|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 16
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 1:42 pm: | 
|
The Kelly Murder is beginning to stick out like a sore thumb.
Melvin Harris - Much respect to you, sir! Your first effort - "The Bloody Truth" remains my favourite Ripper book. But, how did Mary Kelly get placed in Goulston Street on the map inside the front cover? Freudian slip? Editorial mishap? Or was it just too convenient to put her somewhere near the centre of the cross rather than a few hundred yards north and way out of kilter?
Your work and that of Ivor Edwards deserves to be lauded much more than it has been, but it is all too easy to see where the hole is!
Much respect to you both, it is easy to critique and not so easy to explain away the juives!!!
Paul |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 20
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 5:28 am: |
|
Strike the previous post - it reads much harsher than my sentiment when I was writing it.
What I'm really intereted in is that, for a number of reasons, Stephenson becomes a stronger suspect if you exclude Kelly from the sequence.
Has anybody given much consideration to the idea that Kelly is not a ripper victim, but was killed by Barnett, whilst the true culprit for the other murders has yet to be identified?
Paul |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Paul.
A lot of thought has gone into these murders, and these boards are littered with posts [ mine included] that it is a strong possibility that Barnett ,or someone close to him committed the Kelly murder.
We have no prove to that conclusion obviously, yet there is strong circumstancial evidence, that points to his guilt.
Regarding your suspect, a possibility, but speaking personally not.
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 7:18 am: |
|
I find it amazing to see so many arguments on the boards for Kelly not being a ripper victim. Does anyone else, like me, get the feeling that most of the arguments have less to do with the evidence from the crime scenes, and more to do with pinning Kelly's murder on a love-sick Barnett and/or finding it tricky to pin on one's favourite ripper suspect?
Love,
Caz |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 7:58 am: |
|
G'day Caz,
What evidence do we have from the crime scenes? The killer left no evidence! Who says Kelly was not a Ripper victim? How did Kelly's killer try to disguise her murder as a Ripper crime? The scene didn't look like any previous scene!
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 187
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 9:31 am: |
|
Hi all,
Caz, you wrote: "Does anyone else, like me, get the feeling that most of the arguments have less to do with the evidence from the crime scenes...."
Actually, it was the crime scene that caused me to question whether Kelly was a 'Ripper' victim.
1) She was killed indoors
2) She was much younger than the other victims
3) Her murder reportedly showed no signs of anatomical skill, or knowledge. This is in contrast to the reports of Chapman's, and Eddowes' murder. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 46
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
What evidence do we have from the crime scenes?
The killer left plenty of evidence - the bodies, what he did to them and how he left them!
Who says Kelly was not a Ripper victim?
Plenty of people on these boards seem to be happy with the idea that she wasn't!
How did Kelly's killer try to disguise her murder as a Ripper crime?
He didn't have to if it was a Ripper crime.
A question for you and Marie now:
If the Ripper had encountered Kelly on the streets, and she had invited him back to her place for some rumpy pumpy, and reassured him that they would be undisturbed, would he have turned down the opportunity to kill and mutilate her, this time with wild abandon in her own room, because he insisted on:
A) getting his jollies outdoors in very limited time and light, and
B) attacking only the older, worse for wear types, that he tended to find in that area?
Well, would he? You'll have to come up with a pretty good reason, if you want to convince me that Kelly wouldn't have been the Ripper's idea of a perfect dish of the day. 
Love,
Caz
|
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 2:33 pm: |
|
"if you want to convince me that Kelly wouldn't have been the Ripper's
idea of a perfect dish of the day. "
At the risk of appearing macabre, I can't help but think that Jack, upon closing the door at Kelly's abode, must have felt like he'd just hit the lottery.
Sir Robert
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 193
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 7:12 am: |
|
Hi all,
Caz, you wrote: "Well, would he? You'll have to come up with a pretty good reason, if you want to convince me that Kelly wouldn't have been the Ripper's idea of a perfect dish of the day."
I'm sure Mary would have been a perfectly saucy dish for the Ripper.
It's perfectly possible that Kelly was a Ripper victim, and that her particular murder was less skillful, and more of a 'butchery', because the Ripper had enough time to get his jollies, behind closed doors.
But, to clarify my point: there is enough difference in the crime scenes (the major difference being the lack of medical skill in Kelly's murder) to make me wonder whether Mary was in fact a victim of what has been described in other such cases as 'domestic lust murder'.
As I've posted before- to me, it almost seems like Kelly's murder is a crude approximation of the Eddowes or Chapman killings.
The only point that makes me question whether Barnett was the Ripper, is the fact that I'm not wholly convinced he could pull of the Eddowes and Chapman mutilations. But that fact doesn't exclude him from suspicion, in my opinion. He remains to my mind, a good suspect who had a motive to murder the other women, too.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 7:40 am: |
|
Quite, Sir Robert.
