Author: peter martin
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 11:14 am |        |
I was worknig along the lines that William Henry Bury was our man but thought, if he was self employed and out and about anytime he lliked why were all the murders carried out at the weekends ?
If Polly Nichols was attacked from behind would this indicate that this really was the first Ripper victim, he, not being bold enough to face his first victim.
Does anyone have any information on the female witness's who saw a man washing his bloodied(I think) hands at a stand pipe. Where this was and what day it was.
Pete |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Wednesday, 31 January 2001 - 08:02 pm | |
Pete:I believe it was after the double event. I don't have my copy of Peter Underwood's book on JTR handy right now and in this god awful mess I'm not sure I want to try finding it.
I don't know that Polly was the first victim. I always favored Martha Tabram. WHat are your views?
Kindest reguards, Neil |
Author: peter martin
Wednesday, 31 January 2001 - 08:52 pm | |
Well to be honest Neil my opinion has been changing nearly every week since I started reading about the case. I just thought that as Nichols was attacked from behind and that as the killings went on they seemed to get worse this might show a lack of confidence at the start of the attacks, which might indicate she was the first, building up to more frenzied attacks as he got more confident. There could have been more victims and in other countries too if he was sailor or traveler there might well have been lots of attacks that didn't end in murder. I keep trying to pin it on G. Wentworth Bell Smith but his escape route is eluding me unless someone can find a forgotten footbrigde over the railway tracks of Liverpool st' station. I think some of the evidence shows the killer went north/west after the murders.
On another strand, there is a Ripper programme on TV next week I think it's the Ripper diaries on Ch5 could be thursday. Also Johnny Depps was spotted drinking in the Ten Bells pub a couple of days ago, he's making a Ripper film based on the Alan Moore graphic novel. I've heard that Bruce Robinson who wrote and directed 'Withnail and I' is making a Ripper film too.
Do you have a theory?
Reguards Pete |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 05:26 am | |
Hi Peter,
I've just checked next week's Radio Times, and a repeat of the Diary of Jack the Ripper documentary, with Michael Winner, is scheduled for Wednesday February 7th at 11pm on Channel 5, as part of this channel's 'Murder Week'.
Earlier the same night, at 9pm, watch out for Robert Louis Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde, starring the lovely Michael Caine and Cheryl Ladd.
A documentary on John Christie will be shown on Thursday 8th at 8pm.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 05:46 am | |
Thanks Caz, just in time to save me posting the same info! Are you setting the video for the Christie programme? ;-)
Guy |
Author: peter martin
Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 03:02 pm | |
Hi all, Caz thanks for the conformation and extra info. I think I can only handle one serial killer at a time.
Regards Pete |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 04:28 am | |
Hi Guy,
Yes indeed, although I can't imagine it will be a new one that I haven't already seen. :-)
Hi Peter,
What are you - a big girl's blouse or something?
I eat cereal (killers) for breakfast. :-)
Have a great weekend all. I intend to.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 06:00 am | |
Caz -
Maybe not. It's the Nugent/Martin series (same as Great Crimes and Trials of the 20th Century showing on the History Channel). The ones showing on Channel 5 currently are dated 1995 and seem to be covering exclusively British cases. Those on History are dated 1992/3, have a broader geographical remit (including the Nuremberg Trials, Ku Klux Klan etc), but appear to be essentially the same apart from the title sequence.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: peter martin
Sunday, 04 February 2001 - 09:26 pm | |
I am that blouse!
Pete |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 08:14 pm | |
Peter: I have not really formulated a theory yet. I like Tumblety for the murders but the more I dig the more uncertain I am as to just who did the killing and who was being killed.
In the novel I'm working on, my suspect is a composite taken from some of the characteristic of several of the suspects. Whoever it was, they were a first rate s.o.b. I was waiting to see if there was any answer to my supposition that it might be a ship's surgeon or naval rating the equivalent of a pharmacist's mate.
