Author: Johnno
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 11:40 pm |        |
All,
I recently received an email from a friend who knew of my interest in the Ripper case, and who had heard of an interesting theory, which I am told is held by J. Michael Straczynski, the writer and creator of the television show Babylon 5. I do not know if the theory originally emanated from Straczynski, or if he heard it from someone else, but I have been told that he is not the only person supporting this theory.
Jack the Ripper was featured in an episode of Babylon 5 called "Comes the Inquisitor". Apparently subsequent to that, viewers of the show discussed the portrayal of the Ripper on a Usenet newsgroup, which then resulted in Straczynski volunteering his belief about the Ripper case.
This one is totally new to me, so I have posted my friend's email below. Perhaps someone here has heard of the theory and can fill in the blanks or volunteer some additional information.
Quote:Johnno,
a couple of months ago, we were talking about Ripper suspects and I mentioned that the creator of my favourite show had done his own digging - even had the Ripper in one of the show's episodes, but in an odd way. Here's what he had to say on the subject:
----------------
Okay, here's one clue for any would-be Ripperologists out there.
In all the long story of Jack, when he was out doing his nightly work, only one person, a woman, wrote an actual letter, published in the London Times, offering an *explanation* for the Ripper's work, arguing that he was trying to send a message, that maybe people should listen to that message. It was as close as anyone's ever come to an actual *defense* of what he was doing.
Note the woman's name, and who her husband was...a man who was twice interviewed by Scotland Yard, and interviewed by many Church officials, the transcripts of which have been *sealed* by the Church ever since, at the request of the family...a person who was the last man to see at least one of the victims alive...and who was a direct blood relative of the man who was living with the final victim (who was killed indoors, leading to the speculation that she knew her assailant)...who suffered a breakdown just before the murders began, was obsessed with cleaning up the Whitechapel area, and after whose sudden, hasty transfer, the murders stopped...and whose profession is tied *directly* to the only thing the Ripper was overheard to say to one of his victims.
------------------
That probably makes more sense to you than to me.
I would be interested in seeing what other people have to say about the above-mentioned theory. |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 06:01 am | |
Johnno,
This was discussed here during the early part of last year and there wasn't any enthusiasm for it then. The person referred to is probably the Rev. Samuel A. Barnett.
Regards, V. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 02:03 pm | |
Hi, Viper and Johnno:
I believe at the time of the discussion, we also said, rightly, that the so-called blood relationship between Joe Barnett and the Rev. Samuel A. Barnett is a myth. This seems yet another "cooked up" Ripper suspect, possibly to promote the Babylon 5 TV show.
No doubt the overheard words the Ripper is alleged to have said according to this account were the ones William Marshall at the Stride inquest stated he overheard a man say to Elizabeth Stride: "You would say anything but your prayers." (See Evans and Skinner, The Ultimate, p. 165.) But was the man who said those words Jack the Ripper?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 09:04 pm | |
Rubbish idea. No relation to the case whatever.
David |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 12:24 am | |
| Tick, tick, tick. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 04:02 am | |
Clique, clique, clique.
Great minds think alike, Joseph my dear? ;-)
Happy New Year to all.
Love,
Caz
Aaarrgghh!... Reverend? |
Author: Johnno
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 07:59 am | |
Viper and Chris,
Thanks for your answers. These seem to settle the issue quite nicely.
It hadn't actually occurred to me prior to Viper's post that the person referred to was probably the Rev. Samuel Barnett.
Chris, I'm not sure if the portrayal of Jack the Ripper in the Babylon 5 show was a by-product of the theory, or if the subsequent response by viewers sparked Straczynski's interest in the case, as I have never watched the show.
The vague information I originally received does not indicate either way, although the latter could be interpreted from my initial wording.
Maybe someone who has seen the episode could clarify, but that theory (whether it relates to Babylon 5's portrayal or otherwise) does not seem significant enough to warrant the effort.
The Anonymous, Insignificant, Inadequate Nobody still remains the best suspect yet, in my opinion. |
Author: Joseph DeMartino
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 04:49 pm | |
The Barnett "theory" isn't at all germane to the episode in question, and even the character's identity as "Jack" is almost incidental to it.