No takers yet for my question. Perhaps I should put it another way then.
It's one thing to consider the possibility that Kelly was not a ripper victim. But if anyone wants to argue that she wasn't, they will need some very good reasons, based on evidence from the crime scene, why the man who killed Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes (and probably only narrowly managed to save his own bacon, to enjoy with Kate's kidney during October, when the pavements were so hot he could have fried an egg on them) would not, or could not, have emerged in early November and made Kelly his next victim.
I have yet to see a half decent case made for Jack's absence from Miller's Court. And the attempts thus far tend to come from those whose pet suspect for Kelly's murder can't be squeezed into the ripper's clothes, or whose preferred ripper suspect gets a new and improved look without Kelly in the picture.
Love,
Caz
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 196
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 7:46 am: |
|
Caz: I did answer your question, please refer back to my post. The one thing that makes Kelly's murder different is the distinct lack of medical knowledge and skill. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 9:30 am: |
|
Sorry, Marie, I composed and posted my message before seeing that you had responded.
You appear to be saying that the man who carved up Kelly couldn't have had any medical knowledge or skill. But isn't that a bit different from saying the killer didn't need either, to do what he did to her body?
Anyway, my point is simply this: I see no good reason why the ripper would not, or could not, have done what was done to Kelly in that room - given that out of working hours his bag was murder and mutilation, not delicate heart surgery - and therefore no reason to think he didn't do just that, and no urge to go hunting for a one-off killer instead.
In other words, it ain't broke, so why fix it?
Love,
Caz
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 199
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
Yes, I did concede your point regarding the fact that Mary could very well have been a Ripper killing. Most people believe her to be a Ripper victim.
But my point was simply this: there is enough difference in her murder and mutilation, and enough difference in the level of skill displayed in her murder, to make me wonder if she was a 'Ripper' killing, at all. And I tend to think not.
As I've stated, I've read about domestic lust murders that have been very similar.
I found this site doing a search, and personally found it very interesting. The details regarding the Kelly murder are very intriguing- give it a read and let me know what you think.
http://www.karyom.com/WhitechapelMJKELLY.htm |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 6:49 am: |
|
Hi Marie,
Thanks for that. The final sentence I read is the one which, for me, raises most doubt about Kelly not being a ripper victim. The author speculates that anyone wanting rid of someone must have been tempted to use the earlier murders as their opportunity, but admits that pretending to be Jack would have been a highly risky business.
I have to agree there. Succeed in fooling the authorities that your work is the ripper's, and the tiniest thing that could tie you to the scene will have them believing you are the ripper.
Fail to convince anyone that Jack woz 'ere, and you are automatically the prime suspect for the botched job, and will continue to be treated as such, however clever you are at covering your tracks.
Of course, it helps if you have never been known to be violent or abusive towards anyone, particularly your victim.
Incidentally, do you happen to know what kind of qualifications the author of this piece has? I only ask because I was wondering last night, and before I saw your post, what proportion of today's experts in forensic pathology, psychiatry and serial killing, on examining the Kelly crime scene and Bond report for the first time, say to themselves, "Blimey, there's something wrong here, I don't think the man who killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes would or could have done this to Kelly."
If the majority verdict is that there is no reason to believe the same man could not have done it, while I appreciate this might not necessarily rule out a different killer, I won't have much desire to go haring off after another creature to pin Kelly's murder on.
Love,
Caz
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 210
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 6:45 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
No, I don't know what qualifications the author has, I'll try and check that out. I've not had as much time as I'd like, to pursue this.
You wrote: " I only ask because I was wondering last night, and before I saw your post, what proportion of today's experts in forensic pathology, psychiatry and serial killing, on examining the Kelly crime scene and Bond report for the first time, say to themselves, "Blimey, there's something wrong here, I don't think the man who killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes would or could have done this to Kelly."
I was wondering about this myself. I'd like to try and do a bit more research, and see what I can come up with. Hopefully I can come back to this, in a few days.
|
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 23
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 8:28 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I don't really have anything new to bring to this debate, but I can assure you that I would never have thought of leaving Kelly out as a ripper victim three weeks ago, so the notion is by no means in-grained.
It's all circumstantial and each separate piece could easily be countered, but put altogether it does seem to make a strong case for Barnett killing Kelly, but I certainly couldn't have him in the frame for Eddowes.
There is the long gap between Eddowes and Kelly.
The Goulston Street graffito also has a ring of somebody who's finished his work and asks who'll get the blame for it about it.