CAz: Hello Hope your Holidays were good Kindest regards, Neil |
Author: peter martin
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 08:50 pm | |
Hiya Neil,
sorry I haven't been on the site for a while.I gave up due to lack of a smart enough brain especially when I realised the amount of possibilities, but I saw the Ripper programme on Wednesday and re-gained interest. I also saw the trailer for the Johnny Depp film and re-gained interest until I saw a blow up of the artists story boards for the film in Planet Hollywoods window indicating Depp fighting with a 'named'suspect. They're either dropping a red herring or they've inadvertantly ruined the ending.
Anyway I had formed a theory some time ago that got dismissed by a few 'much smarter than me' researchers. I also found there were so many suspects that I thought it was most likely Jack would never be caught, though there are always possiblities and your idea seems very possible. Wasn't there a sailor called Fogelmar? who ended up in an asylum craving forgiveness. Though he was poverty striken and extremely thin when his sister saw him and probably would have stuck out a mile and didn't have the strength to commit the crimes.
Forgive me if this message appears twice, I as sure I posted it earlier today but it didn't seem to materilise.
Tumblety seems too good to be true, and I don't know if the landlyady who found the bloody shirt ever said her lodger was an American, if she did she could have mistaken the accent for a Canadian, which brings me to my favourite suspect. But enough of me.
I think there's a chance we are staring at something so obvious that we're looking right through it, so there's always hope.
Pete |
Author: peter martin
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 03:44 pm | |
To my surprise while acting on a whim I found Jack the Ripper in my Encyclopedia (that wasn't the surprise) but it stated that he was probably a Russian called Vassily Konovalov...who? I'd never heard of the fellow. I only found a little on him on the message boards, linking him to a torso murder in Paris and being an alias used by Dr Pedachenko is this taken as fact? Is there anymore on him?
Pete |
Author: Jack Traisson
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 05:02 pm | |
Hi Peter,
It must be a very old encyclopedia you are using.
Konovalov was first put forward in The Identity of Jack the Ripper by Donald McCormick, who borrowed much of his information from Le Queux's book Things I Know About Kings, Celebrities, and Crooks, which has Dr. Pedachenko as the Ripper. There is some suggestion that Konovalov is an alias used by Pedachenko. Some have gone further to suggest that both these names are just alias' for Ostrog. But the information on their backgrounds doesn't fit.
Many people have tried to trace McCormick's source material (Ochrana Gazette from January 1909, Dr Dutton's Chronicles of Crime et cetera) but have come up empty.
There is no solid evidence at this time to believe that Pedachenko/Konovalov ever existed.
Cheers,
John |
Author: peter martin
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 09:04 pm | |
Ah well time to invest in new reference material.
Cheers John.
Pete |
Author: peter martin
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 03:17 pm | |
Is it common for serial killers to render their victims unconcious or kill them before they start to conduct a savage attack? I know each killer is different.
Would it be right in saying Jack didn't just or even want to inflict pain on his victims?
I think his excitment came from the act of doing the carving up but not the murder, he wanted to possess something physical or something of the moment, it's wasn't about letting the victim know he was in control otherwise he would have tortured them while concious (am I spelling that correct?) but what does this tell us about Jacks motives?
Pete |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 06:11 am | |
Hi Peter,
If Jack had been into inflicting pain and long drawn-out suffering on his victims, he didn't choose the best method of doing so.
But I did read about a serial killer who operated a few years earlier (not in the UK, I don't think), in a broadly similar way to Jack, who was finally caught. He explained (if we believe him) that he got off on the look in his victim's eyes as they realised they were about to die - a fleeting moment of terror which thrilled the sadist in him.
Of course, with Jack, we don't know if he was able to see his victims' eyes at the point of killing or rendering them unconscious, and we don't know how much, if anything, his victims knew about the attack before they died.
Love,
Caz |
Author: peter martin
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 10:01 pm | |
Thanks Caz
If it was about the moment of his victims realisation then that wouldn't really explain the frenzied stabbing and the carve-up that followed, or would it?
Pete |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 05:34 am | |
Hi Pete,
No, you're right. I didn't mean that I thought it was all about the moment of realisation for the victims in Jack's case - merely giving an example where sadism did play its part, if brief.
