Author: Gary Gillies
Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 12:34 pm |        |
Hi,
Does anyone know what happenened to the victims items that they had on them at the time of their death? Does the Police still have them?
Thanks,
Gary. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 05:42 pm | |
Hi Gary,
That's a GOOD question! I doubt the Police still have them, but I wouldn't be surprised if the items are in the hands of some PRIVATE collectors out there.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: cue
Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 08:57 pm | |
Hi,
Has any one ever heard of items from the victims turning up.You would think CEs apron would have been kept as evidence for example?
The police kept on file hundreds of letters from the public you would think clothing and personel items would have been put into evidence as well!The list of CEs possesions was so detailed i can't believe they would be thrown away ! |
Author: Monty
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 07:34 am | |
Lads and Lassies,
Ive said this many times before and I shall bore the arse of you by saying it again.
I wouldnt be surprised if Kates apron turns up soon.
Is it genuine or not would be the debate.
I just gotta feeling.
Monty
 |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 07:40 am | |
Hi Cue,
Actually after cases have been closed for more than 20 or so years, evidence typically is thrown out.(Well at least here in the states it is, because the statue of limitations runs up. So no matter what the evidence is, doesn't matter because one can not be tried for the offence after a given period of time.)
Also we have to look at the files that are missing from the case history. These files are all numerically coded, and have been locked up since the day the murders happened, yet entire files are missing.(Such as Mary Kelly's autopsy records. The Inquests for Polly and Annie. And MOST importantly the Suspect File.)
But I don't think all hope is lost. I'm sure someone thought they could make a pretty penny on selling articles that dealt with the case. So I wouldn't be surprised that these items may be found in the hands of a private collector.(After all we've had letters, doctor's notes, and other official documents, mailed to the central records office over the years. They had to come from somewhere, now didn't they?)
Adios,
Chris H. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 09:45 am | |
Hi, all:
The only victim's item that I know about that may be still extant is Catherine Eddowes' so-called shawl with the michaelmas daisies on it, now in the possession of Andy and Sue Parlour. There are, however, serious questions about the provenance of that article. Another item of even more questionable origins is the crucifix that was allegedly with the Maybrick diary that some pro-diarists claim could have been Mary Jane Kelly's crucifix that she got from the Providence Row night shelter in Crispin Street and which these diary advocates theorize was stolen by Maybrick on the night of her murder. All other items listed in the police lists appear to have been lost or destroyed. Despite what Chris Hintzen says, there has never been any suggestion that any of these items may be in private hands.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 11:27 am | |
Hi Chris George,
Ummm, didn't you just say Andy and Sue Parlour supposedly have a shawl that Catherine Eddowes had?(If it is genuine of course.) Well wouldn't that mean that it's in the hands of Private Collectors? And what about some of the recent official documents that suddenly turned up in the mail at the record office during the late 80's through the 90's? They came from somewhere didn't they?
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: James
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 08:08 am | |
Hi Guys
Not an "item" as such but given the notoriety of the cases and the Victorian love of the macabre, its likely that specimens were preserved from victims and possibly the Lusk Kidney. They would be gathering dust in some basement corner in a London Hospital or,say, the Royal College of Surgeons.
There was a case recently(98?)where an artist stole body parts from the college of surgeons. One of the excuses given for the theft was the age of the pieces which were taken from a storage area. The accomplice(an employee) claimed he was indignant about them keeping such old specimens for so long.The artist alleged he would bury the parts when he was finished.
I suppose the question is , what use would they be?
I could think of one to start of with..was the Lusk Kiney male or female.If male it rules it out as genuine!
Rgds
JAMES |
