by police at the time) do make him more interesting than perhaps discussions would imply. I guess it's the fact that the police seemed reluctant to arrest him when possible that tends to turn people off? It has this feel of the police not being all that interested in him, as if they might have known something at the time that cleared him of the Ripper murders (i.e., meaning they no longer considered him a suspect but only an escaped lunatic and so they viewed attempts at his recapture with that level of concern). Anyway, adequately explaining the police actions does require that we know more about their views on James Kelly. Certainly their one-time interest in him makes him as interesting an individual, if not more so, than Druitt, Barnett, and other suspects who have recieved lots of investigation. Who knows, maybe someone will have the time to really dig into his background and discover some new stuff?
So, I guess my point remains, until someone is actively researching him and providing some new information to work with, there's just not enough information about him to really work with to foster a lot of discussion. Mind you, lack of evidence hasn't stopped any discussions of other suspects either, so it is curious this one suffers so much.
- Jeff
|
Christopher Lowe
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 6:25 am: |
|
A cold case squad like Operation Trace would most likely concentrate on the likes of Kelly and Bury
(ie convicted killers)if they investigated jtr's
crimes. |
Julie Lambert
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 12:32 pm: |
|
I feel strongly that as Kelly voluntered himself up for re-admittance to Broadmooor, had he been JTR he would have confessed to these crimes. He did not face the death penalty for killing his wife because he was insane, therefore he had little to lose in confessing to the JTR crimes.
I also think the connection between James Kelly and Mary Kelly is pure coincidence as it is a common name.
On the face of it, Kelly seems a strong candidate, better than most, but it seems strange that he would walk back into Broadmoor decades after having escaped, and not own up to having been the most wanted killer in history! |
Holger Haase
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:32 am: |
|
Just an FYI to let you know that one of the recent editions of True Detective magazine (July 2003) also had an article with a summary of the case against James Kelly in it. It's more or less a recap of what can also be read in Prisoner 1167.
Holger |
Danielle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 2:27 pm: |
|
I don’t think that jack the ripper was the killer of Mary Jeannette Kelley. I know that this has nothing to do with whom I think the killer is but I have to get my theory out and I don’t know how else to do it. Ok, jack the ripper is known for killing prostitute women in their 40's. And even in the same end of town. And that’s how the first 4 women were killed. Mary Anne Nichols (43), Annie Chapman (47), Elizabeth Stride (45), and Catharine Eddows (46). Out of these 4,they were also all murdered within a month of each other. And jack the ripper sent letters to the police foretelling his next victims for only these 4. While Mary Jeannette Kelley was only 25.Also Mary Jeannette Kelley was not killed within a month of the other 4 she was killed on November 9th. About 2 months after the others were killed. Mary Anne Nichols (august, 31), Annie Chapman (September, 8th), Elizabeth Stride (September, 30) and Catharine Eddows (September, 30.) Also the first 4 victims were killed in London’s East End Streets. While Mary Jeanette Kelley was murdered at Miller’s Court. I personally think that the police did not want to go look for another killer so they blamed it on jack the ripper because it was an easy way out. The above may not be enough proof for you but it is for me. |
Julie Lambert
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Danielle,
Some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas there.
However, I think it is important to note that JTR may have simply killed the most available women as the circumstances presented themselves. For example, it was the older prostitutes, the most broken down and unattractive, who had to rely on the street trade that was available. Mary Kelly may have just broken the pattern by accident.
Nevertheless, you do raise some good points, and there are quite a few people who believe that the Kelly murder may have been a copy-cat killing.
I am almost coming round to that conclusion myself, although there is a lot of sense in saying that the killer was JTR and that the indoor nature of the murder allowed him to fully indulge his disgusting fantacies and practices. |
appy605
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 5:58 pm: |
|
Hi all!