With Jack, I was agreeing with you that the after death carve-up wasn't a sadistic act.
But unfortunately we can't ask him what else, if anything, thrilled him about the killings. And you were asking what they could tell us about his motives.
Love,
Caz |
Author: peter martin
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 07:27 pm | |
Hi Caz
I only caught a brief part of a 'serial killers' programme on tv recently about Jeffrey Dahmer, in which some of the participants to the show indicated that the murder and consumption of his victims was through a perverse love of them, and not a mad hatred which seems to be what most people think when they read about such cases.
Who knows maybe Jack was a similar case. Have we explored the possibility of Jack being infatuated with his victims rather than being a demented woman hater?
Pete |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 10:58 pm | |
G'day Caz, Pete.
Just following up on your last point Pete, if Jack was truly infatuated with with his victims then why didn't he take them back to his place and butcher them like Dahmer?
One possible answer might be that he didn't live alone. Another might be that he wanted his victims to be found lying in the streets.
In any event he got what he wanted in a Dahmer like fashion with Mary Kelly. All alone with her in her place with no interuptions.
Don't know if I've given you anything further to consider or whether I've just made things foggier but it's good to be back on the boards.
Jules |
Author: Thomas Bayer
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 12:09 am | |
Hi Peter,
If you are still interested in that death-gaze issue you should check out a Russian Killer called "Andrej Tschikatilo". He was executed in 1994 for the murder of some 50 women and children.
The death gaze was an important part in his M.O. as far as I remember. He couldn't stand it and gouged his victims' eyes...
Beware, however, there is a lousie movie with Donald Sutherland.
Regards
Thomas |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 06:42 am | |
G'day Jules,
Yes Jack the Ripper chopped up Mary Jane Kelly in the privacy of her own room with little or no fear of being caught in the act, by a visitor to Mary's room. That's why I believe it was the man who last lived with her, Joseph Barnett.
If it was someone watching Mary Kelly enough to know that Barnett had moved out, how was he to know that Joe wouldn't return?
If Jack wanted to shock the public by butchering the women in the streets, how could he resist the temptation of murdering Mary Kelly in the streets on 'Lord Mayor's Day', if there was no special motive like unreturned love?
LEANNE. |
Author: Monty
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 08:32 am | |
Thomas,
I saw that film..it was an eyesore. (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Quite right about the "Rostov Ripper". He gouged an eye out of one of his poor victims because they kept staring at him, so he said.
Sutcliffe did that too I believe, wasn't it because he felt his victim was mocking him ?
Why was Chikatilo called the "Rostov Ripper"?
He never ripped did he ?
Monty
 |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 10:33 am | |
Hi, Monty:
I think it is true to say that the Jack the Ripper case has become so much part of modern culture that any serial killer becomes referred to as a "Ripper" whether they ripped or not. It is often the press who dub the killer a "Ripper." The journalists, who may or may not know much about the Whitechapel murders, are mirroring the notoriety of Jack the Ripper in the popular imagination as a killer of a series of victims than for what Jack actually did to his victims.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: peter martin
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 01:34 pm | |
Hiya Jules, If this was the case, that he didn't leave alone, then that would rule out a few suspects...Tumblety for a start. Jack didn't have a fridge to keep them in either which might have been a reason if he was lodging. Imagine the smell yuck!
I wasn't so much thinking of his interest beingin thew final'gaze' but of him wanting something other than to commit a painful murder. Strangle first so the victims feel no pain then take a bit away for keepsake.
Pete |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 07:01 pm | |
G'day Lea, Pete.
Lea, I was just making an analogy between Jack and Dahmer, not trying to propose another theory. And when are you going to stop thinking Barnett was Jack:-)
Pete, I forgot to mention before that we haven't met, so g'day mate.
Tumblety has never been in contention as a serious suspect although some people think otherwise.
Yeah, I believe he was after something else too, but exactly what that was I don't think we'll ever find out. It might have been some perverse psycological stimulation arising from mutilating women, it might also have been he was trying to scare the women off the streets.
