|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
second abberline
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 6:31 pm: | 
|
(this is an alternative to my Francis/Aaron theory. this is a second theory that I am taking into account. Enjoy)
In this report, I shall compile information on several witness accounts of the Whitechapel murders in the autumn of 1888, and will include details on the accounts given about Mary Kelly by her "husband" Joseph Barnett. I am presenting a new theory, however infamous it will be, that the real Jack the Ripper was Mary J. Kelly. This would mean that the Ripper was not a man, as most commonly thought, but indeed a woman; and on top of that, not just any woman: the so-called last Ripper victim, which is of course Mary Kelly. How could this be? I shall explain in easy-to-understand concepts why there is a possibility that the last Ripper victim was NOT who the public thought she was.
Let's go back to the earliest witness account, on the night of the murder of Polly Nichols, whom is accepted by most as being the first canonical Ripper victim. The witness we are referring to, is Patrick Mulshaw, who saw a 'Suspicious' character. Now this doesn't tell us much, except that the Ripper, if that is who the first witness saw, was indeed the ellusive image we all create in our minds.
Moving on to the murder of Annie Chapman, the witness is now Emily Walter, who saw the suspect around 2:00 A.M. She describes the suspect: Foreigner aged 37, dark beard and moustache. Wearing short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat. The main question, is how far was the witness standing from this man? How could we conclude the witness got a good look at all at the suspect? She could have very well generalized the concept of the description she gave, perhaps even filling in loopholes with "little-white-lies". But this is a possibility, and to say that she was lieing, would be jumping to irrelevant conclusions. So therefore, I shall jump to the most interesting account of all the witnesses, who was the mysterious George Hutchinson. He gave a rather 'too' detailed description of the suspect (in my opinion); Indeed, it is mysterious that he knew so much about the man: Aged 34-35, 5'6", pale complexion, dark hair, slight moustached curled at each end, long dark coat, collar cuffs of astrakhan, dark jacket underneath. Light waistcoat, thick gold chain with a red stone seal, dark trousers and button boots, gaiters, white buttons. White shirt, black tie fastened with a horseshoe pin. Dark hat, turned down in middle. Red kerchief. Jewish and respectable in appearance.
If you might go to http://casebook.org, you will find under the 'Victims' page, a profile of Mary Kelly and the details about her murder, and with it, would come a timeline of events that went on that night. Something very interesting happened at 2:00A.M. on that November night: Mary Kelly, went up and personally asked Goerge Hutchinson for money. I shall give you the exact description of the happening:
2:00 AM: George Hutchinson, a resident of the Victoria Home on Commercial Street has just returned to the area from Romford. He is walking on Commercial Street and passes a man at the corner of Thrawl Street but pays no attention to him. At Flower and Dean Street he meets Kelly who asks him for money. "Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?" "I can't," say Hutchinson, "I spent all my money going down to Romford." "Good morning," Kelly replies, "I must go and find some money." She then walks in the direction of Thrawl Street.
This signifies that Mary Kelly somehow knew George Hutchinson from somewhere. Though it is unknown where she met him, or how long they had been friends, this is indeed something to seriously look at. To make a long opinion short, I think Mary Kelly and George Hutchinson were somehow covering for each other... covering up a miniature-conspiracy that was about to take place. Why do I think this? Because the details are too detailed; and the details are too convenient. It almost appears as if George Hutchinson was describing someone, in order to further push along the concept of what Jack the Ripper would be wearing and what type of man he would be. The other witness descriptions are scattered and vague: This one is not. It is extremely precise.
Now lets take a look at Mary Kelly herself. I am borrowing the following description from: http://casebook.org/victims/mary_jane_kelly.html
Mary Jane Kelly was approximately 25 years old at the time of her death which would place her birth around 1863. She was 5' 7" tall and stout. She had blonde hair, blue eyes and a fair complexion. "Said to have been possessed of considerable personal attractions." (McNaughten)
She was last seen wearing a linsey frock and a red shawl pulled around her shoulders. She was bare headed. Detective Constable Walter Dew claimed to know Kelly well by sight and says that she was attractive and paraded around, usually in the company of two or three friends. He says she always wore a spotlessly clean white apron.
