|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 4:41 am: |       |
Hi everyone,
As I was the person who first mentioned this episode, on the casebook a couple of years back,I would like to add my pennys worth.
The letter Dan Farson received, came after his TV programme Farsons Guide to the British' when after including in the series two half hour specials on 'Jack' he appealed for imformation relating to the case to be sent to him. He received a sackful of replys as one would expect, the vast majority were junk mail, It was my Granny etc..
But the letter refered to was eyecatching because, it was from an elderly lady , refering to an episode in her dead mothers early life, if one takes the view that 99.9 per cent of decent people would not make a reference about their dead mother, if it was not the truth.then I would tend to believe that this occurence happened.
As Leanne has stated,the fact that only two male people were present at the actual service, is a actual fact, there are sketchings that show that clearly , one being the oversized priest , the other J.Barnett, the onlookers were not allowed into the area until the grave was mounted, only people tending graves in the cemetary at the time, were in the vacinity.
As the letter to Farson ,clearly states, one man parted the boards and spat several times on the grave, therefore the priest is eliminated, although some wise comments have appeared on the message boards saying otherwise. If this event happened then Joseph Barnett, was the culprit, and I would say that this would be the most damming peice of evidence against him , most certainly if the police were aware of such an incident taking place, then Barnett would have had a lot of explaining to do.
But of course it never came to light until 1959, and I doubt if it was ever mentioned outside family circles before that.
surely even users of the boards who reject Barnett as a suspect , must agree that a case against his innocence is present.
There are very few clues available to us ripper folk , and I for one do not reject important clues , on the bases of 'its only hearsay'
regards Richard.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 533
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 12:33 pm: | |
Hi Leanne, Richard
Leanne, could you give the newspaper report that says that only Joe, the priest, and some of Kelly's friends were allowed in?
Richard, I've been trying to fathom why they'd have placed boards on the grave. Why not just fill it in? Or was this a common grave with another interment expected? Anyway, I'm a bit puzzled that they should put the boards over the grave before the last mourner had gone.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 219
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 2:12 pm: | |
Hello All
Perhaps the boards were placed over the graves to prevent mourners who had fortified themselves at their local pubs before the funerals, from falling into the graves.
Drinking was pretty much ubiquitous.
I have read rare actual reports of serial killers who have attended the funerals of their victims. I guess this is no big surprise because police detectives like to appear at the funerals and watch for suspicious people. Usually nothing comes of the detectives excursions.
If I was going to show some sign of contempt for the deceased, which would be too dangerous to do at the funeral, I would show up at another time. Probably under cover of darkness.
It is sad but true that many people would malign their dead mothers reputation for the sake of a little publicity or to bring attention upon themselves; to say nothing of making a dollar.
All The Best
Gary |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 4:56 pm: | |
Hi Gary.
Joseph Barnett, I feel was incapable of keeping emotion for another day, if he was 'Jack' then he fullfilled his anger , when he needed.
Why the boards were placed before the mourners had left, I can not say, but it is a fact that no members of the public were allowed entance to the buriel site until evey mourner had left the grave
And as for Farsons imformant, telling lies about her dead mother, we are really clutching at straws there.
Richard.
|
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 364
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 6:59 pm: | |
Hi all - interesting thread
To me the most fundamental question is who witnessed this event and then passed it on? Was the correspondent's mother herself a mourner at the funeral, and thereby presumably a friend of Kelly's, in which case becomes pretty important. Or was this story told to the writer's mother, in which case we have to wonder at how many removes and who the original witness was.
If farson's correspondent was "elderly" (a subjective term but let's say about 70) in the late 50s then she would have been born about the time of the murders so this fits in timewise.
But this question about who witnessed the event at the funeral and passed it on to the writer's mother intrigues me. Does this mean the writer's mother knew Kelly well? Which mourners were actually allowed to the graveside - the numbers attending must mean this was restricted somehow? If she knew MJK well, did she also know Barnett?
It would be fascinating to have a name to work with for this letter writer - like GWB, just enough to be intriguing, not enough to investigate fully
regards
Chris |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 536
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 7:31 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Farson says "The mother of the person who wrote to me was visiting another grave" so if he's right about that, I guess this woman would have been unlikely to have known anyone to do with the funeral.
Richard, Paley says "Joseph Barnett and John McCarthy reportedly saw to it that Kelly received a proper Catholic burial." Of course, Paley could be wrong about this. I merely mention it as another report - this time one that shows Barnett in a good light.
Robert |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 8:55 pm: | |
Richard,
I might agree 99% of decent people wouldn't lie about their mothers, but I somehow doubt that 99% of people are decent. Ah well. I guess I'm just a cynic.
Even if the story is true, the fact that the correspondent was allowed into the cemetary at all shows that it was not "locked down" and that there were certainly other folks in the vincinity. And even if Joe and the priest were the only males present in the area at the time of the service, (Which personally I wouldn't assume based soley on sketches. Which unlike photograph's are hardly conclusive, being an artistic interpertation, not a record of actual events. And indeed, sketches are rarely cover 360 degrees of view.) there was certainly ample opportunity for someone else in the cemetary to wander over and have a quick spit after the mourners had gone.
I do agree with you however on one point. There is a LOT of grasping at straws going on.