I don't know mate, there's heaps of theories as to why he did what he did. All we know for certain is that 4 maybe 5 innocent women were mutilated by his hand.
Cheers Pete, hope you enjoy your dinner:-)
Jules |
Author: peter martin
Sunday, 17 February 2002 - 10:33 am | |
Hiya Jules nice to make your aquaintance.
Yeah lots of theories and lots of suspects.
I missed the 'Crime team' on Saturday night, it was about a murdered prostitute in 1891 around Waterloo I have no details of this unsolved murder case. I only caught the last few sentances in which the narrator said something like 'Cream said he was Jack just as he was being hanged.' So it sounded as if the crime team had suggested Cream had commited the murder.
When organs or body parts are removed by a murderer is there a common use for them? Do they usually get consumed, carried around by the murderer or anything else?
I was wondering how Jack would have (most likely have) dispossed of the pieces after he'd finished with them.
Shepherds pie tonight by the way.
Pete |
Author: P. Severin
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 04:26 am | |
Hello all,
Just finished reading Sugden's work, which yes means that I am a novice to the study, but you can imagine the surprise I got when George Chapman's First name turned out to be Severin. Yikes !!! No More Family tree hunting for ME ! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 06:28 am | |
G'day Jules,
I'll stop believing that Joseph Barnett could have been 'Jack' when someone convinces me otherwise.
Leanne! |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 10:53 pm | |
G'day Pete, Lea.
Nice to make your acquaintence too mate. As for SKs taking body parts away from their victims the answer dwells in a perverse psychology in which the murderer can relive the murder by fondling the object (body part) and therefore 'get off' again until he/she becomes bored with the said object and becomes motivated through fantacy to go and commit another murder.
Geez, I said all that in one breath:-)
Lea. If I could convince you that black was black, you'd still tell me it was white:-)
Tell me where any of the witness descriptions fits Barnett and I'll have a discussion with you.
Luv ya.
Jules |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 19 February 2002 - 01:56 am | |
G'day Jules,
Black is only Black because that is the name that someone chose to give it! I can call it "white" if I want to.
Haven't you read 'Jack the Ripper, Descriptions Of' in the 'A-Z'? It says:
'Bruce Paley points out that Joseph Barnett's height, colouring and moustache exactly match Smith's and Lawende's descriptions.
Constable William Smith saw a respectable looking man wearing dark clothes, aged about 28, 5ft 7ins, carrying a newspaper.
Joseph Lawende saw a man of medium build, dressed like a sailor, aged about thirty, 5ft 7 or 8ins with fair complexion and moustache.
Joseph Barnett was 30 years of age, 5ft 7ins tall and fair-haired. They were only interested in the descriptions that labelled Jack as a foreigner with a dark complexion, dark hair and moustache.
Now, lets have that discussion......
LEANNE! |
Author: Jack Traisson
Tuesday, 19 February 2002 - 04:29 pm | |
Hi Leanne, Jules, Peter,
Just correcting a post I made earlier. Please carry on.
Peter, I hope you enjoyed your shepherd's pie -- made with real shepherd's I trust. Accept no substitute's :-)
Cheers,
John |
Author: Nick B
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 05:57 am | |
Hmmm,
Ive never really thought of Barnett as a Ripper suspect. Interesting Leanne.
How ya going Jules?
Ill email ya again in a few days, thanks again.
Nick |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 09:53 am | |
Hi Leanne,
Barnett does make a VERY INTERESTING if not a very GOOD suspect. The only problems I have to the theory are these. Perhaps you can help me out with them. 
1.) If Barnett was the killer, he was living with Mary Kelly at the time. So why wouldn't she have any suspicions of him being out late at night(or early in morning) on the nights of the murders? I mean if she did, she would have at least communicated the fear with one of her prostitute friends, wouldn't she?
2.) How did Barnett sneak in and out of the Lodging House on the night of MJK's murder?
