|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Kelly, James
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Kelly, James
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 08 October 1999 - 08:35 pm |        | Hi All,
Jack, welcome to the boards. I know you've only recently arrived, and I have enjoyed some of your posts. I do hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but we do unfortunately have a poster or posters that hide behind a mask of anonymity and insist on sniping at others who post worthwhile comments, while posting little of any constructive value him/her/themselves. Please don't be put off, most of the folks here are very nice. As I posted recently on another board, being flamed by one of the various nonnies is something of a rite of passage here - consider yourself blooded.
I've read Tully's book, and I pretty much agree with your assessment. Kelly is a potentially viable suspect, given his mental disease, contraction of venereal disease from a prostitute, and history of violence against women (he murdered his wife, apparently in the belief that she had become a prostitute). Unfortunately, Tully's inability to trace Kelly's whereabouts at the time of the murders does diminish his status as a suspect. In fairness though, it's understandable why Tully would have had difficulty in tracing him. The average person in those days left little in the way of a traceable paper trail (which is, I think, part of the reason why so many prominent people of the age have been proposed as suspects). Someone like Kelly, who was on the lam from Broadmoor, would have taken pains to escape any notice whatsoever by the authorities, avoiding police, taking only casual labor, perhaps even using an alias. Even if he hadn't used an alias, Kelly was and is a fairly common name - surely many "James Kelly"s appeared on official records of the period. So, I think it's understandable that Tully wasn't able to account for Kelly's whereabouts during the time in question.
There are, however, a couple of interesting points in Tully's book. The raid on the home of Kelly's mother-in-law on the day after Mary Kelly's murder is quite intriguing. My understanding is that there was a general inquiry made to asylums regarding escaped or recently released prisoners. It's possible that the raid on Mrs. Brider's home was instigated as part of this inquiry, though as Tully pointed out, parents of a murdered child generally have little sympathy for their child's killer, and were unlikely to have been harboring him. Also, the police apparently conducted the raid with such vigor that Mrs. Brider engaged an attorney, who wrote a letter a letter of protest to the Superintendent of Broadmoor, one Dr. Nicholson, threatening to take the matter up with the Commisioner of Police. It is odd that the police carried out such a vigorous raid on the home of the people least likely to have been harboring the suspect, on the day after Mary Kelly's murder, unless they had reason to believe Kelly was involved in the murder.
The other interesting point has to do with the traditional time given for Mary Kelly's death. Tully quotes a distinguished forensic pathologist, Dr. F.D.M. Hocking, as stating that rigor occurs in 2-4 hours, instead of the 6-12 hours stated by Dr. Bond. This shifts the time of MJK's death to as late as 9 AM instead of the 3-4 AM that is traditionally cited, and casts the testimony of Mrs. Maxwell and press statements of Lewis the tailor in a whole new light.
All things considered, Tully did not make a convincing case for James Kelly as the Ripper, IMHO.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: anon
Saturday, 09 October 1999 - 12:00 am | | | What's the title of your book Mr DiPalma? |
Author: anon and again
Saturday, 09 October 1999 - 09:04 am | | Interesting - now we can only offer commentary when we are published authors? I suppose most of us ought to leave right now then.
Give it up, anon. |
Author: anon
Saturday, 09 October 1999 - 02:59 pm | | Not at all, Mr DiPalma is obviously pretty well-read on the subject and it was an enquiry as to the proposed title of any book he may be writing.
Perhaps you'd better leave anon and again. |
Author: jack colton
Tuesday, 12 October 1999 - 09:54 pm | | Thanks for your comments Mr. DiPalma.
And thanks for pointing out those additional items from the Tully book. |
Author: RLeen
Wednesday, 13 October 1999 - 08:22 am | | Hello Everybody,
I agree that Kelly (James) is an unlikely suspect to have committed all the murders. (Poor, unpublished, soul that I am is my opinion worthwhile? Glad to see that the vitriol is still often in equal measure to the debate!)
The question still stands, could a wife murderer, sentenced to a secure asylum, commit a further five or so murders in a short period without lapsing into his anti-social habits again in the intervening thirty years. Possibly not, and this concept seems to be the fundamental criticism of many other viable theories.
This problem is neatly sidestepped in the dissertation by Roger Barber, about one Edward Buchan. A fine read it is too, and one I heartily recommend.
Thanking you, and still hoping that I can get to Holland or Belgium next year.