Regards,
John |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 68
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 9:56 pm: | |
Have I missed something? Since when does spitting on a grave mean "I murdered you"? Isn't it just as likely to mean "You let me down and I'm still mad at you for that"?
Andy
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 6:52 am: | |
Hi All,
The Barnett theorists like to insist that Joe cared deeply for Mary but just as deeply hated her working as a prostitute.
So even if, by some remote chance, it could be proved that Joe did indeed spit on her grave, I can't see why this would be damning evidence that he had killed her. As Andy said, why couldn't it mean that Joe, having just gone through the ordeal of burying Mary, suddenly appreciated that he had lost her forever, because her total disregard of his feelings had led her right into the ripper's clutches?
Leanne has suggested that only gullible people would consider this alternative interpretation. Well, I would sooner be condemned as gullible than condemn Joe as a killer on such flimsy evidence.
Hi Richard,
You feel that Joe was 'incapable of keeping emotion for another day', and as Jack, would have 'fulfilled his anger' when he needed to. Isn't it pretty incredible then, that we are left with not a whiff of a report made during Joe's lifetime of a spontaneous and emotional display of anger by him whenever another living soul who could have identified him was around to witness it?
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 8:57 am: | |
Andrew,
I quite agree. In addition, she was a catholic, and a prostitute. Either one of which might cause some pathetic soul to spit on her coffin. It certainly doesn't mean, "Hey, I killed you".
Regards,
John |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 41
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 10:51 am: | |
Caz,
Congratulations to the splendid message contribution above!
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 42
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 11:11 am: | |
Hi all.
I haven't been following this thread or this discussion that closely, but a thought just came to mind (which could be totally up the wall or irrelevant):
Everyone here discusses the people attending the funeral and if it was the priest or Barnett who stayed behind. What about the grave diggers then; where were they and could one of them have been the one who spat on the grave (if this incident actually occured)? Don't ask me why, but... now that we're speculating anyway...
Just thought it was a legitimate question to ask; hit me if I'm way off base here. 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 538
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 1:19 pm: | |
Hi Glenn
I think the entire incident sounds very fishy. But IF it actually occurred, I can't for the life of me see why the spitter has to be Barnett.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 43
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 2:51 pm: | |
Hi Robert
Me neither.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Brad McGinnis
Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 23
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 3:56 pm: | |
Hello all, You all have missed the point entirely. The man who spit on the grave was none other than Walter Sickert disguised as a Catholic priest. Im not alone on this idea. I beleive there is a formerly famous fiction writer who would stake their reputation on this. Have a great weekend everyone. Brad |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 44
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 6:22 pm: | |
How about prince Albert disguised as Walter Sickert dressed up as Barnett? Now, that would be a challenge to explain... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 225
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 10:11 pm: | |
Hello All
Here we are bickering over what someone said, somebody said, that someone might have said way back when. I don't understand it.
Perhaps I'm just in a reflective mood, but I have to wonder if it is such a good thing to dwell on so much evil.
Ah well, it's out of town for a couple of days for me.
All the Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 543
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 4:06 am: | |
Hi Gary
When I saw your name on the screen I thought you were going to suggest your gorilla as the spitter.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 544
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 4:11 am: | |
It wasn't me, gov.
Regards and bananas,
The Mighty Kong. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 229
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 11:53 pm: | |
Hi Robert
Interestingly enough the woman who told this story was convinced it was JTR who did the spitting. According to Farson, she and her friend hid behind a headstone for fear of being spotted and never reported the incident because they feared retribution by JTR.
Let me get this straight, for some completely inexplicable reason, neither she nor her friend bothered to give an eyewitness discription of the most infamous serial killer who ever walked the face of the earth.
For all we know, it could have been a gorilla.
D'oh, I had promisd myself I wasn't going to get involved in this thread any more.
All The Best
Gary.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 555
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 2:52 pm: | |
Hi Gary
I don't buy the grave spitting.
But be careful, the gorilla seems to be gaining in reality - in fact, he seems to be following you around!
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 4:10 am: | |
Hi All,
I too am rather phlegmatic about this grave spitting incident. If something like this has to be coughed up to make a theory breathe again, it may be a warning not to expectorate too much.
Love,
Caz |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 563
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 4:35 am: | |
Hi Caz
At least it's another nail in the coffin of the "Kelly faked her own death" theory. No one spat back up at him.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 4:02 am: | |
Hi Everyone,
To all the members, who tend to dismiss this tale of grave spitting, A Question?
The year is not 2003, but 1920, you are 25years old , and your mother who is 50, tells you of something she witnessed when she was about 18years old, at a london cemetary, would you think your mother was telling porky pies?.
Then 39 years later , aged 64 , you finish watching a programme about Jack The Ripper' and realize that what your mother told you might be important , and write in amongst hundreds of others.
I know the above scenerio is a strange way of interpretation, but I Was trying , to put it into context, and explaning that if it happened to us , we would not doubt , and dismiss this peice of oral history,
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 63
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 7:27 am: | |
Hi Richard.
I would't (even though I think it is rubbish) ask you to dismiss it altogether, but at least treat it with great suspicion and consider it unreliable, simply due to the fact that it's just "a piece of oral history". If I had used that kind of information during my time in university, I would immediately have been kicked out or intellectualy been torn to pieces.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
