|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 4:34 pm: |       |
G'day Don,
I understand that the police withheld Schwartz's address from the press, so it's likely that the reporter who substituted the word 'pipe' with 'knife' made it up himself after merely reading a police report.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1107
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
Leanne,
Then that wouldn't be the only thing he made up. It is indeed easier to bring up the contradictions than the similarities between the two accounts. The dissimilarities regarding the knife and the pipe are not the only ones. Practically most details in the Star report differs from Schwartz's account in the police files.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 2:37 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
If you mean to imply that the artist who drew the funeral sketch could have made the boards up, how would their inclusion have sold more newspapers?
I think its easier to believe that the reporter who wrote about it merely forgot to mention them. They could have been seen as part of the 'filling up' of the grave.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 2:53 am: | |
G'day,
Another thing.....If the woman who told her daughter the story imagined the man parting the boards with his feet but wasn't possitive that she saw it, why did she include it?
LEANNE |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 365
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Leanne,
I refer you to Donald's very plausible explanation above that the boards were there to cover the previously-dug grave before the ceremony. Graves are obviously dug well in advance of the actual committal and some method must have been required to keep people from falling in. Since the boards are not mentioned in the story it is quite plausible that they had already been removed from the grave and were not replaced.
I will admit that it seems strange to me that the grave would be filled in while onlookers were still present, but that is apparently how it was done.
Sorry if I was harsh in my earlier post.
Andy S.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 1:03 am: | |
G'day,
The eyewitness reporter who described the filling up of the grave forgot to mention the dirt as well.
And if the boards were there to cover the hole to prevent empty-hole-mourners from falling in, you'd think they could have removed them from view as a sign of respect for a beautiful Catholic ceremony!
LEANNE |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 369
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
OK, Leanne, you have a right to your opinion and we are obviously not going to change your mind. Suffice it to say your opinion is not shared really by anyone (except Richard, of course) here. But the beauty of an unsolved mystery is that few opinions can be proved wrong.
Cheers!
Andy S.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
G'day,
'Your opinion is not shared really by anyone (except Richard, of course) here.'
Look at how many judges are here: Me, Richard, Glenn, Donald, and you Andrew. Thats 2 against 3!....BIG MAJORITY!
I've tried to research Victorian London funerals to find out whether the holes were commonly covered with boards while waiting for the coffin, and can't find the mention of boards anywhere. The funerals were different for each class of people, and it would have been an unnecessary expense! But I can't find written proof, so it will just have to remain an opinion!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
Hi all
The grave may have been filled in while onlookers were still present, because there was a restless crowd outside the gates and the authorities needed to get the job done fast.
Leanne, in your count-up you forgot - just off the top of my head - Caz, Dan and myself. That's 2 against 6 - bigger majority.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
I just looked at this archive. Caz, told me that I have every right to put whatever I like in my book!
I thought we were talking about the opinion of whether the boards were placed before or after the coffin went in! The only real proof we have that the boards were there, is in that sketch. And I don't think that the artist would have bothered to include them, if he just quickly drew a sketch from his mind to illustrate a story.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2077
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Of course you must put what you like in your book. Your book is your book (except the half that's Richard's).
To me, it's simple. Men dig hole. Men put boards over hole to stop drunks etc falling in. Funeral.
Grave filled in. I.e. grave spitting story up the creek.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 261
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
Robert,you seem to be uncertain about whether Joe did this grave spitting.The only thing I have wondered is whether being a bit of a nervy type
Joe was making so much mucous on this day that it burst from him when he was looking down at her coffin sort of spluttery cough kind of thing.He csSould have suffered from catarrh and what with all the emotion of the day let go all the debris so to speak.I personally cant see this Joe except as a rather nervous stammery chap overwhelmed by all that was going on.I know its possible he killed Mary maybe in frustrated rage and then tried to copycat Jacks "signature" but heck-then
spitting on her grave?---cant see it.Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2078
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 6:15 pm: | |
Hi Natalie
Well I'm going from memory here, but didn't Joe eventually die from a lung condition? So if that's true, your suggestion wouldn't be ruled out. Just can't see him parting the boards, though, because the boards wouldn't have been there.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 6:30 pm: | |
G'day,
Ok you win, the grave diggers worried that the many mourners at other graves that morning would be careless enough to fall in, so they covered the hole with wooden boards, (instead of using the cheaper alternative of marking out the spot with tape).