Maria Harvey, a friend, says that she was "much superior to that of most persons in her position in life."
It is also said that she spoke fluent Welsh.
Joseph Barnett says that he "always found her of sober habits."
Landlord John McCarthy says "When in liquor she was very noisy; otherwise she was a very quiet woman."
Caroline Maxwell says that she "was not a notorious character."
Catherine Pickett claims "She was a good, quiet, pleasant girl, and was well liked by all of us."
Can we gather from this that Mary Kelly was a nice person, except when she was drunk, therefore she would get somewhat out of control?
Here is a small excerpt with further details about Kelly:
Kelly had taken the room (13 Millers Court) under her own name and paid 4/6 per week rent. At the time of her death she was 30 shillings behind in rent.
August or early September, 1888: Barnett loses his job and Mary Jane returns to the streets. Barnett decides to leave her.
October 30, between 5 and 6 PM: Elizabeth Prater, who lives above Kelly reports that Barnett and Kelly have an argument and Barnett leaves her. He goes to live at Buller's boarding house at 24-25 New Street, Bishopsgate.
Barnett states at the inquest that he left her because she was allowing other prostitutes to stay in the room. "She would never have gone wrong again," he tells a newspaper, "and I shouldn't have left her if it had not been for the prostitutes stopping at the house. She only let them (stay there) because she was good hearted and did not like to refuse them shelter on cold bitter nights." He adds, "We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room; I objected: and as Mrs. Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left and took lodgings elsewhere."
We know for a fact that M.K. only took to the streets when money was low. But the strange thing is, why would she take other prostitutes into her home to stay with her? My personal opinion, is that she tried convincing them to stop what they were doing, and to look for work elsewhere. Kind of one of those: "do as I say not as I do" type of things. She wanted to give prostitutes a place to stay... and a place to rethink what they were doing. Some say that she brought others in to have sex with them, because she was a lesbian: however possible this may be, my opinion still stands; it isn't necessarily either/or, meaning it could very well be that she was a lesbian who still wanted to help the prostitutes of the streets.
Now, to wrap these concepts up, I will state the possibility of what could have happened.
We must question why we have so many details in the timeline of Mary Kelly's death-night. It is a fact that most of the details came from George Hutchinson. Some others came from Mrs. Cox or Elizabeth Prater.
I think that George Hutchinson was helping Mary Kelly escape out of Whitechapel, without having her husband chasing or following her in a rageful persuit because she had abandoned him. I think that it was done in such a way, that George Hutchinson was NOT the killer; I think that Mary Kelly killed the prostitute found in 13 Millers Court. I think that Mary Kelly was Jack the Ripper... or for a better name, since her middle name is Jane... Jane the Ripper. She had many connections with Hutchinson, who seems to have lent her money and done her favors many times in the past.
Why did she kill the other prostitutes? (Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes) I think that at one point she had tried to convince them to stop being the prostitutes that they were, but they refused, for whatever reason. Therefore, she called upon George Hutchinson to cover her tracks: He helped create a persona of what the public would see Jack the Ripper as... he made sure he was seen by certain people, but not seen too much, in order not to be recognized. In the meantime, Mary Kelly was carrying out the task of brutilly slaying her ex-friends, in order to chastine them, and in order to show the public what happened to girls that took to the streets too long.
Where did Mary Kelly go then? Where did she escape to?
I think I can answer that:
According to Joseph Barnett, on arriving in London, Kelly went to work in a high class brothel in the West End. She says that during this time she frequently rode in a carriage and accompanied one gentleman to Paris, which she didn't like and she returned.
Maybe she didn't really like Paris, but she probably liked it more than the East-End of London; especially after getting in so many fights with Barnett. How did she get there? It wouldn't have been hard to get there, had she the right amount of money to pay for transportation: via asking Hutchinson for money.
Of course he said he didn't have the money when explaining the situation to police. But he was in the process of creating a story to fool the police... which means there are bits and pieces of truth in the whole story.
