|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 358
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 11:42 am: |       |
In taking another look at the concluding paragraph of the article Chris sighted, I think I have figured out the author's intent:
The coffin was incensed, lowered, and then sprinkled with holy water, and the simple ceremony ended. The floral ornaments were afterwards raised to be placed upon the grave, and the filling-up was completed in a few moments, and was watched by a small crowd of people.
The word "raised" bothered me before. Why would the floral ornaments need to be "raised" in order to place them either into a grave that was open or upon a grave covered with boards????
Now I see. The only way the floral ornaments would need to be "raised" is if the top of the grave were above ground level. The only way this could be is if the dirt had already been filled in and mounded up. Thus the author's intent was to include the placing upon the grave of the floral ornaments as part of the "filling up" of the grave -- the final part -- so that with the placing of the floral ornaments on the mound of dirt the filling up was completed. This possibly also explains the somewhat awkward "afterwards," i.e. after the dirt was shoveled into the grave, a detail which was elided from the author's account or perhaps deleted by his editor.
I've become interested in this thread mainly as an intellectual exercise, i.e. determining as exactly as possible what did happen at the cemetery. Sorry, Richard and Leanne, but I still don't think there is any real significance to the grave-spitting even if it did happen.
Other inferences: Presumably Barnett, Bowyer, and one of the ladies rode (perhaps one of the neighbors) in the first coach while the remaining ladies followed in the second.
Interesting note: the use of "suburbs" which I had always thought to be a much later term.
Also, what is the origin of the sketch shown above? Where did Paely get it?
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on February 05, 2004) |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 359
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 12:18 pm: | |
Sorry,
I failed to mention the significance of my point in the above post. I appears from the author's description that grave was immediately filled in and the flowers placed upon the resulting mound. Thus apparently no boards to be parted or spat between.
Andy S.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 659
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
Hi,
Well i quess, that is the mystery solved, the writer of Farsons letter, was obviously lying, she was not an elderly lady , refering to her dead mothers past sightings, proberly some person living in a bedsit, with his pile of ripper books.
Farson took this correspondence, seriously , so much so that he refered to it in his book many years later, and Associated Rediffusion, the tv network at the time either did a programme on the alleged spitting, or at least were intending to.
Of course it is oral history, but who are we to say , it did not happen.
I am not claiming it is a definate fact, that this incident took place, but if it did , there is significance, in my mind it shows utter contempt, for the person who has just been buried, and who died under such brutal circumstances.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
G'day,
ANDREW: 'The floral ornaments were afterwards raised.' - raised from the ground nearby where they rested. Look at the sketch again,... see the boards on the ground to the left?
CHRIS: Look at the sketch again. There were six women and two men.
THE WOMEN:
Mary Ann Cox,
Elizabeth Prater,
Caroline maxwell,
Sarah Lewis,
Julia Venturney,
Maria Harvey.
THE MEN:
Joseph Barnett,
Father Columban.
Thomas Bowyer wasn't there! One of the six women must have been McCarthy's representative!
Why is everyone so determined to prove this woman lied to Dan Farson?
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
She doesen't have to be lying, but she could have elaborated or exaggerated and making up parts of it -- believe it or not, Leanne, but that is actually more of an rule than an exception when it comes to oral testimomies in connection with old, almost mythological cases.
And once again, even if it did happen, what does it mean or prove really? This is all in the eye of the beholder.
That it should indicate contempt and in turn evidence of that Barnett killed Mary Kelly is Richard's own interpretation. There could be a number of numeral possible explanations, especially in an emotional occasion as the one described here, where people in grief can behave in quite an irrational manner, and quite often express frustration. So even if the incident did happen, it really indicates nothing significant.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 360
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Leanne,
I'm not trying to badger you but I repeat, where did the sketch come from??? Where did Paley get it? Granted the sketch shows boards to the left of the grave (I had indeed noticed that) and a different composition of mourners, but this is meaningless unless we know the origins of the sketch. Perhaps it was drawn by someone who already knew the "spitting" story.
I did think of the possibility you mention: "raised from the ground nearby where they rested." But that would be a most peculiar way of describing an object being moved from one ground-level spot to another. For example, if I had moved a chair from my living room to my kitchen, I would never say, "I raised the chair to place it in the kitchen." I would simply say, "I put the chair in the kitchen."