For the wealthy people they used expensive wood, and for the poor they used any wood they was laying around.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 6:36 pm: | |
.....The mother must have been telling her daughter a fairytale because the grave spitter couldn't have parted the boards with his feet!
Oh why did she include that very minor detail?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2080
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 6:59 pm: | |
Leanne, what are you saying - that the gravediggers marked out the spot with tape, but then at the last minute inbetween the funeral and filling-in they placed the oh-so-expensive boards over the grave while they went off for a fag and Joe had a good spit?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1113
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 9:04 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
"If you mean to imply that the artist who drew the funeral sketch could have made the boards up, how would their inclusion have sold more newspapers?"
What in Earth do you mean? I haven't even mentioned the funeral sketch or the boards. That is a discussion you have with the others here. I don't care about the sketch, a sketch means nothing. Just look at the illustrations in Illustrated Police News! Very close to reality, eh...?
Regarding the boards, I have no idea why they are significant to this discussion. But I know one thing. I have studied a lot of fates of prostitutes in Denmark around 1900; they were mostly buried quite cheap in pauper funerals -- and the ones I've seen pictures and photos of indicates that -- boards were used! It was simply an aid for the workers who hauled down the coffin. I really don't see why those are important in this context and what they are supposed to prove.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 1:28 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
You agreed that the 'Star' reporter made the knife in Schwartz's statement up to spice-up his story, and the conversation just prior to that was about the sketch of Mary Kelly's funeral so I said: 'If you mean to imply....', just to get the conversation moving again! Sorry for the confusion!
About the boards: They were there because they were in the newspaper sketch, and people are saying that they were obviously there to cover the hole BEFORE the coffin went in, not to be placed over the mound of dirt before it settled once it had been filled. This makes the woman's story about seeing a man part the grave boards with his feet before he spat, very doubtful.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne+ on February 11, 2004) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 3:53 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
OK, just to understand what you said in your last post: Are you saying that the boards could have been there for another purpose ie: to carry the coffin BEFORE being lowered into the grave?
On a Victorian London website, I just read a report on the expenses involved in funerals for every class of person, and each class had 4 or more handles on the coffins, and the men employed to carry the coffin to the grave all had to be fitted with leather gloves.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 667
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 4:11 am: | |
Hi,
It is obvious that, the only way a gravespitting incident took place , the way it was described to Farson, was if the boards were placed on the grave ,immediately after the service , before the dirt was replaced, which I consider possible, mayby the fillers were not in attendance at that moment, and the boards were quickly placed over the hole containing the coffin, until they arrived at the scene, it could have been at this time, that Barnett[ or someone?.] committed this act.
If the girls account is true, and it is not fabrication, then one must take there account as reported. ie. the man parted the boards with his feet, and spat down on what would have been the coffin.
The words 'one man stayed behind' must imply that after the service , one man remained at the site. and if the girls account is true, the boards must have been replaced, if only for a brief period.
Relieving Mucous was a good point, however, one would not have to part the boards, to do that.
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 721
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 6:14 am: | |
Hi Leanne, Richard,
Of course you have every right to put whatever you like in your book. But publishers have the final word (unless you self-publish), and your readers will judge you on what ends up in print.
I am not a publisher, but if I were, I would not be very impressed to read anything along the lines of ‘Joe Barnett probably spat on Mary Kelly’s grave, and if he did this shows he could have killed her as well, and the police probably didn’t bother to interrogate him properly because they didn’t know enough about mental illness in those days’.