Rabbi Leen |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Wednesday, 13 October 1999 - 10:55 am | | Hi, Rabbi:
Nice to hear from you again. The problem with James Kelly is the problem that besets a number of the suspects, i.e., that after committing a reign of terror of ripping they apparently slid off quietly and ripped not again. This scenario seems highly implausible.
And a side note for the soccer illiterate among us, our good Rabbi is talking, I believe, about the possibility of going to see England play in Holland and Belgium in Euro 2000. I think though the "Auld Enemy" -- Scotland -- next month may have a word or two to say whether England in fact make it to the Low Countries for the tournament.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 14 October 1999 - 12:04 am | | Hi All,
I don't know whether Fred West counts as a serial killer in everyone's eyes. He killed at least 11 women and girls, including one each of his wives and daughters between 1967 and 1979. But, as far as we can ascertain, between 1979 and 1994, when his crimes finally caught up with him, he only killed once more, another of his daughters in 1987. This time I believe the motive was as much to stop her talking about the sexual abuse within the family as an unstoppable urge to carry on killing.
So where does that leave those who can't see JtR giving up his bad habits? For some reason old Fred stopped his series of murders after 1979 and we don't know if he'd ever have given way once more to his sadistic urges to sexually torture and murder more victims. He hanged himself in prison at New Year, 1995, while awaiting trial.
What made Fred West control his urges after 1979?
Was he losing his confidence in remaining undiscovered?
Was he getting bored with the whole thing?
Was his conscience pricking him? (Hardly!)
Was he losing his particular sexual urges as the years went by? (No, judging by the evidence of continuing sexual abuse throughout the 1980s.)
Was the cellar becoming overcrowded with bodies?
For whatever reason, Fred West stopped his series and carried on regardless, hoping his sins would not find him out.
Come on you experts, you're all gonna tell me now that West was not a serial killer.
I'm ducking right now, waiting for the flak....
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 14 October 1999 - 04:09 am | | Hi all.
CAZ: The cops believed Fred West killed more than 11 women. His suicide prevented the police from interviewing him repeatedly, and perhaps learning the whereabouts of yet another private graveyard.
Bundy didn't 'fess up right away ... bit by bit over many years time, Bundy's confession total multiplied tenfold. Although I consider all SKs' statements with a grain of salt (proficient lying is one of the tools of their "trade") --- I'm reasonably sure Bundy killed a lot more women than he stood trial for. Several cops working his case stated that Bundy revealed indisputable evidence of killing at least 30 women.
So, to answer your question:
"So where does that leave those who can't see JtR giving up his bad habits?" ---
I'm in the same spot as always - as close to the facts as possible ... Serial killers never retire. If they were capable of "just saying no" to their obsessive compulsion ... They'd all be in group therapy, instead of on death row, 6 feet under, or serving life without parole.
RABBI L: Good to see you posting again. Is the Barber dissertation you mention - on the main menu here, or in the Mammoth Book of JtR? I don't fancy James Kelly for the Ripper, but he's a strong possiblity for the attacker of Annie Millwood, Ada Wilson & others whose throats were stabbed - not cut/slashed. (Kelly stabbed his wife in her throat.)
James escaped from Broadmoor in January of 1888. Annie Millwood was attacked in February. He was in need of money and may have tried to rob his victims ... but IMHO, his primary motive would have been because they reminded him of his wife in some way. Perhaps just being female would have fulfilled that criteria ... as James seemed to have some type of paranoia condition - maybe schizophrenia.
James could have wounded and/or killed any number of women over several years time as he traveled back and forth between various parts of England and the US. Any thoughts?
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 14 October 1999 - 09:55 am | | Hi Janice,
Yep, we probably never get the truth about the exact toll of a SK's victims, and you are quite right that getting the definitive story from any of these murderers is unreliable to say the least. Some would play down the numbers while others would boast of more than they actually did.
But did the police have good reasons to suspect that West had continued his prolific killing spree during the 14 years up to his arrest, I mean really good reasons, or was their suspicion based on the same premise as we are discussing here, ie that he MUST have killed loads more because that is what serial killers always do?
I still have my doubts because of the two distinct time periods involved, 13 years and 11 murders attributable to West, then 14 years with none. Unless as you say there is a private graveyard somewhere with the remains of some dozen or so unaccounted-for young women waiting to be discovered. God, it doesn't bear too much thinking about, does it? But if I had a close female friend or relative who had mysteriously gone missing along with several others in Gloucestershire between 1980 and 1994 I'd have wanted some answers by now.