Briefly an ancient and advanced race called the Vorlons send an "inquisitor" to "test" two of the main characters to see if they are worthy of the roles they are to play in the coming struggle. The man appears to be human, is dressed in archaic clothing and has a British accent, and has been in the Vorlon's employ for some time. Although the clues are obvious, his identity as "Jack" isn't confirmed until the closing moments of the episode.
The character is called Sebastian, though I don't think we're ever told if this is his first or last name. The Vorlons kidnapped him from London one night, and have kept him in suspended animation except when they have needed his services as an inquisitor. He has tested numerous would-be leaders. Until the episode, none have survived his interrogation. His fondest hope is that the Vorlons are now done with him, and will let him die.
"Jack" was used primarily for three reasons: 1) To show that the Vorlons have been visiting Earth and intervening in human history for quite some time. 2) To show the possible dark side of the heroes: Like them, Sebastian is presented as someone who believed he was doing the right thing, serving a higher good, and was the instrument of destiny. By his very existence he challenges them to consider that their belief in themselves may be misguided, and the consequences of that error terrible. 3) To raise questions about the Vorlons themselves. The mysterious aliens are apparently on the side of the "good guys" - but what kind of good guys would preserve and use someone like Sebastian for several hundred years? Who would employ "Jack the Ripper" even as a messenger? It makes them morally ambiguous.
So this wasn't a "traditional" SF use of "Jack the Ripper", like "Wolf in the Fold" on the original "Star Trek." The story was in no sense "about" Jack or the murders. The mere fact that Sebastian was once the Ripper, and has been given this odd form of penance by the Vorlons, is used to give added resonance to an episode that is really about the nature of courage, the price of leadership, and the corrupting influence of fame and glory.
BTW, there was certainly no effort to "hype" the show through either the episode's almost subliminal use of "Jack" or the JMS post quoted above. He didn't write that until after the episode had been broadcast on both sides of the Atlantic, and it was merely a response to a general discussion about Jack the followed the U.S. airing.
Regards,
Joe |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 09:08 pm | |
Dear Joe,
You may have something...can't quite put my finger on it though.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Ryan Forth
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 08:58 pm | |
Hello All,
I am new to the site and am finding everything completely engrossing. I've been here for hours reading theories and thoughts and am totally impressed with all the research. But as for the topic in discussion, common sense has to come into play. Someone that is so closely tied into the murders would have come to light years ago I would think. I could be wrong (being a baby ripper and all) but I would be interested in learning how much new information is coming to light yearly.
With an open mind,
Ryan |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 08:48 am | |
Bits and pieces, Ryan. Sometimes fugitive information that has actually been in the public domain for some time, but in a not-too-easily accessible source. Thus, last year I learned with surprise that there was a second report to add to Dr Bond's which showed conclusively that Mary Jane Kelly's heart had been removed (i.e. taken away from the murder site) by her killer. Hitherto that had been a matter of interpretation of Bond's laconic words, 'heart absent' (which just might have meant 'absent from the thoracic cavity, but left with other pieces of flesh and internal organs in the room'). Stewart Evans directed me to an article in Criminologist magazine in which a report by Bond's assistant is described and makes it clear that the heart really had been taken away.
Bits of background information are coming up all the time. But the last piece of really central new information to be uncovered was the 'Littlechild letter', bought and published by Stewart about 10 yearas ago.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 06:29 pm | |
Hi Martin !
Does this second report make any reference as to whether Kelly was pregnant or not ? |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 07:09 am | |
I don't think so, Simon.
Martin |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Sunday, 03 June 2001 - 06:47 am | |
G'day Martin, Simon, Ryan, Rosemary, everyone.
The propability that Mary's heart was taken is more than likely probable as other victims' body parts were also taken. Additionaly, all of Mary's other body parts were accounted for and documented.
Jules |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 04 June 2001 - 10:34 pm | |
To Martin, Jules, Simon, Ryan, Rosemary, and
everyone. If I recall, given the possibility
that Jack ate part of a kidney, he may have taken
the heart to eat it too. I seem to recall that
in some cultures, eating the heart of a defeated
enemy was supposed to guarantee you acquired your
enemy's characteristics (I think the heart was
considered the center of bodily strength or
inteligence).