I don't know for sure that Chris's article is totally accurate, either. But I am fairly certain the author's intent is to say that the flowers were placed in top of the grave already filled in and mounded with dirt. Given the choice, I'd go with an article written by an eye-witness over a sketch of unknown origin!
Andy S.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 8:22 pm: | |
G'day Andy,
There is no caption directly under that sketch in Paley's book. I'll check for listings of sources elsewhere in the book. And the gravepitting claim is not mentioned by Paley. He probably didn't hear about it! He may have found that sketch in a newspaper report. I can't see the pile of flower ornaments, but they could have been out of view, to allow them enough space to pile the dirt.
GLEN: Why must we believe that she made up the parts that we don't want to believe? And did she recieve any financial reward for her story? (I didn't mean to be smart with that last question, I really want to know.)
I'll look through Paley's book for a reference to that sketch.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 8:54 pm: | |
Leanne,
I don't mean to be crude here, but anybody who have more thoroughly studied old and famous murder cases or similar events, and the oral statements connected with them, knows that gossip as a part of oral traditions is a natural element to consider.
I have seen it a number of times in old cases I've studied. And there doesen't necessarily have to be a genuine reason for it. That doesen't mean that people deliberately have wanted to spread misleading information or lies, but they just simply hear a story from somebody else, and then they in turn elaborate it further. Cases like these becomes a source of incredible gossip, because people are curious and some want to be a part of. It doesen't mean that there is some real gain or profit in it for them. There doesen't have to be a financial motive!
Gossip and a need to make up tales connected to an important event was an even bigger part of the social way for people to deal with them, especially in older days, since they didn't have access to the kind of media and entertainment we have today. That is why oral statements must be treated with suspicion in old cases. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you, Leanne, if you seriously want to identify yourself with the role of a critical and objective researcher.
And once again (and this is important!), even if the incident did happen, it doesen't necessarily has to imply or point at the things you and Richard read into it.
This whole incident is ridiculous and a worthless piece of fact, and I can't with all the will in the world understand how an unverified oral statement of an unverified incident has become so blown up out of proportions.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 11:03 pm: | |
G'day,
GLENN: Dan Farson was asking for gossip. Any little tit-bit. And this woman remembered something that her mother told her. Joseph Barnett's name wasn't mentioned. It wasn't told to incriminate him. Do you believe this woman made up a tale to tell her daughter?
ANDY: At the back of 'Simple Truth', Paley just put: 'The liveliest and most valuable sources of information were the wealth of newspapers available at the time, most of which have been largely overlooked or ignored by previous researchers.'
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1102
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 11:38 pm: | |
Leanne,
"Joseph Barnett's name wasn't mentioned. It wasn't told to incriminate him."
So why should it, then?
"Do you believe this woman made up a tale to tell her daughter?"
Oh yes, why not? I have encountered that a number of times, family members are no different in this respect and certainly not as far as gossip is concerned. Besides, she could have heard it from someone else in the first place and may herself have believed in it as a fact. Be critical, Leanne.
Paley may have been asking for gossip, but the problem is that you and Richard are interpreting and using it as something more than that...
"'The liveliest and most valuable sources of information were the wealth of newspapers available at the time, most of which have been largely overlooked or ignored by previous researchers.'"
I can agree with Paley on that -- partly. However, using them as credible sources of truthful information is questionable, they are mostly too subjective, colorful and full of factual errors for that.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 05, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 12:37 am: | |
G'day,
Oooooh your a tough one Glenn! And I just discovered that my gold bracelet fell off my wrist somewhere! 
Why should this tale incriminate Barnett? Because there were only two men there, and the other man feared god!
I have never met anyone, who would tell such a distasteful lie to their child. You must have encourntered some horrible people in your travels.
Tell me, if this young girl had have had the courage to report what she saw to a policeman in 1888, and the policeman wrote the story he was told in a report, would you then consider it as reported evidence?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 1:32 am: | |
G'day,
It's OK, I found my bracelet and feel like celebrating!!!!
Back to business: You say 'Paley may have been asking for gossip,' Paley has nothing to do with this. DAN FARSON was asking for gossip! I realize this is a little error, but I don't want people to believe that Bruce Paley has anything to do with the grave spitting gossip!