I don't know exactly how the plan was executed. But I shall come back to this report one day and make a sequal to it, explaining exactly how I think she did the escape to Paris.
Until then, Farewell. Tell me what you think.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Hi Second Abberline,
I am dumfounded[ not the first time] although to be perfectly honest i did have that idea back in the mid seventies, and wrote a huge script to the News Of the world, and also to Colin wilson, the former was rejected, the latter was considered intresting as Colin enjoyed collecting and shelving enterprising theories.
As colin wrote to me several months after, a amazing coincedence has happened a new book by John Brookes Barry entitled' The Michalmas girls' has just been released which has the same theory.
I am not suggesting that any mal practise was in any/way evident but as Colin stated 'Great minds obviously think alike'.
However my original material was along the same lines ie. Kelly although not directly involved in murder may have had assistance in the faking of her own death by a associate [ which i originally thought was Barnett] for reasons that were extremely vital to her welfare.
I should add that this was over thirty years ago, and i was proberly still a novice[ whats changed?] but it did make a dramatic story [ so i thought].
The reports by Maurice Lewis, Caroline Maxwell and a dubious Mrs Goode, would explain if true a possible happening but experience since the seventies suggest that is unlikely.
Regards Richard. |
second abberline
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 9:45 pm: |
|
(Richard, that is a very interesting story. Perhaps you and I should one day work out a report on this theory together. It would be very interesting. Appreciate the reply, my friend.)
Dear Ripperologists,
It has come to my immidiate attention that the report that I had posted before, had a technical flaw. However, I still stand by the general idea of what I said, and would only like to correct a few things. I am leaving the mistakes as they are in that report, so that people can conclude just how easy it is to make total flops.
First, let me thank those who have read and will read the report; it is an honest effort for the reader to get through my work, I'm sure, and those who have, deserve a round of applause. For the most part, I try not to ramble on too much, and I think I did a good job on not giving useless detail in the report: I tried my hardest to at least keep the attention of the reader.
I stated that I thought Mary Kelly killed the Canonical Six prostitutes, for the reason that she detested having to be a prostitute, and that she had tried to convince all six of them at one time to stop what they were doing and look for other employement. However, I must say I was being completely unrealistic, as far as the conscious reason she would give herself. Maybe indeed she had hated prostitution subconsciously, and that played a role in the murders, but I think the reason she gave herself, was this:
"I don't have any money... Joseph is getting out of control... What am I going to do? The competition is against me... Yes, I am prettier and younger than most of these girls, but... I would get more business if I just... If I just... did away with a few of them."
I suggest to all who haven't read in-depth of the life conditions of Whitechapel, to do so; before writing this report, my knowledge was slightly dellusional when it came to Whitechapel; but now that I have taken another, even more serious look at the East-End, I have changed my theory a bit. I do not believe she tried convincing them to stop what they were doing, for the sake that she didn't like prostitution. If she DID try to convince them to stop, it was PURELY out of trying to get rid of competition. While this may not seem like a major change to my report, in actuality, it is a MAJOR change. Given the reason that she wanted to do away with some of the other girls on the streets, so she would be given more chances to get men, it wouldn't have been hard for her to explain this reason to George Hutchinson. He would have helped her. He perhaps would have understood this reason.
Once again, I will look to the shadowy memory of Mary Kelly, for an answer to this:
"George! Hey... I've got something rather important to speak with you about. Please, don't let my idea scare you away. I really want you to listen. I'm not joking with this... come on inside. We can talk about my idea." With this, Mary opens the door of 13 Millers Court around late July of 1888.
So it comes to the part, where I must apologize. Not only for my apparent ignorance, but for my utter lack of respect for the Canonical Six. We sometimes don't realize, as Ripperologists, just how rough these women had it. Perhaps this is because we kind of want Jack the Ripper to be a myth in the back of our minds. Like a scavenger hunt in the woods, where we find the killer and give each high-fives. But when we take Whitechapel in its true context, we understand at once that Jack the Ripper, whoever he was, is dead. We understand that these women he killed, would be dead by now, even had they not been murdered: but they died before their time, and in a very brutal and demonic fashion. To take JTR as a scavenger-hunt in the woods, is to disrespect what these women stood for:
Mothers/daughters that worked their hardest everyday to survive. They had a will to help their families, even if that meant pulling up the dress and being violated by a randon drunk with a few shillings to throw on the ground after he was done.