Does anyone think that JtR could have started his murderous career with the attacks on either Annie Millwood or Ada Wilson? Or did he just begin confidently with Nichols in the same sudden way as he appeared to go out with a bang with Kelly? I should have thought a couple of tentative try-outs would have been a logical first step for anyone starting on the road to serial murder. But what do I know? (Yeah, virtually nothing I guess :-))
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 14 October 1999 - 01:15 pm | | Dear Caz,
Yes I think JTR's first victims were Millwood and Wilson. The MO is very very similar in all cases.
Mr Di Palma,
I was reading your posting about some of the comments in Tully's book about rigor mortis. If that is what Dr Hocking said, rigor mortis starts about 2 to 4 hours after death ( and I don't believe he did) then at best he is misleading at worst in error.
Rigor Mortis is a chemical action which causes the muscles to stiffen and later to relax. Like most chemical actions the speed of occurence depends on many things, such as,
1. What physical activity the victim was engaged in immediately before death.
2. The ambient temperature. This is extremely important for several reasons, mainly because it throws the whole timing of death out the window. I have personally witnessed rigor commencing about an hour after death, when the person died in a nice warm bed in a nice warm room.
However lower the temperature and rigor can be delayed by as much as 36 hours - possibly even more.
The chances are that with rigor commencing in MJK at about two pm, and with the temperature being on the low side and the broken windows providing ventilation, death occured somewhere between 8 and 12 hours previously, which I think you'll find is in the area stated at the time.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Villon
Thursday, 14 October 1999 - 11:55 pm | | Absolutely right about the huge time variants of onset of rigor.
But wouldn't MJK's room have been very warm, after that huge fire had been burning in there. And that, obviously would speed up rigor, possibly quite considerably.
Under those circs death 8 or 12 hours earlier seems pretty unlikely. More like three to five perhaps? With the ever-present caveat that nothing is certain.
Mike |
Author: Bob Hinton
Friday, 15 October 1999 - 12:25 am | | Dear Villon,
Ah the old roaring fire again! But none the less a very good point.
I personally don't believe there was ever a large roaring fire in MJK's room the evidence is just not there.
First off one of the witnesses said that she did not notice a fire through the cracks in the boarding.
Secondly what was the fire supposed to burn? There is no mention of any type of fuel being present, such as wood or coal. The only remnants that could be sifted from the ashes was clothing and clothing does not burn fiercely, it smoulders.
Simple logic dictates that a roaring fire would consume fuel at a rapid rate and unless it was constantly being fed would go out. Since there is no mention at all of a roaring fire being noticed by anyone looking through the window at 10.30 we can assume it was just smouldering and apparently was still doing so at 2.30pm which indicates very strongly that the fire was a heap of smouldering rags.
I believe MJKs shoes were found in front of the fireplace, which seems to point to the following. MJK goes back to her room at about 2.30am with customer. The night is cold damp and drizzly, since she had been in and out most of the night her shoes would be wet. She takes off her clothes and hangs them over a chair to dry, she takes off her shoes and places them in front of the fire into which she throws some old clothes and lights them for warmth. The clothes smoulder on until the folloing afternoon.
I have found that government surplus greatcoats which are made of natural fibres and most closely equate to the clothing of the time will smoulder for up to 15 or 16 hours.
all the best
Bob Hinton
PS The kettle spout is a blind. There is nothing to show when kettle and spout parted company. |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 15 October 1999 - 05:12 am | | Hi All,
First, please don't call me 'Mr. Di Palma'. No need for such formality; 'Jim' will do nicely.
I'd like to clear up a possible misperception. In my previous post, I may have left the impression that I disliked Tully's book, but that is not the case. While I don't feel he made a compelling case for James Kelly as the Ripper, I still felt the book was an interesting and thoroughly enjoyable read.
I'd also like to announce that I have no plans to publish at any time in the foreseeable future, so you may all breathe a collective sigh of relief :-)
Bob: I agree with you and Caz with regards to Wilson and Millwood. In addition to the similarities in MO, there were striking similarities in the physical descriptions. I also think it's unlikely JtR started with Nichols, it's far more likely he started with lesser assaults and worked his way up to murder.
