|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 477
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:57 am: |       |
RJ
I believe the family found by Chris were from the Ontario region. I'm not up on my geography of Canada so I'm not sure how close to Toronto that is. G. Wentworth Bell Smith as described by Forbes Winslow was said to be in the UK on business for a Toronto charity. Perhaps Kris Law can help out here, regarding whether Toronto and Ontario would be predominantly English or French speaking regions. I would presume that the majority of people in whatever region of Canada would be fairly fluent in both languages?
Interesting that Henry Wentworth Bellsmith seems to have left London before the Kelly murder. He seemed an interesting character in connection as he was apparently divorced from his first wife early in 1888 and married his second in 1889, which would give him a reason to be in lodgings in the intervening period. I had noted that his second wife was English but his children by the second marriage were born in New York, which leads me to wonder in which country the marriage took place. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 311
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 9:09 am: | |
Alan--Ontario is, of course, the Province above the Great Lakes, and Toronto the major city of the Province. The 'Wentworth' Bellsmiths seem to be associated with Hamilton and other cities near Toronto. If the Port Philip Herald piece is a reference to the Bell Smith story (and I think it is) it mentions the lodger being visited by his 'brother.' I don't think we should be too startled if we find that the Winslow/Callaghan story had a factual basis. Cheers, RP |
Chris Michetti
Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
His brother, who she understood was a doctor, visited him on two occasions and appeared much older than he.
Do any of our suspects have an older brother in the medicinal profession? Even if this were all a hoax, this could be interesting.
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 10:35 am: | |
Hi Mark:
It seems to me we are both trying to explain the same thing, why this seeming strong indication that the Ripper had been located apparently was not followed up on by Scotland Yard with the subsequent apprehension of the killer, and why this story has lain hidden for so long. Police inefficiency maybe? Possibly they did follow it up and the lead came to nothing? Since the suspects files are missing from the PRO we just don't know whatever work, if any, they did on this lead. It can be assumed, and there is evidence of this in the press, that they were given leads by the public all the time which led to questioning of scores if not hundreds of men.
Or could this be, as Scott Nelson and I have written, more properly a story made up by or promoted by Albert Bachert? Yes the woman may have existed, but was she herself a sensation seeker, someone who thought she could claim a reward?
Do you see where I am coming from, Mark? We are both trying to find out why the story did not lead to the solution of the puzzle.
Best regards
Chris George |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 918
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
Hi all just to clarify - Dave certainly did contact me with article in advance and credit was not mentioned or, in my opinion, necessary. Anyone who uses the boards is entirely free to use any info I post without bothering about credit. My attitude has always been it is the information that is important, not the finder. Other researchers may of course have different requirements and their sensibilities should be borne in mind and I cannot speak for them.
So, guys, anything I post, feel free to use and don't worry about the name dropping:-))
All the best
Chris
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Everybody can now go home, and Casebook can now close its doors -- since I have just come across an article (in Casebooks Press Section) published in the Port Philip Herald in Australia, appearing on 12 February 1895, and announcing that Jack The Ripper was caught in London in flagante delicto. In view of this sensational article in the Port Philip Herald, what does this tell us, if anything, about the material that Chris Scott found?
Port Philip Herald
Australia
12 February 1895
JACK THE RIPPER CAUGHT RED HANDED
A NOTORIOUS ASSASSIN SEIZED BY THE POLICE WHILE MUTILATING A WOMAN
A SPITALFIELDS TRAGEDY
GIVES THE NAME GRANT
A SHIP'S FIREMAN
THE POLICE CONFIDENT
London, Monday night.
The London police are of opinion that at last they have got safely under lock and key the long sought assassin known as Jack the Ripper, whose series of atrocious murders and mutilations, principally at Whitechapel, have extended over a period of years.
At an early hour this morning a quick succession of piercing screams were heard by constables on duty at Spitalfields, and several of them ran at once to the spot whence the sounds proceeded. The first constable to arrive was just in time to catch a dark stalwart looking man stooping over a young woman who was lying on the pavement and struggling for her life.
Armed with a long knife the man was cutting and hacking at the unfortunate woman in merciless fashion.
The assassin was smartly seized and disarmed, and on being taken to the police station he gave the name of Grant.