And now, for an ending, I will let Mary Kelly and George Hutchinson say the rest:
"Mr. Hutchinson, if you could help me, it would be much appreciated." She leaned over on the bed and planted a kiss on his cheeck.
George blushed slightly, looking down at the floor.
"Alright." he said. "I understand. Since you are so young... and have so much to fight against... I'll help you."
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 960
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
It has come to my immidiate attention that the report that I had posted before, had a technical flaw.
Which was?
(Other than the complete unlikelihood of the entire thing?) |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 891
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Hi Second abberline (or "Second Fred"?),
I can't say I agree with your theory, but I admit it is an interesting one. I wish you well if you can even part of it.
My main point of questioning the motivation is:
Mary Jane Kelly is a knock-out, comparatively speaking. What evidence is there that Nichols, Chapman, Stide, and Eddowes were (physically) so much more attractive to "Johns" than Mary that they were taking business from her? Even if we throw in Emma Smith and Martha Tabram, where is the evidence? Of course it has crossed my mind that the murders are not directed to specifically better looking whores who are Mary's competition (and the surviving morgue shots and drawings don't suggest this for Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes), but were meant to spread a panic that would force hundreds of prostitutes off the streets. I don't think it would have had the chance of a snowball in Hell to work, but hey, weirder ideas have been tried out.
Still, I do hope you will find out more to write on about this.
Sincerely, best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 961
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
What evidence is there that Nichols, Chapman, Stide, and Eddowes were (physically) so much more attractive to "Johns" than Mary that they were taking business from her?
The evidence is, of course, that they were not. Stride may have been more attractive than her mortuary picture suggests, but as for the others - if accounts of MJK are to believed, it was no contest!!
Still, I do hope you will find out more to write on about this.
You are very generous, Jeff, but do you really think the origianl posts were based on anything like evidence. it read as total supposition to me.
Phil
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 940
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 5:19 pm: |
|
With this one and the thread where he discusses his theory that Tumblety and Kosminski met up over brunch in the gutter and out of the blue confessed to being serial killers to each other so they could team up to kill Mary Kelly, I get the idea that second abberline here is pitching bits for the new Monty Python "The Life of Jack" movie to see which ones have legs and which ones don't.
To help out, let me spice up this bit of dialogue from the post above:
MARY: I don't have any money... Joseph is getting out of control... What am I going to do? The competition is against me... Yes, I am prettier and younger than most of these girls, but... I would get more business if I just... If I just...
SFX: Crash of lightning and thunder, followed by ominous organ music and rapid camera zoom close up on Mary's face
MARY: ...did away with a few of them.
(Do I need stage directions indicating that the actress should start chewing the scenery at that part, or can that just be assumed from nature of the lines?)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 364
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 9:46 pm: |
|
Second Abberline,
Somehow, I think First Abberline might have been somewhat closer to the truth, but anyway, I'd just like to point a few things out to you, from some things you've said.
"Moving on to the murder of Annie Chapman, the witness is now Emily Walter, who saw the suspect around 2:00 A.M."
2:00 A.M., eh?
Well, I'd like to go one better than that.
I don't know whether you've heard of her or not, but there was another witness involved with the Annie Chapman murder - a lady named Elizabeth Long.
At around 5:30 A.M., just minutes before the time Annie would have been killed, Elizabeth Long was walking along Hanbury Street on her way to the Spitalfields Market. She saw a woman who was almost certainly Annie Chapman talking with a man right near No. 29 Hanbury Street - the scene of the murder.
And as for the man? Among other things, Long described him as being "a man over 40".
Mary Kelly was neither a man, nor over 40 years of age...How could Elizabeth Long possibly be this far wrong?