For the benefit of those who don't have Tully's book and may wish to join in this discussion, I'll quote the material regarding Hocking's comments on rigor. All italics are Tully's:
"Denis Hocking told me that rigor mortis commences between two and four hours after death; a statement based upon his personal observations and confirmed by Gradwohl's Legal Medicine, which is a leading American text book on forensic medicine, and the English edition of which was edited by Professor Francis E. Camps, and Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, the standard text book on forensic medicine, which was edited by Professor Keith Simpson.
Gradwohl's states: 'The delay in the appearance of rigor mortis after death can vary considerably. Ordinarily it is about 2-4 hours....'
Taylor's confirms that: 'Rigor mortis generally commences within two to four hours after death.'
Bob, with regard to your point that low ambient temperature can delay the onset of rigor, Tully writes (again quoting Hocking):
'I take into consideration that there could have been some delay in the onset had the body been exposed to cold, but this is doubtful in the case of normally nourished human beings and in this particular instance delay would not be operative had the room been well warmed by the fire.'
So here I think we've arrived at the point of contention - exactly what was the ambient temperature in Kelly's room, and would it have affected the onset of rigor? It's reasonable to conclude that since it was November, the room had at least two broken windows, and Kelly's body was lying atop the bedcovers, that the room may have been cold enough to cause some delay. OTOH, I've also read an account by one of the policeman on the scene that the room was "stifling" when first entered (I think that appeared in Dew's memoirs, I could be mistaken).
Tully's text then continues with Hocking discussing the partial digestion of the contents of Kelly's stomach, and Hocking offering the opinion that her last meal was taken at around 8 AM, and not about midnight. From that, it seemed clear enough to me that Hocking had rejected a delay in the onset of rigor despite his use of a conditional statement with regards to the room having been warmed by the fire, and that he favored a much later time of death.
My own opinion is that it is simply bad science to draw definitive conclusions without accurate data. We don't know the exact temperature of the room. We don't know the temperature of Kelly's body - Bond described it as 'comparatively cold', a subjective and not very useful observation.
If anyone wishes to continue this discussion, I suggest we move to the Victims:Mary Kelly board, as this is the Suspects:James Kelly board.
Jim |
Author: Poopaloodia
Friday, 15 October 1999 - 04:41 pm | | Jim,
I'm not sure that copper wasn't referring to the odour in the room, not its temperature, when he remarked on the "stifling" air quality. In order to test this hypothesis, open a window in your own bedroom a crack, so about the same air circulation takes place as did in Mary's. Then get a good-sized pot from your kitchen and take a nice dump into it. Place the pot on your bed, and leave the room with the door closed. After two hours, walk right back in. Catch that scent? That's about what Mary Kelly's room smelled like when the police got there.
Poopaloodia |
Author: Villon
Thursday, 21 October 1999 - 03:01 pm | | I think you certainly know your subject, Bob. My only problem with your reconstruction is non-medical. Just cannot fix on someone tossing a few old clothes on the fire as fuel. It does not ring true, someone thinking "bit nippy this evening - let's throw that old skirt on the fire." I feel that, however poor she was she could have found something better than that. But of course I am no student of 19th century poverty
Mike |
Author: RLeen
Monday, 25 October 1999 - 11:16 am | | Hello Everybody,
Something that Mr. Hinton posted regarding the smouldering clothes set my train of thought running. Damp night, a tad too much drink...perhaps this enigma was caused by nothing more than an accident.
Imagine an ordinary piece of twine fastened, in some manner, to either end of a mantelpiece. Now imagine an inebriated girl, wet and cold, getting home and placing her shawl on this string to dry it out a touch. Naturally I am assuming that something combustible in the hearth was lit to provide the warmth. Tallow maybe? Anyway, either in a struggle, of which one piece of testimony seems to point, or accidentally, the garment begins to burn, igniting the string, and the apparel falls into the hearth where it continues to burn.
This was fairly common in the old days, and even today people still die because they put wet clothes too close to a heater. Then again I may just be creating a scenario which simply never existed.
I trust that someone will point out my shortcomings.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 03:19 am | | Hi Rabbi Leen,
Just a quick thought from me. It was testified that Kelly had light in her room on the night she died. What did she use?. A candle was found (She was testified as having bought one for 1.1/2 d. a day or so before, but it was stated that it had not been used.)