He described himself as a ship's fireman by occupation.
The woman, who was terribly wounded and is not likely to recover, is of the unfortunate class.
All the circumstances, save that the victim was permitted to make a noise and create the alarm which led to the assassin's arrest, so much resemble those which characterised the Whitechapel murders that the police believe Grant to be the perpetrator of the whole ghastly string of tragedies.
The man was brought before magistrates today and remanded.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 638
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
Hi, Mark:
But isn't what you have just posted a very good example of why we can't always trust newspaper reports?
Chris |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 485
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 10:59 am: | |
Mark/Chris
It isn't even that, it is rather I would say a good example of why Mark has got things the wrong way around in his method of investigating the case by trying to make all the facts fit his suspect Walter Sickert rather than investigating the facts first.
I say this because if he had investigated the facts first he would know that this refers to William Grant Grainger, who was eventually sentenced with malicious wounding, and who was fully investigated by the police after this attack on the possibility that he was Jack the Ripper.
So in other words, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the newspaper report above. Grant was indeed caught in an alley stabbing a woman and the police did indeed think they might have caught Jack the Ripper. At a later date than this newspaper report they discovered they were wrong. Where is the problem here. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 640
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
Hi, Alan:
The problem is that the reader who takes this newspaper report at face value is only getting part of the story. You realize that there is more to the story than is told here but not everyone is going to realize that. Which is why I was saying newspaper reports have to be used with care, just like a newspaper report that might falsely report that Mary Jane Kelly's head was severed from her neck. The newspaper reports have to be used in conjunction with other press reports and the official documents of the case, not used in isolation. Again, Alan, I know you realize that but I am just pointing it out for the benefit of newcomers to the case.
All the best
Chris |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
Alan wrote:
>It isn't even that, it is rather I would say a good example of why Mark has got things the wrong way around in his method of investigating the case by trying to make all the facts fit his suspect Walter Sickert rather than investigating the facts first.
No, Alan, what this example vividly demonstrates is that no matter how thickly one one pours the irony and sarcasm, the humor will inevitably fly right over some people's heads.
And Chris George, my posts ends with a question that essentially asks the same question you ask in your post. I don't take any press report at face value, and that is why I am examining the information in The People in detail as best I can from a distance of 114 years.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 2:58 pm: | |
Alan wrote:
>At a later date than this newspaper report they discovered they were wrong. Where is the problem here.
The problem I was trying to draw attention to by analogy is: in the Lodger story published by The People, there was never any further follow up to resolve this matter, unlike the Grant case.
Neither The People's reporter nor the police ever traced the identity of the landlady -- even though there is enough information in the articles for anyone to have tracked her and her husband down with very little effort. Neither the reporter, nor Bachert, nor the police ever discovered and revealed the Lodger's name, even though the Lodger's identity must have been known to the landlady, her husband, and the other roomers in the roominghouse in Auldgate. He lived there for more than a year! Even after the Lodger left the rooming house following the Castle Alley murder, he continued to live in Auldgate, got "married" (who was this "bride", Annie Crook?), and was frequently seen the in the Auldgate neighborhood. Where was the follow up by The People? Where was the followup by police? Where was the followup by Albert Bachert? Where was the followup by all of the others London newspapers and magazines -- who must have read the articles in The People? Where was the followup by the legions of amateur sleuths in the 19th Century -- some of whom must also have read the articles in The People? Why did this very credible Lodger story disappear into oblivion, unknown to all to all the major researchers on Jack The RIpper right up to the present day?
That is the problem,
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 646
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
Hi, Mark
The answer to the questions in your post about the Lodger story that appeared in the Port Philip Herald, to my mind, is that it is just one of many leads in the case, and many apparently bogus stories, just like the many hoax letters that were written in the case. You call the story "very credible" but maybe the police did follow it up and found it not credible or maybe they just ignored it because they knew the source of the story. Just because a newspaper hypes up a story, which they often did, does not mean that there was any real basis for it.
Best regards
Chris George |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 550
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
Hello All
In reference to the article mentioned by Mark. It is an article about a near contemporary suspect whose full name was William Grant Grainger. It appears that Phillip Sugden and Paul Begg believe he was the chap who was identified by Joseph Lawende in 1895.