And where is the mention of other reliable witnesses such as Israel Schwartz and Joseph Lawende, both of which described similar scenes to Elizabeth Long? They all described men, talking with women, most likely the victims, right near the murder sites minutes before their death.
How is it possible that so many witnesses could all be wrong or lying on the same detail?
"This signifies that Mary Kelly somehow knew George Hutchinson from somewhere. Though it is unknown where she met him, or how long they had been friends, this is indeed something to seriously look at."
Oh it doesn't need to be signified. Here's a tip for you.
George Hutchinson himself stated that he and Mary had known each other for about 3 years by the time of Mary's death, and that he occasionally had lent her a little money. That was already a known fact.
There's plenty of other things that could be pointed out, but I'd just like to mention one more thing to you:
Assuming just for a moment that Mary Kelly is the elusive "Jack" the Ripper, and that she did have some reason for killing other prostitutes, why was it necessary for her, and how was it even physically possible for her, to mutilate the bodies in the way they were, take away organs, etc?
Mary Kelly had no known medical knowledge (apart from maybe a remedy or 2 she'd picked up from her life on the street), where as the Ripper most likely had atleast some understanding of the human anatomy.
And how do we know Mary was literate? Chances are she probably wasn't. So how, then, could she have written the Goulston Street Graffito, for example, which is considered by most to be the only possible genuine clue left by the Ripper? And especially in "good schoolboy's hand", as it was described?
I don't know about everyone else, but I just can't see the Mary Kelly we all know of to be a knife-wielding, prostitute-murdering, organ-taking serial killer.
So let's just stick to actually plausible suspects, shall we?
Regards,
Adam.
"...Since then the idea has taken full possession of me, and everything fits in and dovetails so well that I cannot help feeling that this (George Chapman) is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago..."
- Inspector Frederick Abberline, March 1903 interview, Pall Mall Gazette .
Hmmm.....
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 549
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 11:05 pm: |
|
"And how do we know Mary was literate? Chances are she probably wasn't."
I can't imagine Barnett would have had to read the newspapers to her if she was literate...
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 943
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 11:30 pm: |
|
Hi Adam, Robert...
Not to get into the same arguments everywhere (not even touching the claim that Long had to have seen Eddowes), but there's no indication that Joseph Barnett had to read to Mary Kelly, only that he did read to her on some occasions. I don't think it's safe to assume that Mary was illiterate based upon that.
Besides, look at what the person is claiming: that Mary killed other prostitutes in order to make more money. Come on, you don't even have to argue these silly side issues as the premise is fundamentally lowbrow comedy.
MARY: Ooof, I just killed me about four other unfortunates now... Only thousands more to go! (grabs some chalk from her pocket) Hutchy, dear, how do yee spell "Jews"?
GEORGE: (eating fish and chips) What did you say? Chews?
MARY: No, yee know, Jews, those dark foreigner-looking types.
GEORGE: Eh? What for?
MARY: Well, do yee know, or don't yee? Just answer me question.
GEORGE: Jews... (rubs chin) Well, I think it's J - E...
MARY: E? Are yee daft? I said Jews, not Geez. Here, watch. (purses lips) Oooooooooooh, like with a U.
GEORGE: Ooooooh?
MARY: Oooooooooooh!
GEORGE: Ahhhh.
MARY: What that settles that then.
Why even argue if Mary was seen with a victim, that's treating the comedy bit like it were real.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1498
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 4:04 am: |
|
Hi,
I agree that to suggest Mary Kelly to have been the actual killer is beyond common sense even from yours truely acute speculation.
However it is not within the realms of impossibility that she was aware of the events which unfolded on the night/morning of the 8th/ 9th of November, and could have been a party to the killing of a woman who was to represent her as a whitechapel victim.
There is a lot of circumstancial and recorded statements that could suggest that she may not have been the victim found.
A] suggestion that Mjk rented out her room for a period of the night to a man and that a young lady not known in the neighbouhood accompanied him.