Could it be that she burnt, or at least let burn, the clothes at this time? I have always been sceptical about the widely voiced opinion that Jack burnt the gear to get light to see what he was doing.
A question to the board with respect to this point;
A coat was stated to have been used as curtain. Was this coat big enough to cover both windows, or was one window left uncovered?
The point is clear. If one window was uncovered, Jack must have LOVED risks by lighting a fire to chop up Kelly by, thus presenting a stage show for the occupants of the houses opposite Kelly's.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: RLeen
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 05:19 am | | Hello Bob C,
It is possible that MJK did use old clothes in order to provide some heat. I remember my maternal grandmother telling me that in bad winters it was quite common for chairs and sideboards to be chopped up for use as fuel. Clothes, and even old shoes, were also used. In fact anything that could burn was used.
One trick, was to use dampened paper, or clothes, because they then burned for longer
so yes it is possible that the clothes were used distinctly for the purpose of heat.
Like yourself I've always been wary of accepting the "roaring fire" scenario. It seems to have too many religious connotations and devilish imagery to be anything other than a blind.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 08:32 am | | Hi Rabbi Leen,
Me and my wife in Warren Road, Leyton at Christmas 1967 with the landlord's furniture disappearing piece for piece up the chimmney and the Devil take the hindmost. How cosy it was to the very last splitter, with tea and toast (on pump from the milkman).
The dear old soul never asked where it all had gone, or perhaps he never noticed. Thankyou, Mr. Samsom. (We did leave the bed.)
And thank you, Rabbi, for bringing back those memories.
Best regards,
Bob Court |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 09:38 am | | Dear Rabbi,
The trouble I have with your theory about the piece of string across the fireplace is that it doesn't involve any members of the Royal Household, no mad poets and there's certainly no insane doctors in sight!
I mean how ridiculous, I used to do exactly that when I was growing up in Stroud, hanging damp clothes in front of the fire to dry, and yet it never occured to me in this context. Well done sir, you have made a very valid and original point.
This is what these boards are all about, hoping that someone somewhere will come up with a new idea.
all the best
Bob Hinton
PS Please call me Bob - Mr Hinton sounds too frightfully formal. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 11:47 am | | Hi, Bob, Rabbi, and all:
I like Rabbi Leen's scenario of MJK hanging her clothes up to dry. I can also remember drying my clothes in front of the fire on damp evenings in England. However, the Rabbi appears to be talking about two different scenarios here: 1) clothes were hung over the fire on a string to dry and fell in, and 2) clothes were deliberately burned to provide a slow-smoldering fire.
If scenario 1 were true I would think the police would have found evidence of the string and remarked on it. I don't think either that there would have been several different types of clothing, including a hat, in the remains of the fire, if scenario 1 were so.
I am intrigued by this fire and the articles burned and cannot but think that the fire and the items burned had something to do with the crime. But what?
Chris George |
Author: Jeff D
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 12:16 pm | | Hello All !
... and the neatly folded clothes on the chair, are another interesting little mystery that we are left to ponder.
Do we know for sure that the clothes on the chair were those of Mary ? There were other clothes, the property of a friend (Julia?) that were left, although I couldn't imagine Kelly purposefully destroying the clothes of a friend for one-nights warmth. Kelly though, had been out that night, could very well have been damp, and wanted to dry off by the fire, her boots were near the fireplace weren't they ? Could she have worn her friends clothes out that night, and these were what was being dried on your clothes-line ?
The burnt clothes, the boots and the neatly folded clothes on the chair have always been a bit of a mystery to me. Besides the 30-shillings, Hutchinsons vigil, the missing key, the singing, the last meal of fish and potatoes .............. and on and on.
Just another point, a little off thread, but recently it was asked how we believe the wounds on MJK's forearms were defensive wounds. I do believe Mary was awake, alive and knew what was happening to her. Besides the mass of flesh that was all that was left of Mary, the Ripper did really always focus on the abdominal area (Eddowes face excepted). I don't think the arms would have been of much interest to the Ripper, which is why I believe it more probable that these were defensive wounds, rather than after death mutilations.
The clothes line item though, does give one cause to think, and there are so many other mysteries surrounding Kelly's last few months on the planet, I could understand the Nun story, equating to Kelly being at the centre of the tragedy.
Thanks for the interesting discussion !