I was thinking of any similar story of that period
where a heart was reputedly stolen. The only thing I recall is that Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
wrote a poem about the rivalry of Capt. Tom Custer
(the brother of Lt. Col. George A. Custer) and
Chief Rain-in-the-Face, which culminates at the
Battle of the Little Bighorn (June 1876). Rain-
in-the-Face did serve as one of the Indian leaders
at the battle. But the poem ends with him carrying his trophy from the battle field: Tom
Custer's heart. According to Ewen S. Connell in
his book, SON OF THE EVENING STAR, the poem was
based on hearsay or legend, and had no truth
behind it.
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 09:19 am | |
Hi, Jeff:
Ivor Edwards may have something to say about whether the heart was eaten in his upcoming book about his suspect, Roslyn D'Onston.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 12:37 pm | |
Jeff,
For god's sake sit down and have a stiff drink...
or even a snort if so inclined.
The evidence for Jack having eaten a kidney is pretty slim given that (a)he was a strict vegetarian,(b)an alley cat stole the thing as soon as he had sliced it out, (c) the letter that made this startling claim was aimed to shock its recipients...a la late Victorian agit-prop art, (Damien Hirst eat yer heart out!).
Number one, Kelly's right eye was missing as well as the heart...and it is often suggested in mystical circles (Ivor Edwards?) that the eye is the mirror of the soul/heart...did that eye hold a clue to the thief who stole her heart. And a kidney. And a number of uterii. Is this the true
meaning of Jack's depredations...Eye-kid-Ute-knot?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 05:53 pm | |
| Rose,Are you telling porky's yet again? Dr. Bonds report does not mention any comment referring to a missing eye.Her eyes were intact. Her eyebrows and ears were partly removed. Barnett had to ID Kelly and it is stated that he only recognized her from her eyes and ears.Yet her ears were partly removed ! :-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 06:02 pm | |
| Ps. There is no evidence that the Lusk Kidney was the organ taken from Eddowes.Nor is there any evidence to show that the killer ate any part of his victims. Heart or kidney included. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 07:35 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
I agree...except for the issue of the eye.
Rosey @ |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 08:06 pm | |
| Rosey, Where is the evidence that proves her eye was taken? |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 10:41 pm | |
As a matter of fact Rosey I like your advise.
I will have a quick one or two, although I won't
quaff anything out of a skull (I promise!).
My comment regarding the heart business was due
to my noticing that Martin pointed out the
medical report said that Mary's heart was removed
and taken away. My comments on the story of
Rain-in-the-Face and Tom Custer seemed apropos
because the same organ of the body was taken (in
Longfellow's poem, if not in reality) as a trophy.
However, I apologize about the mentioning about
the cannibalistic use of the organs. I will try
to avoid mentioning it again, if it is avoidable.
In anycase, now I wonder if you ever ate a steak
and kidney pie? I never had. I don't like
organ meat, except for chopped liver or pate.
Bon apetit. 
Jeff |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 04:47 am | |
Hi Jeff,
I liked the hearts my mum used to serve up, but they take some careful cooking to make them really tender. I did them in a pressure cooker with an orange sauce - very tasty.
Kidneys in sherry, served on hot toast, are wonderful too - you don't know what you're missing.
I think Rosey may be getting carried away by her nightly bingo sessions. Kelly's eye - number? One.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 05:15 am | |
Dear Jeff & Caroline,
As an avid haggis-eater...its her eye that makes it sweeter!
R@sey |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 07:30 am | |
...and I guess it would see you through the week too. 
Love,
C@zzy |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 10:45 am | |
For anyone interested in a further discussion of MJKs heart, some relevant articles are:
Stephen Ryan:
"Dr Bond's Report Leaked"
('Ripperana,' No 13, July 1995);
"Mary Kelly's Heart: A Curious Item"
('Criminologist,' 1997, Vol 21, No 1;
"Another Look at Mary Kelly's Heart" ('Criminologist,' winter 1998)
Dave Yost:
"Did Kelly Have a Heart?"
('Ripper Notes," Vol 1, No 1);
Letter to the Editor
('Ripper Notes,' Vol 1, No 2)
And Ivor, thanks for saying what I've long believed about the Lusk Kidney (my own "Another Look at the Lusk Kidney," 'Ripperologist' No 29, June 2000) - he said, blowing his own horn with a tinny shrill.