I haven't read up all that much, but as far as I have read, most of the witnesses saw a stout man, no more than 5'7'' or 5'8'', but no shorter than 5'6'' or so. Does anyone know just how tall Kelly was? |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 5:01 am: |
|
After he absconded from the asylum he was described in the Police Gazette as being 5'7"
Alan |
Paul Williams
Sergeant
Username: Wehrwulf
Post Number: 20
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 2:57 pm: |
|
What was the name of Kelly's wife and has anyone looked into family connections with Mary? |
Nathan/Hannibal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 6:38 am: |
|
Kelly is the ripper because he murdered his wife in such a visious way.He also swore revenge on his lover,Mary Jane Kelly. |
Nathan/Hannibal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 6:45 am: |
|
Kelly is the ripper because he murdered his wife in such a visious way.He also swore revenge on his lover,Mary Jane Kelly.
After his escape from the asylum his whereabouts were unknown.People believe that Druitt did it just because he commited suicied. |
Bernard Watley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 11:19 am: |
|
There are many reasons why James Kelly could have been linked to the area, and in Tulleys book, the motive of a hatred of women linked to the suspects mother would explain the removal or at least the mutalation of the sexual organs, however the precision and anatomical knoledge seem to escape him. From description and records of his discourse durring the trial concerning his wife's murder he sounded faily ignorant. It seems rather difficult to surmize that a furniture repairmen had such knolege to remove a kydney from the front without hurting the surrounding organs in the dead of night with no light in a short amount of time.
His wife's murder is further testament to this thought in that he simply stabed her ferociously, without reguard to finding her juggular and causing a quiet death. He even broke the knife in his attempts to hurt her. The death was a by product of a brutal act. A byproduct, not the objective. While the escape gave him opportunity he simply seemed to ignorant to do what he had to do. Not nearly calculating enough to lay in wait for a victim and to be careful about getting blood on himself and the like. His first crime was a crime of passion under the throws of an insain mind. The other aledged ripper crimes seems too methodical. Too like a real serial killer, who seemingly as a rule, are ussually rather inteligeant, in spite of their insanity. His past(being an unloved bastard Child) is sad but not unlike a thousand other people who were born at that time or now for that matter. There was described a "Change" in Kelly's disposition. Such a sudden change from Reasonable man, to noticeably insane man were too abrupt. He would have had been very much a quiet researved person, as reportedly Kelly was, however the roots of his insanity would go for deeper and a change would not be perceptable. Many serial killers have a history of killing animals of hurting them at the least. This isn't always the case of course, however, it shows the general pathology of the person extending into thier youth, and a growing taste for the
"power" of killing. These people seem to be people who seek control or power in a world where they feel powerless. The killing for them makes them feel that sence of power and that is the reason the keep doing it. Kelly's wifes murder was an act of rage and insanity brought about by VD, not the gradual birth of a monster. He at the time saw himself as wronged by his wife and struck. While there may be more to him than what meets the eye. However I believe that while it may have been him, it might be any ignorant eastender at the time. Frankly I think that it is wiser to believe that there was some higher level of specificity involved in the ripper, that would narrow the suspician down to the few with the inteligeance to have committed such horrific acts in a public streat without making a sound in a vacinity that never seemed to sleep... |
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Hello Bernard,
You almost have me convinced. Is there anymore information you can offer me? I would really like to research this a bit more.
Angel |
Nathan/Hannibal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:43 am: |
|
If u ask me thoughs people who dont believe that Kelly is The Ripper r deluding themselves.
Many think its Druitt because when he commited suicide the killings stopped.
There was at least 14 more murders after Druitt died.
These murders may have been commited by The Ripper,or just a copy cat.