Jeff D |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 27 October 1999 - 04:56 am | | G'day All,
Maria Harvey stated at MJKs inquest that "I left when Barnett came to visit, leaving behind several items of clothing' only one of which had since turned up. Was she saying that only SHE left some old clothes to burn or was she saying that Barnett also left some clothes to burn?
Abberline told how a large fire had raged and an examination of the ashes, revealed that several items of clothing had been burned, "including" Mrs. Harvey's garments. He also said that the room contained a single small candle atop a wine glass.
Reading another book, that was published in the 1920s, it says that Abberline stated: "The only illuminant in the room had been a candle and as that had BURNT OUT, there was little doubt that the murderer burned the dead womans clothes'.
Bob C. has pointed out that Kelly was testified as having bought one a day or so before, but it was stated that it had not been used. Could she have had 2 candles? The one that Abberline found, and one that she just bought?
Bob, have you checked out the photograph taken of the outside of Kelly's room? The coat was used to keep out cold by covering the broken panes of the smaller window. The larger window, shows a white drape or curtain, pulled to one side.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 27 October 1999 - 05:00 am | | G'day again,
This discussion is on the wrong board! Let's move it!
LEANNE! |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 27 October 1999 - 06:16 am | | Hi Leanne,
Quite right, but who is going to make the first move.
Who was James Kelly? I feel I must have heard the name in some connection somewhere, but where? (To get back to the straight and narrow.)
Although in the wrong rubrick, I'll pop a comment to your statement about the curtain that may be over the larger, unbroken window. Could it not be reflection from the wall inside? I don't have a copy of this picture here, can someone enlighten me?
Regards,
Bob |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 27 October 1999 - 02:56 pm | | G'day Bob,
Go to 'Mary Jane Kelly', 'The Missing Key to...', and open 'Arcgive through July 1'. See the post of 'Stewart P Evans Tuesday June 29'.
LEANNE! |
Author: eatonj
Tuesday, 23 November 1999 - 01:34 pm | | | I don't Claim to be Jack Just Know HIM!!!!! He is my great, great, great, great grand father...... |
Author: anon
Tuesday, 23 November 1999 - 04:17 pm | | | Yeah, yeah, yeah.............(yawn)... |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 23 November 1999 - 11:26 pm | | | Woeps, and I always thought the murders were in 1888. Seems I was a century wrong. If he is what you say than either he was more than 100 years old while killing or the murders date from 1788. |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 24 November 1999 - 02:28 am | | Perhaps he was just a REALLY great guy in eatonj's eyes?....
Caz |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Sunday, 30 September 2001 - 05:14 pm | | Hello
I have read the book prisoner 1167 and it is very interesting. I would say that this is our man I am researching it further and his escape from Broadmoor is also interesting any views folks. Is there a book also on Jill the Ripper in print? |
Author: Monty
Monday, 01 October 2001 - 08:52 am | | James,
I agree, James Kelly is a very interesting chap but there is so little info around telling us what he did since his escape and reincarnation apart from what he himself told us. So for me he is in my "could be's" and will remain there until something more concrete comes up.  |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 02:58 pm | | | What about the files in Scotland Yard? Surely they would have a detailed outline on this man and after his escape surely there would be an alert out. Also why is there not any details about him as you said? I'm going to stick to him anyway and my gut feelings is telling me that it's him. Why are the present files not opened? Surely after killing his own wife and cutting her throat it's a good clue to the other murders, and why is it the Polly Anne Nichols is considered the first victim? When in fact Martha Tarban is really the first victim. The dates of James Kellys escape would indicate that he could have been around the area since the murder of Martha. There were also several robberies in the area at his time also. James Kelly had also a contact in the area according to the book 1167. |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Monday, 07 January 2002 - 03:15 pm | | | Looking at some recent material mostly books. The police say that they knew who the Ripper was. I find this a load of crap. If they knew who he was, Why the hell are we still talking about him 113 years later? In several other articles they however have several top suspects which have merit but then afterwards they have No definite proof of any. This seems to be a load of bull. The amount of material now on the Ripper is laughable. Mind you I'm busy rooting through material myself and it is endless. I don't think the CID or Met or London police ever knew who the Ripper was. |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 09:36 am | | Could I ask the Casebook is there any more detailed articals on James Kelly. In relation to other suspects on this site information on my favorite suspect is very sparce. In Tullys book he was linked to Mary Jane Kelly also what we fail to relaise is that Hutchenson the eyewitness account, whereby he saw a man fitting the description of the Ripper if it was Joe Barnett surely Hutchinson would have known him from Mary Kelly. Hutchinsons description is possible the only real description of the Ripper in the whole entire case. Hutchinson also knew Mary Kelly as well. If we can link James Kelly once and for all to Mary Kelly then we will have a very serious case against James Kelly, Joe Barnett and Hutchinson himself even. Tully also has some very important details about James Kelly. After my long research heres what I have come up with Kelly knew her killer there is no doubt, the missing key is important, the door was locked when MacCarthy called to collect the rent so heres my top suspects so far
Joe Barnett (motive revenge)
James Kelly (linked to her as well jealously revenge possible. I still keep to the clue for him cutting his wifes throat)
Joe Flemming former lover of Kelly more research needed here however but jealously would be a strong motive.