I would strongly advise anyone insisting on including this alleged incident to confine it to no more than a short paragraph and let their readers reach their own conclusions. A goodly proportion will inevitably think that if Joe did spit on Mary’s grave, it makes it less likely, not more, that he was the one who had just said more with his knife than the most spiteful spittle he could work up could ever say for him.
Love,
Caz
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 370
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Leanne --
With this I will bow out of the present discussion, since I seem only to be offending you and not convincing you -- unless I subsequently feel there is a need to defend something I have already said.
Your comment might make it sound as if I don't think you have a right to publish your theory. I don't want might position to be mischaracterized or misunderstood. Great Britain, as also the USA and many other countries, guarantees the right of free speech. You have the right to publish whatever theory that you can convince a publisher to print or that you can afford to publish yourself. It may even sell a lot of copies. Whether it will be considered a plausible theory in the research community is another question. People often buy books touting a theory that seems on the surface plausible only to reach the conclusion that it is implausible. And I am afraid you are outnumbered here by much more than 3-2. As to your theory, have at it. But don't be surprised at criticism.
Cheers!
Andy S.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 670
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 2:19 pm: | |
Hi Caz, Andy,
People seem to get the impression, that are book, is about pointing the finger of guilt about Barnett spitting on Marys grave, and very little else.
Nothing could be further from the truth, we have gone into a vast amount of research, all that is possible, to make our book factual, and I will admit speculative.
The vast amount of people who buy Ripper books , have a certain amount of knowledge, on the subject, and although we will relay to them , known references, we also aim to produce a book, that is full of talking points, and full of intresting conclusions, this surely is the way forward.
Making suggestions , adding new imformation,being suggestive, is to my way of thinking essential in entertaining the reader.
Our main objective is to keep Joseph Barnett, who Leanne, and myself consider the number one suspect, in the picture, and hopefully influence a lot of new recruits, that what we suggest is serious , and well worth a great deal of thought.
It certainly will not be a dull book, you have my word on that.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
G'day Leanne
"OK, just to understand what you said in your last post: Are you saying that the boards could have been there for another purpose ie: to carry the coffin BEFORE being lowered into the grave?"
I am no expert on the subject, but it is quite possible that the boards were put there after they had finished digging the hole. They were most likely used to cover up the hole when it was dug and then the ones closest to the edge were kept to stand on by those who lowered the coffin down into the grave -- that is how it was done on a couple of old photos I've seen. Once the grave was filled in, there would be no more use for them. The fillers stood on those while the coffin was lowered down with ropes. This was -- as I've seen it -- quite ordinary procedures at pauper burials.
I can't see the point regarding the expenses of the funeral -- the boards have nothing to do with that; just a couple of ordinary planks -- which probably were reused.
Richard,
Why in Earth would someone place the boards there after the coffin had been lowered down? It makes no sense. They may have been of some use while filling the grave, but not as much as during the lowering of the coffin. OK. It is quite possible that they were laid out again before the fillers replaced the dirt, but somem of them were most certainly there before that.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 11, 2004)
(Message edited by Glenna on February 11, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 672
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,[ and non believers]
The fact Of the matter ,is none of us were alive at the time, and therefore none of us attended, the funeral of Mary Jane,therefore, none of us can possibly know if this incident occured, but according to Daniel farson, who proberly thought along the same lines as yourselves. this letter existed, but went missing amongst, the many correspondence ,one would have expected to pour in, after his plea for imformation.
The fact is he did receive, such a letter, the fact is it was a reference to St patricks cemetary, and the fact is, in 1959, joseph Barnett, was not considered anything more then , the last victims poor ex.
We over the last 45 years, know that this character, is at the very least, a suspect for killing Kelly, therefore to dismiss, such a letter, written about that period, by a witness to that particular event, as ludricous, I would say is irresponsible,and will proberly keep the identity of the Real 'Jack from us.
Richard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