To claim that someone else told a fib and it's all just mine and Richard's speculation, is speculation on your part!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 660
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 3:05 am: | |
Hi,
It would appear that Leanne ,and myself are extremely outnumbered here,
I Agree totally with Leannes point, if one , or both of these teenager girls, had reported the incident to a policeman, at the time, somebody would have had some awkward explaning to do.
Glenn descibes oral history as unrealiable, and is giving the impression,'even if true, what does that prove'.
I would suggest that 99.9 of all funerals, are attended by people that feel genuinely upset, by the loss, or at least,if not a tearful mourner, are there to pay at least respect, to the departed.
And I still maintain, if such an act took place at kellys funeral, it shows a gross hatred for the deseased, enough hatred to have been her killer..
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 3:24 am: | |
G'day,
Two little girls wouldn't have wanted to admit that they spied on a private moment!
Barnett could have been thinking: "You and I share a little secret, but we'll keep it to ourselves." The spitting act could have been like sealing a promise.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2043
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 6:47 am: | |
Yes, Leanne, for all we know Kelly may have told Joe : "If I'm stupid enough to fall victim to Jack, promise me you'll spit on my grave."
These girls later grew up and still felt no need to report the incident. I think that this story, like a boarded-over grave, is dodgy ground.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 6:56 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Why should they have reported it? They didn't know who it was and if one of them told her daughter, it must have remained on her mind at least until she grew up and had a child.
Why is the boarded over grave 'dodgy ground'?
Do you think those boards on the ground in that sketch were yard-decorations? I'm going to bed!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
G'day Leanne!
"Oooooh your a tough one Glenn!"
What!? And I haven't even started yet...
Yes, it's true that was an error on my part that just slipped through -- it is no excuse but I wrote that 4 or 5.00 a.m., so I was a bit unfocused. Naturally that was Dan Farson. Glad you found your bracelet, by the way.
"I have never met anyone, who would tell such a distasteful lie to their child. You must have encourntered some horrible people in your travels."
No, but I have read a lot of newspapers and police files during my own research on other cases. I must say I am surprised that the gossip aspect -- even within family circuits -- is lost on you. Because it is quite evident in cases from the 19th and early 20th century -- and a natural part of them. That is one reason why these cases are rather hard to investigate today.
And what is so distasteful about it? I think you're exaggerating. People were quite tough in the old days -- a grave spitting incident in connection with Jack the Ripper is nothing in this respect. Family members told stories to one another, not least gruesome ones -- it was all a part of oral tradition. I have read much more worse accounts than that, passed on to the younger generations. I really don't understand what the fuzz is all about, Leanne; the story is lame and not horrible at all.
"To claim that someone else told a fib and it's all just mine and Richard's speculation, is speculation on your part!"
Yes it is, but look who's talking! I meant that it was a possibility, not a fact. However, you are correct in one thing -- it is all speculation on yours and Richard's part.
"Because there were only two men there, and the other man feared god!"
And this implies what? Once again, even if it was Barnett, is the "incriminating" activity a stated fact? No, it isn't!
"Barnett could have been thinking: 'You and I share a little secret, but we'll keep it to ourselves.' The spitting act could have been like sealing a promise."
Speculations again! Fairy tales, fairy tales.
"Tell me, if this young girl had have had the courage to report what she saw to a policeman in 1888, and the policeman wrote the story he was told in a report, would you then consider it as reported evidence?"
Well, maybe not evidence, but as a piece of information amongst the others in the police investigation. That, I think, is the first criteria for it to be accepted as something to bother about at all. Now, as an oral tale, it can't even be regarded as that.
Regarding news-papers, I always question information in the press which is not corroborated by the police documents, and especially witness statements, but also ordinary facts, which for the most part are largely inaccurate.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1104
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
Richard,
"I would suggest that 99.9 of all funerals, are attended by people that feel genuinely upset, by the loss, or at least,if not a tearful mourner, are there to pay at least respect, to the departed.
And I still maintain, if such an act took place at Kellys funeral, it shows a gross hatred for the deceased, enough hatred to have been her killer."
Swell...
Well, that is your interpretation. Even if it was Barnett and even if he did spit on the grave, you can't know why he did it, unless you desperately want to fit the facts into your own theories (which is what we are talking about here).