I'm not sure of Hutchinson but he could be describing someone well off. It's a weak clue but I feel he was telling the truth anyway. However these four suspects would rule out Druitt theory (McNaughtons view) that the Ripper died in the Thames...
No folks the Ripper is one of the above there is no doubt. |
Author: maria giordano
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 11:00 am | | James,
Remember, Kelly didn't cut his wife's throat. He stabbed her in the throat/neck. Of course, this could have been a "practice run" since I think Jack had to have been experimenting before the attack on Polly Nichols.
I just finished Prisoner 1167 and the thing I find most interesting is the police and other officials covered up Kelly's escape from Broadmoor. Well, of course they would. That, and the immediate police inquiry at his in-laws' after MJK's murder are interesting.
On the down side, I don't see any evidence that he (or anyone else)left a string of mutilated bodies behind him wherever he went, and I can't believe that the person who commited these crimes just stopped cold of his own volition. |
Author: stephen stanley
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 03:11 pm | | Hi,Maria,
When I read it about a year ago,pretty much the same thoughts occurred to me....having said that,it's quite readable,& the'oddments' at the end(The Mortuary site etc.) are fascinating.
Steve |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 12:55 pm | | HI
It's been a while since I have spoken on this topic. There is an aritsts drawing of a suspect on the public office documents which are very like George Chapman remember Abberline himself taught that he was the Ripper also the artists drawing fits him to a T as they say also Kelly is still a firm suspect for me. Also because the ages matche him remember eyewitness accounts said that he was between 30 and forty. I have been researching this now for over two years and I am still convineced that Kelly is our man even taken into account his escape, his contacts in the East End and his life style. He had the opportunity both in terms of profile and background etc. Chapman is also a strong suspect but because he poisened his women it seems that many people can't agree with his new MO. Later victims should also be taken into account from 1888 right up to 1891. We most take the whole picture first if we want to ever solve this terrible crime from the past and early crimes most be also suspected as his experience increased... but sadly we may never know. The time of the late victims also are in keeping with Kelly and Chapman. Chapman been arrested in 1903 and Kelly 1920s it fits and thisis the type of message I 'm getting from my research. Remember I have elimated the Druitt theory that the Ripper was found in the Thames. It has also been said the Kellys hand writting matches two of the Ripper letters. Chapman may have gone to the gallows as the Ripper. Maybe Abberline also took the secret with him. |
Author: ALAN SMITH
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 09:09 am | | It is difficult to understand on what criteria the JTR fraternity judge a "suspect's" credibility. Many miles of space on these boards are spent going around in circles, chasing tails in other words. Yet there are some very interesting theories promoted which ask extremely pertinent questions, and which are given scant attention.
One of these theories is Tully's on James Kelly.
An aging Macnaghten's thoughts years after the events have prompted endless discussion.So its difficult to understand why Kelly, who was the only one named as a suspest in Home Office memoranda at the time of the murders is treated almost with apathy.
Even on the casebook he is an afterthought being listed as a recent suspect as opposed to a contemporary one. The reasons for him being a suspect are basically given as he killed his wife, was a lunatic and lived in the East End. No mention of him being an official suspect at the time, or the fact that the Police raided his family's home after the killing of MJK.
One of the objections to his candidacy is the fact that he stabbed his wife in the neck as opposed to ripping, but this was a heat of the moment "domestic", whereby he killed her with a pocket knife which he was carrying. Hardly the sort of weapon with which he could inflict "Ripper like" injuries, even if he had not been immediately apprehended.