3.) If Lawende's testimony is to be believed, I have one problem with it. Why would Catherine take Jack(Barnett) back into Mitre Square where they were MORE visible, instead of just pulling him deeper into Church Passage?(I know there was a light at the junction between Church Passage and Mitre Square, but an Alley is much more discreet than a Square. And even Lawende said he could barely describe them from the darkness at the junction of Church Passage and Duke Street.)
4.) Why is Barnett taking body parts from the victims? (I understand his killing and mutilating them to scare MJK, but why is he taking body parts, and where is he putting them? And since he killed Mary Kelly, why would he need to take her heart? The mutilations to her body I understand could have been caused by RAGE, but why take the heart?)
5.) Why did he choose the women he did? I mean there were MORE than a thousand prostitutes in the area at the time.(That is if we only go by the 1,200 KNOWN prostitutes that the Police had on file.) So why did he choose Polly, Annie, Liz, and Catherine?
6.) Most theorists about Barnett believe that he was a rather passive person(like he always gave into MJK's whims), hence why his Echolia(is that how you spell it?) was so evident during his giving testimony at the inquest. Barnett was interviewed for more than 4 hours, since he was thought to be a suspect in Mary Kelly's death.(Because his fight with her on the 30th of October was known by Police) So wouldn't you think that Barnett would snap under the pressure of the gruelling interrogation?(Plus I'm sure he would have had to provide more than just an alibi for the night of MJK's death to prove to the Police that he wasn't Jack the Ripper.) Then again this question is just my own suppositions.
Maybe you can clear up some of these holes in the Barnett theory for me. Not saying he didn't do it. Like I said he's a VERY INTERESTING suspect, just trying to plug the leaks.
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 07:17 am | |
G'day,
All the information you need on Barnett as Jack can be read in Bruce Paley's book: 'Jack The Ripper, The Simple Truth'.
Not everyone accepts the motive that Paley suggests of trying to scare Mary Kelly from a life of prostitution. In his book, he adds the jealousy caused by Mary Kelly's affections for her former lover Joseph Flemming.
CHRIS: I'll try to answer some of your questions.
1. Mary Kelly would often go out drinking at night with her friends but without Barnett, who had to be up at 4:00 am for work at Billingsgate Markets.
These circumstances changed when Joseph lost his job, just before the murder of Martha Tabram. The pair were suddenly forced to spend more time together. Kelly remarked to her friend Julia Venturney that she "could not bear" him deapite his kindness. (of buying Mary gifts). She may have been seeking relief when she invited two of her friends to stay in their tiny room, which caused Barnett to move out on 30th October. Mary was dead 9 days later.
2. Barnett was at Buller's Lodging House playing whist until 12:30 pm, when he went to bed. (see her time-of-death).He was at a lodging house, where people come and go all night, not a prison.
3. I'll have to think about it.
4. No body parts were missing from Tabram, Nichols or Stride. Some of Chapmans vagina and two thirds of her bladder were taken. Eddowes was missing her left kidney and part of her womb.
Mary Kelly's heart was taken by her killer. In the end he won her heart, that she refused to give to him. She told her friend Julia that she was still fond of Joseph Flemming, who used to visit her.
5. Why did he chose the women he did? Bruce Paley found that Annie Chapman sometimes stayed at Crossinghams Lodging House at 35 Dorset Street.
Eddowes often stayed in the empty shed next door to Barnett and Kellys room.
Strides man Michael Kidney was a Dorset Street dock labourer and Elizabeth once lived with him.
Leanne |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 08:23 am | |
Hi Leanne,
Here I am causing trouble again.
I've read Paley's book and I have to admit he left me rather unconvinced. Let me point out the problems dealing with his as well as your answers to my questions.