The notion that Messrs Kidney and Kelly didn't have the motive to do away with their other halves and there is no reason to suspect they were skilled with a knife. But Barnett had one hell of a motive for killing Kelly and was well practised with a knife. It's rather fanciful, but Kelly appears to have been murdered with a passion which makes it difficult for me to believe that somebody who didn't know her would have gone that far...Then there is the removal of the heart..."H-h-heartless b-bitch"
On the Sickert thread, you asked who else could be surgically removed from the suspect list and the answer is most of them...but not Donston. Equally, if we want to bring Kelly back into the equation, there is nothing to say that Donston couldn't have murdered her either.
However, I'm warming to the idea of the cross-shaped murder grid profaned by the Goulston Street graffito, which is quite close to the centre. Obviously, Ivor Edwards can make a case for wierd significant shapes that encompass the Kelly murder site, but it's all a bit too fanciful for my simple tastes.
In short, the cross, the juives explanation of the spelling, the anatomical knowledge required to remove the kidney, the raconteur element to Donston's personality (evidenced by his ability to pull Mabel Collins) and his military precision make Donston a very interesting suspect.
This is not the ultimate solution or even the final score, but Donston 4 Barnett 1, at least as a hint of feasibility about it.
But then again, that's only my opinion.
Paul
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 9:04 am: |
|
G'day,
PAUL: If Barnett did that to the woman that he loved, why couldn't he do it to the others? They meant nothing to him and he blamed them for Kelly's downfall.
Martha Tabram once lived on the same street that he and Kelly first lived together on. Pearly Poll gave her address as the Lodging House across the road from Miller's Court.
Annie Chapman had been living across the road at 'Crossingham's', having previously stayed at 30 Dorset Street.
Elizabeth Stride's boyfriend gave his address as: "33 Dorset Street".
Catharine Eddowes often stayed in the empty shed that was literately next door to Barnett and Kelly's room.
The piece of apron found near the graffito, indicated in which direction the killer fled - towards Dorset Street.
LEANNE |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 24
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 11:03 am: |
|
Leanne,
I discussed this in detail on the Sickert thread and even went to the trouble of finding out where fish kidneys are located...There is no reason to suppose that Barnett possessed the necessary anatomical knowledge to remove the Eddowes kidney swiftly and neatly in the dark...this morning I read in a book the suggestion that Jack might not have even been after the kidney and could have stumbled across it by accident - no chance - they are so deeply encaved that they are nearer your back than your front.
I'm also still of the opinion (that has little support from elsewhere that being a bit of a raconteur would have greatly assisted Jack - Barnett certainly didn't possess that quality.
Also, if it was Barnett why "Juwes"?
Paul
I know - it's baseless opinion - but I am still quite open minded about this |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 5:19 pm: |
|
G'day Paul,
Aren't we all reading a bit too much into the graffito? It wasn't and still isn't proven beyond doubt that the words were written by the killer. But the piece of apron definately belonged to Catharine Eddowes, so all we can safely determine from this evidence is the direction the killer was fleeing.
Who knows, maybe the killer just happened to have a piece of chalk in his pocket, and stopped to think: "I know, I'll write something to lay the blame on the Jews, above this piece of apron that I'm going to drop so police can determine the way I ran!"
There were a number of human anatomical books available in 1888, you know!
If we're going to continue this debate, how about we move to Catharines board?
LEANNE |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 25
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 4:44 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
One thought on the way that the killer fled Mitre Square...
Just suppose it was Donston - he's quite unlikely to head back onto Aldgate High Street because that would take him towards Berner Street. As I have stated ad nauseum, I have spent quite a lot of time wandering the streets of Whitechapel and if I wanted to get back to the Royal Hospital by an alternative route, I would probably have headed up Goulston Street towards Spitalfields and walked the entire length of Hanbury Street...I may even have walked down Dorset Street en route.
I've heard the argument about 1888 anatomical books, but I can't imagine them containing clearly labelled colour cross-sectional diagrams.
I'll gladly continue on Catharine's page if you like.
Paul |
paracelsus
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Am checking the possibility that Logsdail's"Lord Mayor's procession 1888" is significant. It was the day after Mary Kelly.Artists and painters keep appearing |
bob
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 3:25 pm: |
|
black magician roslyn donston stephenson, i think?
He had an exceptional I.Q. |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 31
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 7:28 am: |
|
Hi Bob,
An exceptional IQ and a mesmeric effect on women...the latter trait is always ignored by those who wish to rubbish his candidature.
He also supplied the only rational explanation for the Goulston St graffito, had the necessary anatomical knowledge and was actually residing in Whitechapel at the time.
I'm not saying that any of this constitutes an open and shut case, but I am amazed he is not taken more seriously.
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 6:45 am: |
|
Hi Paul,
D'Onston's error about the graffito being by Eddowes's body had to be some kind of bluff if he was Jack - a way of implying that he couldn't be the killer because he got the location of the graffito totally wrong.
I doubt he would have had a mesmeric effect on me - but then, we don't know he had such an effect on all women, or was just good at identifying the more gullible ones. He must have had his work cut out on the murder nights, rising from his hospital bed, and, using his judgment and mesmeric powers, finding a suitable victim to lure to his chosen spot.