|
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 8:15 pm: |
|
Hi,
I'm not too well up on this 'James Kelly', but Catherine Eddowes common-law husband was a John Kelly, they had been living together since 1881, in 1888 John Kelly & Catherine Eddowes had been frequently lodging at Flower & Dean street. On the 29th September John & Catherine had come back from Kent, hop-picking, prior to that she had said for a while, that she knew who the 'Ripper' was and she was going to collect the reward money (obviously she didn't know who the ripper was because he killed her!), but on the evening of the 29th, when she had made a spectacle of herself (impersonating a fire-engine &all), she was duly arrested for making a disturbance, when questioned at the police station, she gave her name as 'nothing' and the address was 6 Fashion Street, that address was under the name 'Kelly', as to whether this was a James, John or Thomas i do not recall...but if in theory at least, just say this address was a James Kelly and just say it is the same James Kelly on this thread, she must have known him, as she knew the address...But she said she was going to collect the reward money for dobbing the ripper in to the bluebottles, just in theory if it was the James Kelly she had in mind, why didn't she go for the reward money? perhaps her suspect was out of the London area, or he was imprisoned or incarcerated in an asylum?...Who ever Eddowes would have suspected as the ripper, she was wrong. I wouldn't have thought that an insane man would have waited to kill in a methodical manner, insane people usually kill on speck, in the heat of the moment. The first 4 victims were all found outside (probably all killed outside), Eddowes was definately killed out in the open according to the time when witnesses, Lawende,Levy & Harris last saw her alive, as to when the police constable found her dead. But Mary Kelly was the only victim to have been killed indoors, and the mutilations were far worse, i think this was because of the very fact that she had been killed indoors & not out in the open, also the killer was getting a good taste by now for the mutilations. Was it 'James Kelly' at 6 Fashion Street? It would be nice to find some answer or feed back, especially as i am relying on memory. |
Christopher Lowe
Police Constable
Username: Clowe
Post Number: 2
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 5:31 pm: |
|
I think it was suggested that MJK was a sister to either Kelly or his wife. |
A Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 5:55 am: |
|
Although MJK is assumed to have come from Ireland via Wales, none of her relatives have ever been traced as far as Im aware. The recurrance of the name "Kelly" throughout the case does seem to be beyond coincidence, and it has been suggested (I think by James Tully) that MJK was actually James Kellys wife's sister.
I have been unable to find any report as to whether or not she spoke with an Irish accent which would obviously be a pointer to her true background
Alan |
Jose Goncalves
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 2:07 am: |
|
just came across your site for the first time, must say that personally I think James Kelly was Jack the Ripper, I absolutely cannot buy the Royal theory and I find Walter Sickert to be even less likely a suspect. Patricia Cornwall's book is full of errors (ie. Sickert suffered from an anal cyst, he had nothing wrong with his penis, something Cornwall goes on and on about). Many suspects have been put forward, some (like Aleister Crowley) are just plane ludicrous. Great site by the way, cheers. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 7:06 am: |
|
I read and enjoyed James Tulley's book when it first came out. But I did not find it convincing.
Inevitably the police would have looked at all escaped murderers/madmen who were otherwise untraced in their (apparently ever more desperate) hunt for a killer. Ostrog demonstrates this - neither his record nor his presence in the UK support him as a suspect, but Melville Macnaughton had him in his list!!
The withholding of the file for 100 years is a red-herring. In a debate in the House of commons a few months ago, MPs pressed for census data to be made available earlier than 100 years (I believe that in Ireland the data is now released earlier) but the Government took the position that commitments about privacy had been made at the time and could not now be broken. To do so would weaken public confidence in commitments made by Governments today or in future when gathering information.
Someone should try asking for the information on the file (there is no right to the file itself) under the Freedom of Information Act which comes into force on 1 January 2005. WRITE to the HO citing the Act. The requirement is that ALL cases should be reviewed to see whether the previous criteria for withholding the information still apply.
But what does the case for Kelly as the Ripper actually represent?
The man was an escaped imbecile who had murdered his wife - but how many people guilty of a DOMESTIC murder go on to be serial killers? There is NO evidence linking the man to a crime scene, and he never confessed to the killing. There must have been many people whom the police looked into, who were capable of being the Ripper (in theory) but were dismissed. I have seen no evidence that suggests that Kelly might have been a "hot potato" (say in a Fenian sense) which would have led to a cover-up or a preference not to find him.
Finally, the name Kelly (given the numbers of people of Irish origin in the UK, let alone London and Liverpool in the 1880s) must have been huge. It must have counted as a VERY common name - like Smith or Brown - this was the age of the Irish navvy and the post-famine Irish diaspora.