So has anyone any thoughts on why this one-off wife killer has a Home Office file which is still closed? Or why the British authorities put their heads in the sand when he tried to surrender. There may be many reasons, although I cant think of any at the moment, other than some sort of official cover up.
I dont claim that Kelly was Jack the Ripper, but he certainly warrants more than a passing glance.
Alan |
Author: Stan Russo
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 12:42 pm | | Alan,
I agree that James Kelly as a suspect deserves more than a passing glance.
A major stumbling block to his candidacy is that he escaped from Broadmoor in January of 1888. Why would he have remained in London for ten months after escaping from Broadmoor?
Show one solitary reference that places James Kelly in London between August and November of 1888 and you will see his stock as a suspect rise sufficiently.
Please read an analysis of Leonard Matters' 'Dr. Stanley' theory and you will notice another major flaw in James Tully's theory.
STAN |
Author: Moonlite
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 03:16 pm | | Hi Alan Smith,
I agree with your post on James Kelly. I read Tully's book and was convinced that James was a good suspect. The problem with James is that you cannot prove his presence in WhiteChapel at the times of the murders, but due to the circumstances you cannot Disprove his presence. I would like to see indepth studies on James, I do indeed think him better than many of the suspects who have been studied. The fact also that the files of Broadmore are closed untill 2030 is very disappointing. James had reason, opportunity, he was relatively young and was able to hide for such a long time, that I do wonder about him. And why didn't the police persue him when he tried to give himself up. I think it was possibly because they were embarassed, or they felt it better if he just stayed put in another country. It is of course only my opinion, but I'd like to see more on him if at all possible.
regards |
Author: ALAN SMITH
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 05:03 am | | Stan,
I cant agree that his escape in 1888 is a stumbling block, quite the reverse. Had he not escaped when he did, we wouldnt be discussing him now. We dont know where he spent his time after absconding but his background would indicate either Liverpool or East London. But I do accept fully your point that he may not even have been in the vicinity of the murders.
Moonlite
You would obviously like the answers to the same questions as I would. Please update me if you get any.
Can anyone give any reasons why Kelly's file may be classified as it is?
Alan |
Author: Stan Russo
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 11:58 am | | Alan,
There was a search conducted for James Kelly directly after his escape from Broadmoor. I find it illogical that Kelly remained in or returned to London ten months after his escape knowing that he was originally sought after his escape.
That being said, logical or illogical, James Kelly may have been in London during the autumn of 1888 and committed these murders. The possibility is there, yet the probability is the major question.
Many followers of the case argue that suspects should not be named simply because they were demonstrably present in the East End of London during the time of the murders. Frederick Charrington and Dr. Jon Sanders are two of these such suspects. They were present in the East End of London during the time of the murders and have been named as suspects as a result. Now you must prove innocence rather than guilt.
In the case of James Kelly the opposite is true. You must prove demonstrable presence before he can be seriously reconsidered as a viable suspect.
Why the Home Office Files on James Kelly are sealed until 2030 is a complete mystery? There are any number of reasons why. I do not see the feasibility of the files being sealed because the authorities knew James Kelly was 'JTR'. Why didn't they allow Kelly back into the country in 1906 and then arrest him? Embarassment is one thing, total police incompetence on par with ignoring 'JTR''s appeals to return to England is another thing entirely.
STAN |
Author: Stuart
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 05:24 am | | | I would imagine that the reason Kelly's files are sealed until 2030 is something to do with the "100 year rule". Kelly died in 1929. |
Author: ALAN SMITH
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 05:53 am | | Stan,
Yes, cant fault your reasoning. Somehow Jack must have been able to move around without arousing suspicion, and an escaped lunatic and killer on his own patch would hardly fit that category.
With regard to the sealing of the files, it has been anounced today that a police report into Dunblane killer Thomas Hamilton has been subjected to a 100 year publishing ban, and already the press are crying cover up. Speculation is rife that the establishment is closing ranks.
Five years previous to the massacre a child protection detective submitted a report asking for Hamilton's gun license to be revoked, describing him as scheming, devious and deceitful. Of course his license was not revoked with consequences too horrible to contemplate.
It has been suggested that a former cabinet minister, a prominent member of the legal profession and the police would be rather embarrased was this report to be made public.
So even in these "enlightened days" it may be that reputations come before public interest.
Alan |
|
|
|
|