B]The trio seen near Ringers one man and two women one of the women smartly dressed who seemed to have been the attention of the man who wanted her to go one way when she was reluctant to do so. and a poorly clad female in the background?.
c]The what could be described as a acting out performance for the benefit of Hutchinson with Mr Astracan and the intresting words spoken to Mary ' You will be alright for what i have told you'
It is not without plausibility that Mary kelly was giving the impression deliberately that she was risk taking that night complete with the poignant words to a friend ' I shall make away with myself' and was about to mayby reluctantly to go along with a devious plan to copycat a Ripper murder for reasons that are yet to be brought to light.
Apart from the mentioned above, we have the sightings by three people in the area after her death who possitively claim her living existance.
My scenerio does not implicate her in the other murders but it is possible that this was not part of the series which could have ended after Eddowes demise.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 965
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 7:05 am: |
|
Reading aloud was done a lot in the Victorian period - it allowed other people to do other things while listening - sewing, knitting, cooking.
While Mary MAY have been illiterate, I don't think we can assumne so simply because Joe read to her.
Phil |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 8:29 am: |
|
Hi Phil and Dan
The fact that Mary had letters delivered from her brother would suggest that he at least thought her capable of reading, otherwise why send a letter?
As for Mary Kelly being Jack the Ripper, I thought it had long been astiblished on these boards that Mr Diddles, her cat, was actually the feline behind the murders.
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 966
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
I think literate people in the Victorian period did write letters to those they knew could not read, knowing that someone would be able to red the letter to them.
Just as in some primitive societies, scribes and letter writers have existed to allow the illiterate to write to those who can read.
Phil |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 7:34 am: |
|
Agreed Phil
However if her brother could read and write I'd say it was agood possibility that she had also some education. She obviously passed her self off when she accompanied a gentleman to Paris.
I realize I'm speculating but I dont see any evidence that Kelly was unable to read, just because Joe read out loud to her.
Yours Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 969
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 1:16 pm: |
|
How would literacy be an obvious deduction - even if she ever had accompanied a gentleman to France (which she may have made up, we have no corroboration after all). Being nicely dressed might hAve been all that was required. I doubt she could have changed her voice...
I think the jury must remain out on this one.
Phil |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Does this thread scare anyone else,or is it just me? |
Sergeant Charles Eyton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 8:27 pm: |
|
Dearest 2nd Ab,
You mention that the witness Emily Walter mistook what she saw making it very likely that the Ripper was women. I assume you maintain the same stance for all the other witnesses, Lawende, Schwartz etc.
I couldn't congratulate you more on making this conclusion, obviously all the witnesses were wrong and the Ripper wasn't a man at all. But I would go one step further a say it wasn't a woman either. It has always been my fervent belief that Jack the Ripper was a penguin.
You have to admit it makes as much sense as Jack was Mary Kelly and I suggest that you look into this new revolutionary penguin suspect and eliminate him from your enquiries before settling on Kelly or a Tumblety/Kosminski partnership.
What a breath of fresh air to have someone with as much clairty on the Ripper as you come to these boards.
With the best of love,
Sergeant Charles Eyton |
James Moriarty
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
And what would Mary be doing chalking the message on the wall, defeating interlocking police beats, vigilance committees, etc. Barnett identified her body, and where did Mary get her anatomical knowledge from? She must have been a strong girl to cut throats back to the spine, and what on earth did she want with two wombs, a kidney and possibly a heart? Was she also a cannibal. These badly thought out theories give Ripperology a bad name in my honest opinion. next we'll be told it was Warren, or McCarthy, Sweeney Todd's son. |
Uriah Hexam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
I have no wish to dismiss anything out of hand: if I trudged through Wallace's ridiculous book then I should respectfully listen to anything. However, I must say that this theory provokes a wee reservation or two. Beyond the lack of any evidence, it seems, shall we say, unlikely. Nothing that I have ever read suggests that Mary Kelly was some kind of Late Victorian Aileen Wuornos. Very possibly I have blinders on, or am missing something obvious, but I'd easier conceive that Sharon Tate committed suicide. |
Sergeant Charles Eyton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Steve, I am terrified.
Hold me. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