I would want to see something MUCH more specific linking Kelly to the Whitechapel murders than simply that he was "looked for". I don't find invented "possible" relationships or family connections helpful at all, I'm afraid.
That said, we shouldn't lose sight of Kelly and if more information emerges (say from the remaining HO files, I would be open to changing my view.
But i would advise anyone not to get their hopes up about material existing on a withheld file, simply because the file has been withheld. There are many prosaic reasons for that. Those of us interested in the case in the 70s had high hopes of the "Ripper files" before they were released, but though much valuable information was on them, not the firm evidence or names that many had expected.
Phil
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 401
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
While Tully's book (by reputation and skimming, I haven't read the whole thing cover to cover) may not be convincing and offers up some details that may be vague or strange, I think there's a lot to be said for James Kelly's candidacy in general.
You ask how many domestic murderers go on to become serial killers like it were a negative indicator. Domestic violence is a highly linked trait amongst serial killers who have been caught and studied, and quite a few have murdered lovers or relatives. Beyond that, this particular domestic murder is a little beyond the norm, as Kelly appeared to be having disordered thoughts that his wife was a whore. Add that to the fact that he then chose to attack her throat with a knife, that MO would seem to be very similar to the Ripper killings, which happened in a locality he was familiar with shortly after his escape.
The fact that the police couldn't track him down and didn't mention his name amongst the scraps of files and mentions that have survived shouldn't distract one too much from the point that we have someone who fits the broad criteria of the kind of person we should be looking for.
Regarding the asylum files, I was under the impression that someone has already seen them and reported them to be uninteresting. I don't recall where I got this impression.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Colin Ireland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
I believe that jack the ripper is a poor murderer.
Look at people like Shipman and Dahmer and Bundy and see how many they have killed.
Jack the ripper is a loon who killed 5 women, Dahmer killed 18 people, Shipman killed over 200, Bundy killed 50 odd |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 147
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
See this above post is the absolute perfect example as one that could justifiably be mocked.
In this 3 sentence post we have it all. there is an unsubstantiated conclusion about the murderer's background. Then there is a second sentence that is so far out in leftfield that's its a home run, having nothing at all to do with the case. Then we have the follow up statement that adds another conclusion as to the murderers mental state, again without substantiation, a definitive assertation about the number of murder victims, without any follow up facts, and finally 3 random quantitative serial victims from 3 serial killers having nothing at all to do with this case.
Even with all this against it, and in such an assertive tone, while lacking anything at all, credible or not, to back it up, I shall not mock Colin.
Colin,
You are entitled to your opinion. here is the problem. If all there was to go on in this case was opinion then we would be far less advanced than we are in the case, which isn't very far at all. There are no checks and balances to stop any and all opinion driven claims, such as yours, from being put forth into the framework of the case.
Perhaps try this.
Why do you believe JTR was a poor murderer? An explanation using the known facts of the case might help somewhat, although robbery of the broke prostitutes is not a great step toward that.
Why should we look at people such as Shipman (?), Dahmer and Bundy? What purpose is served to this case by examining not only one of their individual case but all three of them.
What makes you think 'JTR' was a loon? Perhaps explain your thinking behind this absolutely general statement. Why do you emphatically believe there were only 5 victims? Add some of your research as to why you believe the canon, if those are the 5 you believe, are the true and only victims of 'JTR'. As far as the last statement. This was the toughest not to mock. Please explain why listing the amount of victims of these three other serial killers is important or relative to the amount of victims you believe were murdered by 'JTR'.
These are just suggestions Colin. You might be new to the case and if you are I wish you luck in your research. Using these helpful hints you can turn what amounts to be an entirely crappy and waste of space of a post into perhaps something people might be willing to discuss and debate to help foster some possible advanced learning of the case.
I'm sure there are others who will just verbally abuse you, in a cynical covert way. Don't take it to heart. When people of that magnitude come across people they feel are less worthy than them they react with a defense mechanism that allows them to remain ultra superior within their own mind.
Again, good luck.