That most people attending a funeral is upset is also my point, and I claim that one must consider that we all react differently in such a situation. Some are sad, some becomes angry and frustrated. If Barnett spit on the grave, it doesen't necessarily have to imply that he hated her, but that he simply was frustrated over her way of life (that finally killed her). This is also speculation, but is is another explanation to it, nothing more nothing less. It is just as much a piece of fact as your version -- that is, not at all.
Richard, I must say, if you want to be taken seriously, I don't understand why you bother about this unverified incident. It will gain you nothing. If you could take it for what it is, I could accept that you'd like to put it in -- namely, as a curiousity. But it doesen't really tell us anything, and the fact that you acknowledge it so much importance really worries me. Source evaluation, Richard. Source evaluation...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Perhaps the answer as to how/why the flower arrangements were "raised" is that in the USA at least, many if not most of the flower arrangements at a funeral are mounted on free-standing racks. These are usually made of metal or wood. They are carried from the service to the graveyard. After any graveside services and the filling-in of the grave, then these are "raised" up (stood up) over the grave. They serve to lessen the starkness of the plain mound of earth that remains.
Again, this is done after the grave is sealed. Is this similar to what occurs at a typical funeral in Britain?
Regards, Vincent |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
Richard wrote:
"It would appear that Leanne ,and myself are extremely outnumbered here"
Yes, you are. That should tell you something. With a little luck maybe you'll learn from your mistakes and stop believing in gossip just because you can twist and torture it into supporting your suspect.
Leanne wrote:
"I have never met anyone, who would tell such a distasteful lie to their child. You must have encourntered some horrible people in your travels. "
Normal people tell these sorts of tales all the time without being horrible or thinking that they were lying necessarily. It's inconceivable that you didn't meet any of these people. It's much more likely that you simply weren't paying attention.
"Two little girls wouldn't have wanted to admit that they spied on a private moment! "
Have you actually ever met any little girls in your life? That's absurd, even by your standards.
Don't you two get tired of posting these bizarre rationalizations day after day, month after month? I mean, you're like a dog who grabs hold of a slipper with his teeth and pulls and shakes and chews until there's nothing left and still thinks he can set it front of him master for him to wear. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 362
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
Leanne,
So we still no nothing about the origin of the sketch and short of contacting Paley or discovering the sketch in its original source, we won't know. Perhaps it appeared in a newspaper of the time. That still doesn't mean it was an eyewitness drawing. Newspapers may have employed illustrators to spice up their pages. These illustrators may have never seen what they were supposed to be drawing. Just look at some of the sketches of victims for evidence of this.
Paley should be ashamed at depending so heavily on newspaper accounts, anyway. Sugden showed us how erroneous they can be. Newspaper accounts can be valuable, but they are generally not to be used as evidence.
Now I will admit to you that the boards shown in the sketch are interesting. If they are not a result of the artist knowing the "spitting story" then they may actually have been there. Still, I have to go with Chris's newspaper account. In this case, the writer is an eye witness and therefore his story can be taken as evidence, which to me indicates there was no opportunity for the grave-spitting incident. If the sketch is found to be drawn by an eye witness, then I may accept it as evidence also. Until then, no.
As to you question for Glenn, I would accept as evidence a contemporary policeman's report of such a story being told him by a young girl, if such a report were to exist.
I don't think it is necessary to say that the elderly lady lied to Farson. There are other possibilities. The lady may have been confused after 70 years. Over time people come to believe they have seen things they never saw. Perhaps a story was repeated to her so many times that she believed she actually witnessed it. This is not uncommon at all.
Andy S.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 662
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 3:13 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
With respect, I did not restart this thread, I just joined in with the discussion.
As for bizarre, isnt this case just that?.
It is a fact , that the Ripper caused widespread panic, in 1888, not just in the East End of London, women felt scared to venture out all over the country, even if they had no need two, children played in the streets, and played games with reference to the Ripper.
Parents used to get there children in for bed , by stating' The Bogey man will get you'
My own grandmother told me this, she was nine years old in 1888, and her and her sisters were called in many a time, by that expression, and she lived twenty miles south of London.