Love,
Caz |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 32
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 7:25 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I'd say D'Onston's error could well have been deliberate. He could have been almost trying to boast on the one hand whilst simultaneously distancing himself on the other.
He signed himself in as a private patient so the only person to say that he was rising from a "sick" bed (which I guess you're implying) is D'Onston himself...and that's called an alibi!
Mesmeric might be too strong a word, but I'm just harping back to a previous notion that Jack was a charming man. D'Onston is no oil painting but Mabel Collins was by all accounts so he must have had some mysteriously alluring quality.
Paul |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 9:43 pm: |
|
'...the latter trait is always ignored by those who wish to rubbish his candidature.'
We should rubbish all candidature for being the Whitechapel murderer. Legitimizing candidature is a British way of striving for pleasure. Most people do not strive for pleasure, but the British do. Candidature pleases British nature. They want to feel the bitter, juniper-berry tingle of "scientifically" evaluating candidates under the strictest of standards. This is ipso facto the end in itself for them.
But we of other persuasion, we know their secret. Theirs, ours, and the Whitechapel murderer's too. And that is that all of us have but one secret.
One either solves the case on strength of evidence, or one does not.
Saddam
|
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 33
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 7:56 am: |
|
Blimey Saddam...
But excuse me for pointing out that most of us have not yet mastered time travel, so we cannot garner further scene of crime evidence. We simply await new publications by those with the time, commitment and, in some cases, money to undertake the task. Then we try to evaluate their work in order to differentiate between fact and fabrication, exchange views on message boards and thank casebook.org for giving us the opportunity to do so.
I don't know how much you have explored this site but one of the pleasant diversions that it offers is the ability to vote. In order to cast votes one needs candidates. In order to strike a preference, one must favour one's candidature over another.
I would not be so pompous as to ever suggest that I have the definitive solution or that my favoured theories are superior to those adhered to by others. But I defend the constitutional right of all participants on these pages - British, American and any other nationality - to express wonderment as to why certain candidates receive more votes than others.
By all means, provide us with your solution backed up by weight of evidence or simply sneer at our ineptitude behind a veil of anonymity, but kindly leave us to our little games in peace.
I am, after all, merely a cartoon character appearing under an alias. I do not claim to be a great detective and my appearance here is probably a breach of Express newspapers' copyright...so as far as your concerned, I don't even exist!!
Frankly, the only product I know containing juniper berries is Gin and I think you should take more tonic water with it! 
Paul |
Noel Charles Auger
Police Constable
Username: Seecomber
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Although not strictly germane to the thread on this board I have been puzled by a comment in the report of Inspector Rootin response to Stephenson`s visit on 26/12/88.Clearly Marsh`s report had set the police in pursuit of Stephenson who deemed it wise to volunteer a statement. Root said `that Stephenson was a man I had known 20 years`.
I do not know anything of Root`s Previous service but if he had known Stephenson 20 years this indicates he had known him since he was 27 years old,the time we must assume he came to live in London.All his studies,military service,civil service career,travels in India,Africa,and training with Lytton must have preceded 1868 when he was 27 years old.Stephenson packed a remarkable amount of experience into a few years,or so he would have us,and Root,believe.It would be interesting to know the nature of Roots familiarity with Stepheson,whether it was professional or was Stephenson a `police character`who was well known to the police but not caught offending. |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 499
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Just a minor realignment of Mr. Auger's post from 2 years previous...in case it could be misconstrued.
Roots would have been 18 or 19 when he first encountered RDS.
Stephenson would have been,as noted above,27 years old, if Roots was being exact and not " ballpark " in his statement of 26/12/88.
HowBrown
|
S.Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
Hey all,
I was just going over the file of Mary Kelly and found something interesting. Out of all the suspects in this case, R.D. Stephenson is the only suspect that matches the discription of the last person seen with Mary Kelly before her murder. He matches perfectly with the discription. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 641
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Hi, S.Ryan !
As someone who is fairly interested in Stephenson [ research wise ], may I ask why you declare "R.D. Stephenson is the only suspect that matches the discription of the last person.." ?
Because,as much as I would like to agree with you, you may wish to refer to the witness description given by George Hutchinson,who described him as having a "respectable Jewish appearance" and more importantly,at least to me, a gauged height of 5 ft. 6 inches. This information can be found in the A-Z, page 196,as well as a variety of other sources.
A person's ethnicity can be mistaken for another ethnic group at times [ all pale males in the dark sort of look alike...].
But the height is a bit of a problem. 5 ft. 6 is significantly different than 5 ft. 11",which is what Stephenson was.
Why not register and check out the Stephenson threads,if you have an interest in this character ? See you there....
HowBrown
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