SJR |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 530
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Yeah Stan, you sure did a great job of not making fun of Colin and his post. Not funny and not helpful.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
"Why do you believe JTR was a poor murderer? "
I think, Stan, that what he is saying is that JtR didn't kill many people and is a minor leaguer compared to the likes of Bundy et al. "Poor" as in "poor excuse"....
However, your points are, as usual, dead on. (Pun partially intended.)
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 896
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Stan,
He meant poor as in "not worthy" because he didn't kill enough, not financially poor.
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 148
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Donald,
Please explain your post, or else I have no choice put to place you in the same category as Colin's post: One with no real substantiation, no backing and no substance behind it. Basically just a bunch of opinion - or as some would call it - FLUFF.
Now that I think about it my post probably wasn't helpful, because you read it and then committed the same mistakes I attempted to present advice to Colin about. I'm not sure how i could have made it clearer.
Robert,
Ahhhh. Poor as in bad. Well that kind of makes some of the stuff in the post make some sense, but still where is the substantiation. Why don;t I just write a post like this:
I believe the murderer was a doctor who killed 5 women and I think that other doctors murderered people to. Those doctors killed people too so how about that?
What's the point? Where's my background info? What am I gaining from these opinions and what has solidified these opinions in my mind?
Of course Donald thinks I'm not funny. Perhaps because rather than bringing up some sidetracked item like humpback whales only mate during the new moon or Citizen Kane has become an overrated movie over the last 17 years, as a rebuttal to Colin's post, i chose to try and educate him, even if I did come off in a basic tone. From Colin's post, which I misinterpreted poor as being broke, I felt the tone fit. That was an honest mistake. Either way the original post needs some serious help.
SJR
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 531
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Stan,
I would hope that if you really wanted to help Colin you would have written a very different post. But perhaps I give you too much credit.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 833
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Hi everyone,
I'd agree that the Shipman murders will have more impact than the Whitechapel murders. Not so much because of body count, but because Shipman, being a doctor, exploited a hole in England's death certification system. As a consequence, Englad's entire certification system is being overhauled and the coronial system is also facing some serious adjustments: streamlining of the system, the creation of a Chief Coroner, a coronial council, the addition of medical examiners in the coroner's office, and the number of coroners is going to get reduced to around 40-60 (can't figure that last one). There's going to have to be a whole new Coroner's Act, specifically to protect the public against homicidal doctors like Shipman. Everyone in England and Wales is going to have their death verified by a medical examiner, with odd cases getting refered to the coroner. At least, that's the position the Home Secretary took in 2003 after the Shipman Inquiry adjourned.
Cheers,
Dave |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 149
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
There you have it folks. Its a no win situation. When you don;t help you're criticized for not helping. When you try to help, you're told you're not helping, because someone has gotten offended at the way you've tried to help. Serriously Donald, what is the point anymore?
Colin, good luck with your posting style. I guess some saw something special in it that I missed.
SJR |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 396
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
I believe Colin was forwarding an honest opinion about the case.......he was doing it with the intention of having some part in these discussion boards. No-one should actually have to try and justify comments made by a visitor to these boards, but as there is a delay factor in posting replies by those who aren't registered, Colin is probably wishing he had never attempted to take part in a discussion on this board and may well feel intimidated enough to not want to post again.
Colin's opinion is as valid as anyone elses, and ridicule is not the best way to encourage people to support this board. Apart from which it prompted a good post from David, which gives it more than enough validity as far as I am concerned.
And of course we know that the question of JtR's sanity has never been resolved, so the suggestion that he was 'a loon' is also as valid an opinion as anyone elses.
Regards
Jane
(Message edited by jcoram on April 27, 2005)
(Message edited by jcoram on April 27, 2005) |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 397
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 7:35 pm: |
|
Hi Colin,
I hope you didn't mind me commenting there, but it may be a little while before your next post comes through.
Hopefully you will post again.
We do want to hear what you have to say......
all I can say which I hope is helpful advice....is to do what I did and read as much as you can from the message boards and from the general information on the site.
There is more valuable information here than you would get in any number of books and it covers every possible aspect of the case.
Very best wishes
Jane
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
