|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | 
|
"Regret I did not take any of it ,(Mary Kelly's body), away with me it is supper time. I could do with a kidney or two ha ha."
This sentence appears on page 245 of the Diary and implies that the Ripper didn't take away any of Kelly's organs. The fact that Mary's murderer took Mary's heart was withheld from the press. I'm not sure exactly when this news was revealed to the public, but does it imply that the author wasn't the true Ripper?
LEANNE
(Message edited by admin on February 11, 2004) |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 5:31 pm: |
|
No kidding! Whoever wrote this "Diary of a Mad Man" must have had a whole lot of empty time but not all the known facts. I believe the "author" knew about the JTR letters, the clues left with the bodies but not what JTR took with him. JTR may have taken more than just Mary Kelly's heart, like her ears. The REAL killer had some sort of ear fetish or so it seems. If in fact she was with child he may have taken her baby with him too. I dare not guess what the REAL killer did with Mary Kelly's heart or anything else he may have taken. UGH!  YUCK! |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 595
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:03 am: |
|
Hi M.Mc.
My understanding is that the doctors carefully put Mary Jane Kelly back together again and were able to do so with all except her heart which appeared to be missing.
The kidney reference of course is an allusion to the missing kidney in the Eddowes case and the subsequent letter supposedly from the killer to George Lusk and sending him half a kidney allegedly from "one woman" and thus inferring that the half an organ was from Eddowes.
All the best
Chris |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 7:43 am: |
|
G'day,
On page 103 of Shirley Harrison's narrative of the Diary, after she mentioned a newspaper report that said that Joseph Barnett reported that Mary's key had been found, (yet failed to mention the name of this newspaper), Ms Harrison wrote about the unpublisized fact that Mary's killer took her heart. She believes the diarist reffered to this fact at the end of the Diary with: 'I will pray for the women I have slaughtered. May God forgive me for the deeds I committed on Kelly. No heart no heart.'
Yet at the time of Mary Kelly's murder the Diarist revealled that he regretted taking no body parts away with him.
I can't find the page where Shirley Harrison mentions that contradiction. Can anyone else?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 9:38 pm: |
|
G'day,
Ok, I'd say that one of the newspapers that Shirley Harrison referrs to about the strand of cotton found in one of Kate's tins was the London 'Times', October 1. It said: 'There were also found apon her a piece of string, a common white handkerchief with a red border, a match box WITH COTTON IN IT, a white linen pocket containing a white bone handle table knife, very blunt (with no blood on it), two short clay pipes, a red cigarette case with white metal fittings, a printed handbill with the name "Frank Carter, 405, Bethnal-green-road", upon it, a check pocket containing five pieces of soap, a small tin box containing tea and sugar, a portion of a pair of spectacles, a three-cornered check handkerchief, and a large white linen pocket containing a small comb, a red mitten and a bail of worsted.'
According to the official police list the match box was empty, and the tea and sugar were in two seperate tins. I think I'd trust the police list.
LEANNE |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 11:26 am: |
|
G'Day Leanne,
If you trust the Police list that's fine, but where did the press get the rest of the items from then? Invention? It seems a bit too specific for that.
Maybe we should treat both with a certain degree of caution and not rely too heavily on either.
Regards
Paul |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 6:01 pm: |
|
People, people...
Once again, here, the diary is right and history is wrong.
This happens so often I'm beginning to wonder why anyone doubts the diary at all. It obviously is telling us things only the killer would know, since there is no record of them anywhere else and since all the records we do have imply the opposite.
What other conclusion is possible?
Oh. Wait a minute...
There is another possibility.
Of course. I see.
The diarist regrets that he did not take any of Mary Kelly away with him because he discovered later, much to his chagrin, that someone else came by after he left and made off with Mary's heart!
That's it.
He was jealous. That's what fuels his regret and why he writes the lines about "no heart" even though he says he took nothing away. I mean here he was, going to all this trouble to murder and mutilate and even paint his wife's initials on the wall in blood and everything and then some fool comes along afterwards and thinks of the really cool idea of taking Mary's heart.
It's like "D'oh! Why didn't I think of that?"
So the anger over this naturally forces him to right this line about not taking anything away in his own personal diary.
Don't you all see the incredible psychological complexity in all of this? There's no way a forger could have made this stuff up, it's too detailed, too complicated. It could only have written be a guy who really did butcher a woman and then not take her heart. And then regret it later.
In fact, one could say that this line in the diary is even more proof that Maybrick must have written it, since only he would have known that it wasn't he who took the heart but someone else.
And any profiler worth half his salt will tell you that this is just the sort of thing a real serial killer would fixate on. So even science supports this book.
No mere human could have made up such a thing.
Never.
And the fact that the diary conflicts with the historical record is of course never a problem, since the history is likely to be wrong and the diary is likely to be right because, well because, uh,
Well, it just is.
Don't believe the record. Only the diarist knows what really happened.
--John (in the name of the real truth, not the historical one)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 881
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Hi
I am just wondering if this is a fair statement,
he regrets he took none of it AWAY with him, not out, so he could have it both ways so to speak and mention taking out the heart as long as it WASN'T removed from Millers Court.?
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1109
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 7:06 am: |
|
Hi,
you can't have things both ways in life, so it is with regret that I activate this thread!
I took none of it away with me (Yes you did)
later he says he took Kelly heart which is it?
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 849
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 7:58 am: |
|
Jenni,
There's a third option.
The person writing didn't kill anyone and was just making it all up.
Of course, that's too obvious. That makes too much sense. That fits in too well with all the other evidence we have (that handwriting, the other ahistoricisms, the anachronisms, the lack of provenance, etc.).
Clearly, the simple explanation can't be right.
I'm sure we'll be offered the desperate and fanciful reading soon enough, now that you've asked for it.
It's not hard to tell the future here in the land of desire.
Diary World will never change, and this book will always be a cheap fake no matter what stories have to be sold to keep it alive and in the marketplace.
(Better that than testing it, right?)
Waiting for the snake oil,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 9:53 am: |
|
John,
no, no don't be confused as to what I meant either JTR took something away with him or he didn't - the diary says both, but naturally only one is right!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 856
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:45 am: |
|
And therefore the diary must be wrong.
But that would surprise only a handful of people. And they won't let themselves be surprised.
Thanks, Jenni,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:59 am: |
|
Well John,
both things aren't true are they? so the diary must be wrong at least once,right?
This is what I meant earlier when I was talking about us focusing on the wrong issues (something I myself am guilty of but that's another story!)
Cheers
Jenni
ps 'they won't let themselves be surprised' now you've lost me!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 859
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
--John
PS: Personal desire is stronger than either evidence or truth for some. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 9:48 am: |
|
Well, Jenni, perhaps our diarist had Sir Jim take out Mary's heart and burn it on the fire, thinking of Crashaw's flaming heart as he did so.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Sergeant Charles Eyton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
It's interesting that he spells kidney right.
And Chris T. G you say "My understanding is that the doctors carefully put Mary Jane Kelly back together again and were able to do so with all except her heart which appeared to be missing."
I think there's a possibility we're all overlooking here, perhaps Mary Kelly wasn't actually born with a heart.
Food for thought. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