To sum up, as I do not wish to dwell on the incident, can you imagine, the horror two teenage girls, would have felt, being in the same spot as kellys funeral, seeing a frightening occurance, infact the sending of the letter to Farson in 1959, said the reason the girls swore not to say anything , was the fact that they were scared 'The Ripper' would get revenge on them, which implies that they believed the person who committed the act , was he.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
G'day,
Oh ANDREW, what plannet are you from mate? For a start BRUCE PALEY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GRAVE SPITTING CLAIM! It is mentioned nowhere in his book!
That funeral sketch is on a page with the well known cartoon of Mary entering her room with a skull-faced man behind her. The only text on the page says: 'Press coverage of the death of Mary Kelly.'
Considering the amount of people and reporters out and about on that day, I'd put my money on the artist actually being there! There was no need to draw the boards, if they weren't there!
The lady wasn't old when she told her daughter the story! The daughter remembered the lady's story!!!!!
If your going to keep arguing that this lady told her daughter a lie, please get an understanding of this!
LEANNE.
(Message edited by Leanne on February 06, 2004) |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 135
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Leanne, Richard,
Posters on these boards have tried for months to warn you about the unrealiability of stories like the purported grave spitting incident. Glenn is simply the latest and I would suggest you listen. Glenn is an experienced historian, he has at least one book on crime published and has experience wading through witness statements and newspaper reports.
You keep dragging in the red herring about "lying." No one has suggested outright lying, though in fact people do lie (and people have great difficulty keeping any secret regardless of sex, age or other circumstances). Rather, what anyone with any experience in oral history and folklore will tell you is that a tale changes almost exponentially over time -- and always in a manner that makes the tale ever more dramatic. Moreover, there is also the "garble effect." Did you never, as a child, play the "telephone game"? Get a dozen people, whisper a phrase in one ear and so on to each in turn and when you get to the end of the line the phrase is completely different.
Similarly, you can not take single facts from newspaper stories, especially when there is no independent confirmation. Of course, even if every newspaper carries a "fact" it may not be true, but at least you can reasonably surmise that bit of erroneous information had wide currency at the time.
Newspapers, then and now, are in the business of selling newspapers (and selling ads, but that is linked to circulation). Some may well lie outright, but most will walk a fine line between fact and fiction in order to get an exclusive story on something very exciting like the Ripper murders. Hence, the way some witness statements are different from those they gave initially.
A good example is Israel Schwartz. When the police interviewed him, the fellow he thought followed him had a "pipe." After the Star interviewed him, the pipe had become a KNIFE! Much more dramatic and much more likely to sell newspapers.
I wasn't there, I can't say for sure what happened, but having been a journalist I can make an informed guess. To go to the bother of finding Schwartz, the reporter had to get something beyond the police report so he probably asked Schwartz about the pipe something like this:
"You saw a pipe?"
"Yes, I think it was."
"Just something about so long, could have been a pipe?"
"Yes."
"But you're not absolutely sure; could have been something else, even a knife?"
"Well . . ."
"All you saw was something of this length, it could have been a knife, couldn't it?"
"Well, I suppose but . . ."
"It could have been a knife?"
"Well, yes, It might have been . . ."
"A knife?"
"Yes . . ."
Voila! By the time that story gets through rewrite the second stranger had a knife! Plus, the Star has its exclusive.
And no one really lied, did they? You have to be careful with newspaper stories and especially old ones.
The grave boards? Always there at the time, so that the artist included them means nothing. Graves were dug ahead of time and covered with boards so no one fell in. Removed when they lowered the coffin and then replaced until everyone left. They didn't fill in the grave until the mourners had left.
Oh by the way, doesn't the fact that Paley, who was a good researcher (though I don't buy his theory), did not include the grave spitting story (which he doubtless encountered) give you pause to think?
Don.
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 364
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 5:09 pm: | |
Leanne,
Calm down my dear!  I KNOW that Paley didn't have anything to do with the story grave pitting incident. I NEVER said that he did!!! My comment about his reliance on press reports was an aside, that's all.
If this sketch was indeed part of the press coverage, that may be significant. However, whether the artist was an eye witness or just an artist drawing a typical cemetery scene for illustrative purposes in unclear to me. The sketch does not seem to correspond to the eye witness story.
Let's lighten up just a bit.
Also, I still don't think it is necessary for the lady to be lying -- although that's a possibility.
Andy S.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