So it does appear we can all pack up and go home.
All The Best
Gary |
Yo man
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
I would just like to say that I find Chris Scott's lack of ego to be a totally refreshing trait in the world of Ripperology. This man seeks no fame, which is exactly why he will one day be remembered as one of the most famed Ripperologists. |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 76
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 7:50 pm: | |
Grainger was nabbed for one crime and bound over for that being the assault mentioned above. Is he a credible suspect to be Jack the Ripper? certainly Can we close shop? Certainly not. If he was identified by Lawlende in 1895 that means there was a seven year gap and eye witnesses can be notoriously unreliable inthe moments following the crime. After seven years the memory has become coloured by a myriad of life experiences and the accompanying baggage that goes with them. A notable case of this was the very same Tichborne case mentioned by Mark Starr and others. Lady Tichborne swore on a stack that the claimant was her son Roger he was later proved not to be Roger in a British court.
I greatly respect both Paul Begg and Phillip Sugden's work but we're all human and everyone makes mistakes. I stand by my belief that the case is not closed. Kindest regards, Neil |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 7:21 pm: | |
Chris Scott:
Can you possibly clear up some confusion on my part concerning the documented facts pertaining to Annie Crook, Alice Crook and Joseph Gorman Sickert? I gather you have previously confirmed the existence of Annie Crook and her daughter Alice.
ANNIE:
Is there a marriage certificate for Annie?
Who is the named husband?
ALICE:
Is there a birth certificate for Alice?
WHo is the named father?
Is Annie named as the mother?
Is there a marriage certificate for Alice?
Who is the named husband?
Joseph Gorman Sickert:
Is there a birth certificate for Joseph?
Who is the named mother?
Who is the named father?
Is there any documented connection between Joseph and Walter Sickert -- even so much as a postcard.
Did Walter Sickert ever recognize Joseph as his illigitimate biological son?
Did Walter leave Joseph anything in his will? Did Joseph ever get any of Walter's paintings or drawings, or even his copyrights?
Is Joseph Gorman Sickert still alive?
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 956
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 10:58 am: | |
Hi Mark
As far as I understand the situation the existence and relationship of Alice and Annie Crook is established as is their place in Joseph's family tree. The only evidence for any link between Joseph and Walter Sickert was and remains, as far as I know, Jospeh's own version of events as first recounted in the '70s.
I believe that on the birth certificate for Alice Crook, as recounted in various sources, that the name and details of father is simply blank.
I know of no documented link between Joseph and Walter Sickert and certainly do not think the artist ever "acknowledged" or mentioned him in his lifetime (at the time of Walter's death in 1942 Joseph would have been about 17 years of age)
In answer to your last question, it was reported on the Casebook last yeard that Joseph had sadly passed away.
Hope this helps
Chris |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
hi Mark,
Hope the following helps.
To the best of my knowledge there is no record of Annie Crook marrying anyone. A birth certificate for Alice Crook can be found reproduced in Stephen Knights’ book “The Final Solution”. Annie is named as the mother whilst the name of the father is left blank. Alice married William Gorman on 14th. July 1918 according Melvyn Fairclough in “The Ripper and the Royals”, so it should be possible to obtain a birth certificate. It has been generally accepted that Joseph Gorman Sickert was the son of Alice and William Gorman, and I suspect that a search of the birth registers would prove this.
I do not believe I have heard of any documentary connection between Walter Sickert and Joseph, or of his having recognized Joseph as his son, or of leaving him anything in his will. From memory I think I have read of Joseph having claimed to own Walter’s easel, but that is about all. Joseph’s claim to be related to Walter is made by him and also backed up by his cousin Ellen May Lackner in “The Ripper and the Royals”
Best Regards
John Savage
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 8:15 pm: | |
Many thanks to Chris Scott and John Savage for the wondefully precise information that they posted. No search engine could possibly be as fast and accurate as these two.
I realize that I am no longer on the topic of Albert Bachert's letter. But since I have the attention of precisely the two gentlemen who have the information I am looking for, I will continue with some more questions about Joseph Gorman, Annie and Alice Crook.