1.) Joseph Barnett admitted that after each of the killings Mary Kelly being scared as she was stayed in.(This is one of the reasons why Paley believed that it was Barnett's motive to get her to do so.) Eventually she would go out again, so supposedly Barnett would go out and kill another unfortunate.(This is how Paley comes about the reasons why Jack killed so sporatically.) However, the problem is that Mary Kelly was not one to be controlled. When she had an opinion she stuck with it.(Hehe, typical stubborn Irish mentality that I myself have. ) So it would seem to me that if she was so unhappy with Barnett, as Paley assumes, she would have left him. Especially after he lost his job and became 'useless' to her. She had at least one other Paramour that we know of, Joe Flemming. Now we'd have to add the fact that Jack the Ripper is out on the streets around the same time her assumed 'UNWANTED' roommate is out there. Coupled with a rather HEFTY sum of a reward.(Since according to Paley, Mary was only using Barnett for his money.) Then why wouldn't Mary just try and turn Barnett in just to try and cash in on the reward? Also, going with Barnett's testimony, which Paley agrees with, that Mary was afraid to go onto the streets after the murders, then she would have been staying home for Annie's death. So wouldn't she have noticed how Joe goes out one minute to get some work(Since it is early in the morning, and not at night.) Then comes right back home an hour later, bloodied but without any money?(The blood could be explained due to the fact that he was a Costermonger, but do you think Mary would believe that Barnett went out and worked for an hour and didn't come home with anything to show for it?)
2.) Yes the lodging house was not a prison, but there was a deputy on duty all night. The deputy was usually there to keep people from sneaking into a bed without paying. This was a VERY COMMON problem of the day, due to the poverty of the area. So there was typically only one entrance and exit to a lodging house.(I believe, but am not sure, I read an article dated around 1899 that several people burned to death in a fire in a lodging house due to the fact that the front door leading to the street, the only way in or out of the building, was already surrounded by flames.)
3.) I'll give you more time to think about this one.
4.) I'm aware that he didn't take organs from all the victims, only 3 counting Mary Kelly. However, my question is why is he doing it? And what is he doing with them? I mean he's living with Mary at the time of Annie's and Catherine's murders, so he can't be rightly bringing them home without her suspicion.(Or maybe you're thinking that Barnett was like the writer of the From Hell Letter, 'Tother half I fried and ate it was very nise'?)
5.) I still haven't seen where Paley got his information about Eddowes living in the Shed in front of Miller's Court. But even if that is true, you still have at least 100 other prostitutes that live within that block. And at least 2 others that live within Miller's Court. So why whouldn't Barnett kill one of these living closer to home, and better known by Mary? (This would either frighten her more, or at least hurt her more, which would help him achieve his jealous agenda much easier.) And why is it Barnett would go a dozen blocks or so away from his home to kill Nichols or Stride?(Killing closer to home again would hurt Mary more.) Even if he is into Self-Preservation, and killed these women away from home to lessen suspicions of him, he still has to come all the way back to Miller's Court to clean-up, and who knows if Mary might be there with someone else, since she had been known to take women in off the street? Barnett couldn't have been in the company of these women all night, because they were either alone, or spotted with other men. So how is he finding them in these areas far from home? Is he stalking them?
6.) I'll give you more time to answer this one as well.
7.) One new question for you, why did Barnett mutilate Eddowes face?
Again, I'm not saying Barnett couldn't have done it. I still claim he is a GOOD suspect, at least within the Top 5 in my own list. I'm just trying to plug the holes in the theory.
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 10:17 pm | |
G'gay Lea, Chris, everyone.
Good points both of you. I'll return tomorrow with my views on Barnett afterwhich time I think we should take this discussion over to the Suspects Board - Barnett.
By the way, don't forget that the police interviewed him for four hours after Kelly's murder anf they were quite satisfied he was innocent of any wrongdoing.
Till tomorrow.
Jules |
Author: peter martin
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 09:38 am | |
What is know about Joseph Flemming, is he a possible contender for the murders?
Shepherds pie as a bit runny.
Pete |
Author: Paul Boothby
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 03:44 am | |
In Begg's The Uncensored Facts he states that according to Barnett Fleming was a stonemason or mason's plasterer who MJK had 'taken up with' after leaving a man named Morganstone. MJK and Fleming lived 'somewhere in Bethnal Green'. He apparantley continued to visit MJK even after she was living with Barnett, and according to Barnett MJK 'seemed very fond of him'
Paul |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 08:01 am | |
Peter,
I have wondered the same thing.
Also wondered about yer man Morganstone.
Monty
|