CMD |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 02:28 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
It all depends on... Bond :-)
Rosey O'Ryan, Private Eye. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 03:30 pm | |
| Rosey, I once knew a chap who had his ashes placed on Bondi Beach, down under. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 03:37 pm | |
| I once saw the a most inofensive young man who looked like a wimp in his early 20s who had murdered his girlfriend. He cut out her heart and placed it in a small box. He then posted the box to the girls mother. The motive was revenge. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 04:54 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
While on a sojourn in Lindholme Prison, nr Doncaster, I was asked by my fellow bedmate to retrieve his wife's head which he had hidden on a rubbish dump...some men deserve to die!
Rose, with de hose. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 08:40 pm | |
I have known many people to lose their heads Rose
but in all such cases their heads were attached to their shoulders.Was your friends wife's head still attached to her shoulders? Shame on you Rose telling porkys again about male and female inmates sharing the same cell:-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 07 June 2001 - 06:12 am | |
Dear Ivor,
:-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 07 June 2001 - 07:37 pm | |
| Rose, The thought did cross my mind that if it was goverment policy for males and females to share a cell then there would be more people in than out!!! |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 07 June 2001 - 09:37 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
Its heading that way!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 08:27 pm | |
| Where did the lusk kidney come from and was it ascertained that it was human? I ask as research for the novel. Don't know if I'll use that juicy tidbit though. Neil |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 12:15 am | |
Neil,
The kidney was ascertained to be beyond doubt human, although its provenance is still up in the air. It either came from Eddowes or a stiff in the dissecting room. The call is yours.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 09:55 pm | |
Neil and Tom -
Ah, the Lusk Kidney! One of the few things I can actually discuss sensibly. . .
Neil - the LK came from some unknown location. The only evidence we have to believe that it came from Eddowes was its accompanying letter "from Hell," which, of course, proves nothing at all. As to whether it was human. . .Dr Gordon Brown, the Met Police surgeon, Inspector McWilliam of the Met and Dr Thomas Openshaw of the London Hospital believed it to be human, and it was reported in the newspapers that this conclusion was made after "microscopic" examination.
The difficulty - as Dr William Saunders noted at the time - is that there is not a great deal of difference between a human, pig or cow kidney, and we must remember the woeful state of forensic pathology in 1888. Openshaw pronounced the LK to be human, but he was not a pathologist. Neither was Gordon Brown - at least, not in the sense that we understand the term today. It is certainly possible that the LK was human, but the longer I study the subject (and I have been having some marvellous discussions with the Chief of Pathology at a local hospital), the more I wonder.
The newspapers, police and medical men of the time believed the Lusk Kidney was human. Catherine Eddowes was missing her left kidney. Can we put the two together and proclaim the artefact genuine? In my opinion, absolutely not.
As ever,
CMD |
Author: Jon
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 08:15 pm | |
The difficulty - as Dr William Saunders noted at the time - is that there is not a great deal of difference between a human, pig or cow kidney,
Did Saunders actually say that?
Speaking as an ex-butchers apprentice I can assure everyone that a cows kidney is considerably larger and physically different from the human or pig kidney, which are in both cases relatively close in size and shape.
(just a comment from the cheap seats)
Regards, Jon |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 01:20 pm | |
Jon,
Any cynicism whatever is sufficient to convince Mr. SoMalia. If bitterness and skepticism can remotely be thought to apply he will be moved, and his summary judgement will be quick.
David |
Author: David Heft
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 03:33 pm | |
Any evidence to suggest that the victims were strangled? I've read that many of the victims had bruises on the face as if someone were pressing down over their mouth with his/her free hand.
My point is that the Tabram's and Nichol's murders occurred very close to residences and it is hard to believe that no one heard any type of commotion. Especially if you agree that these women basically made their living by surviving on very rough streets. They had to be extremely street saavy and strong willed. Whether or not you agree with their occupational choices, they did what they had to do to survive.
So, considering numerous "expert" opinions that JtR must have had some type of medical/anatomy training, is it possible that he (she???) may have used some type of anesthia?? Ether perhaps?? Thus explaining the pressure bruises on some of the victims cheeks and jaws (rag being held tightly over their mouths) and helping to explain the silence of the killings and the relatively undisturbed murder scenes......
This may have been discussed previously, if so I apologize for shooting my mouth off. Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated......
dave |