If there was in fact no biological connection between Joseph Gorman and Walter Sickert, then how, why and when did these two ever meet -- if, in fact, they ever did meet. From what you wrote, there was no link between Walter Sickert and Alice Crook -- or Annie Crook. How could Walter and Joseph have even crossed paths?
There is another important question to investigate here. I see two main possibilities.
Either:
(a) Joseph Sickert lied that he was Walter Sickert's son. Joseph lied that he ever even met and talked with Walter Sickert. He lied that Walter Sickert gave him the easel. He lied that Walter Sickert gave him the basic information for the Royal Conspiracy Theory. Joseph Sickert not only made up the basic story that formed the Royal Conspiracy Theory, he also fabricated all his claims concerning himself and Walter Sickert.
or
(b) Joseph Sickert was not the biological son of Walter Sickert. But he did in fact meet and talk with Walter Sickert at some point in time. For some unknown reason, Walter nurtured young Joseph. Walter Sickert told Joseph that he was his son -- whether legitimate son or illegitimate son is not really that important, from my point of view. What is important: Joseph Sickert genuinely believed he was Walter Sickert's son because Walter had told him so. Walter also told Joseph information about a Royal Conspiracy that implicated Walter only peripherally. And Joseph believed this basic story was true, again because Walter Sickert had told him it was true. However, the information that Walter gave Joseph was false, and Walter knew it wasw false because he, Walter, had fabricated the plot. Walter had made up this information because he had decided to manipulate Joseph for his own purposes -- even after his death. Walter's fabricated information contained some nuggets of true information that only Walter and not Joseph could possibly have known: such as details about the coach driver John Netley. When the BBC contacted Joseph, he took all the bits of information that Walter had given him and knowingly fabricated the full first version of the Royal Conspiracy story, believing the germ of the story, given to him by Walter, was true. Then Stephen Knight took it over and revised it into The Final Solution.
Of course, variations on these two scenarios are possible. But, as I see it, only two possibilities are plausible in reality, (a) or (b). Who was the real liar behind the Royal Conspiracy: Joseph Gorman or Walter Sickert? (Let's ignore Knight for the moment. He could not have entered the picture without Joseph.) I would be most interested in reading other's ideas on this very important question. Or is this another one of those questions that will never be answered?
It is possible that some of you might want to transfer this discussion to a new thread. In that case, please leave some information here where to find the new topic.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 961
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
Anyone who is interested in Bachert should tead David's dissertation at:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-bachert.html
I can now add a little more info as I have found the Bachert family in the 1871 census as follows:
Address:
49 Duke's Place, Aldgate
Head:
John Bachert aged 39 born Mecklenburg, Sweden
Tailor
Wife:
Georgina Bachert aged 36 born Hanover
Children
Augusta aged 15
Albert aged 8
Emily aged 6
Flora aged 1
All children listed as born in London
Chris |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 10:09 am: | |
Hi, Chris
Thanks for posting that census information. For additional information not in the Bachert summary, see R.J. Palmer's post on the disappearance of John Bachert in 1887 here.
Cheers,
Dave} |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
I have posted a reply to your last mail on the Walter Sickert thread.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 6:47 am: | |
Hello Chris!
"John Bachert, 39, born Mecklenburg, Sweden".
There is no such place in Sweden, not to my knowledge. Sounds like Germany to me.
Regards, Tommy |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1092
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
Hi Tommy
Thanks for the info. I'm posting the part from the census return below
Chris
 |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 6:11 am: | |
Hi Chris!
Yes I can see, it looks like Sweden! I checked with my roadmap(KAK bilatlas) yesterday, there is no place with that name in Sweden,
but an area near Hamburg is named Mecklenburg.
Tommy |
Jill Jansen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hi, Chris and Tommy!
If you look real close...
Doesn´t the name of the country; Sweden, seem to be crossed out, to you? Maybe that is just the way they wrote "back then" but I really don´t think so. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1178
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
It seems that areas of German Mecklenburg were ceded in stages from Sweden even into the 19th censtury. Sweden finally relinquished rights to areas of Mecklenburg as late as 1903
Chris |
Magnus
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 5:17 am: | |
Even though it seems to state "Sweden", it is much more likely that it was meant: "Mecklenburg-Schwerin". Mecklenburg did belong to the new founded German Reich from 1871, and did not, previous to that, belong to Sweden. The fact that "Sweden" is crossed out, could indicate this mistake. Another possibility is the ignorance of the person writing this on such matters. "Schwerin" could have sounded like "Sweden" to a non-German speaking. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
I have found a US version of the Backert "Lodger" story which might be of interest. Because of the length of the article I will post in 3 parts. This is from the Ogden Standard of 14 October 1890.
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 7:55 am: | |
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1326
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 7:56 am: | |
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1327
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 8:00 am: | |
As this version of the story is even earlier than the Australian version which heads this thread, I am posting the date from the newspaper banner
 |
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Thanks for posting this Chris. I don't know how you manage to find all these things.
I am inclined to believe that Backert's lodginghouse keeper was getting a bit carried away with her story - the Port Philip Herald version seems to include a little bit of every theory that was current at the time! |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 275
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
Well done again Chris Scott, digging up an earlier U S newspaper account of "The Lodger" story.And to Mark Starr for mulching this thread with good quality observations.
I have observed previously, the provenance of these Australian press accounts of these stories appears to be New York press repeats of obscure London journals' stories.(Mainly, I think, THE PEOPLE and possibly, THE DAILY CHRONICLE ).
Has anyone checked these London papers for their versions? (As Mark Starr has already asked?).
I think we should bear in mind not only the London newspapers but the Metropolitan Police heirarchy subscribed to a Lodger-type theory.
Sparked mainly by their need to justify their lack of success in catching the multi-murderer.
He was protected by his own family with whom he
resided.Or he lived alone in secluded premises.
Why, even George R Sims in his 1907 account (see Press Reports)alleges Montague Druitt resided with his family in London. Obviously wrong, but a c***-eyed salute to the Lodger Theory.
(For those wondering about the asterisks, I found I was warned by a Casebook editorial device, I am not permitted to use that four-letter word here). |
Leigh Goodger
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
Is there any evidence to suggest the Bell-Smith was another AKA for Dr Francis Tumbulty? After al they both were Lodgers, American/Candian and of similar discription (including being the same heigh of 5ft.10in) |
Malta Joe
Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 29
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Hi Leigh. I looked into that myself about a year ago. I ended up giving it a thumbs down, even though there were similarities between the two men. (I'm trying not to let my feelings of not being a Dr. Forbes Winslow fan influence me too much here.) If I remember this story right, Winslow brought forth a patient of his who was the landlord of Bell-Smith. This landlord gave an account of the night concerning the first Ripper killing in George Yard. He gave this account about a year after it occurred.
I would think the people who make the case for Tumblety + Bell-Smith being the same can use some reasoning that really doesn't sound that bad to the ear. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle of 1-28-89 reports of Tumblety using "Smith" as an alias. Both men seem to have connections with the city of Toronto. (Tumblety declared in 1856 that Toronto was to be his permanent residence.) It sounded like Bell-Smith was accused of mis-using religion to propel him into the Tabrams murder. Tumblety too, knew how to mis-use religion. He was admonished at a Cinci cathedral for worshipping as a show-off. Also, Tumblety declared to his landlady Mrs. McNamara that the excuse for his late night antics was so he can "Go to a monastry and pray for his dear departed wife." (Yeah , right.) So I can't deny that similarites exist, but it ends there and it comes way short of providing the evidence you asked for in wondering if Bell - Smith was a Tumblety alias.
The Philadelphia Times of 12-3-88 introduced a mis-use of religion possibility into the Eddowes' murder, but who is to say this was the reason that intrigued the police to consider Bell-Smith's religious attitudes in the same light? It's a tricky read with very little info to go on, but I thought you were good in bringing up the matter, Leigh. I'd have to cast a no vote on it though. |
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Leigh & Joe,
I am hopeful that we have now identified Bell Smith as one H Wentworth Bellsmith. I know what you're going to say ... it's G not H!
I have posted a bit about him on one of the threads here - for more info see the G Wentworth Bell Smith thread in the suspects section at jtrforums.co.uk
(Message edited by dknott on October 05, 2004) |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page