|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through 30 March 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Why did Jack the Ripper stop?:
Archive through 30 March 2002
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 05:45 am |        | Hi Jeff,
Doesn't your 1.) He [Barnett] could've lied or exaggerated about his alibi. So what he told police is not necessarily gospel equal Jesse's b) The detectives working the case were complete and utter cretins?
Regarding your 2.) 'Blood on an apron wouldn't attract much attention.'
Possibly, but blood on Barnett's apron?
'Heck, he probably wouldn't have even felt the need to clean such a garment.'
You mean the out of work Barnett, whose lover recently dumped him and began letting girlfriends and clients shack up with her in what used to be his and her little love nest, and whose body had just been found cut to pieces? That Barnett's apron wouldn't attract much attention and wouldn't even need cleaning?
IMHO, Barnett would have had to take the thing off immediately after killing Kelly and destroy it, otherwise you'll have to go straight back to Jesse's b) without passing 'Go', and miss a turn. 
3.) As I've said before, if any of the police had doubts about Barnett's story or harboured suspicions, I can't believe they wouldn't have paid the man, and his past and future movements, the very closest attention. Yet not one of them put anything in writing at the time or since, that has survived, to suggest they ever thought he dunnit - either as a one-off crime passionel or part of Jack's series.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 07:30 am | | G'day everyone,
Chris: You've no doubt heard the story about Michael Kidney's drunken visit to Leman Street Police Station following Strides murder. Here he boasted that if the police gave him a few men, he would quickly catch the killer himself. Does that sound to you like he was her murderer?
About Joseph Flemming: Julia Venturney noted that it was no secret that Flemming wanted Kelly back and it appeared that she wanted him back and was using Barnett to tease him (probably to keep getting money given to her). If Flemming killed Kelly what chance would he have then, and why would he be letting her spend his money?
You say you couldn't research a suspect because you're a yank.....so is Bruce Paley!
I, like alot of people nowadays, are also 'on-the-fence' about Martha Tabram, but looking at the death-statistics for Whitechapel at the time, cold-blooded murder was so rare that it was non-existant. In 1887 out of 1602 deaths registered, all were from disease, accident or suicide.
JESSE: As I mentioned here before, Barnett was interviewed at the Police station on the day that Mary Kelly's body was found. Her estimated time-of-death wasn't established until her inquest, so any alibi heard before that date wasn't really an alibi at all! Barnett never gave an alibi at her inquest and no more questions were asked after it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LEANNE! |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 07:47 am | | Quite right Caz. Especially your point numbered 3). Joe Barnett appears to be suspected today purely because he was the partner of one victim. Yet during a long interrogation he obviously managed to satisfy Insp. Abberline and any other officers who were present of his innocence.
Barnett's alibi would certainly have been checked. That would have involved interviewing the Deputy of Buller's lodging house. If they employed a doorman he'd have been quizzed too. Whilst many of these establishments appear to have closed around 2 a.m., some remained open longer and a few round the clock. The Barnettites might spend some profitable research time looking for any historical references to Buller's, its hours of opening and its staffing arrangements.
I've not noticed people asserting here that "Barnett was too poor to have done the killings because he likely would've had only one change of clothes and would've ruined it with blood splatters", as suggested by Jeff York. However, be that as it may Mr. York is very likely right. Barnett probably did have a few spare clothes, and regulars at lodging houses were allowed to keep spare possessions there (though this presented an obvious risk to the owner). It is documented that Barnett's clothing was checked at the time of his detention, and it's reasonable to assume that all his clothes were examined. What should not be assumed is that Barnett owned an apron. Is there any known evidence to suggest he had one? His job at Billingsgate had been portering so there's no reason to assume it. Since the loss of his position he'd been odd jobbing, mainly labouring and portering. Once again, those activities didn't require an apron.
Had the detectives felt that Barnett’s answers were unconvincing he'd almost certainly have been kept under observation. We don't have any proof that he was and his name fades from the case after the unsatisfactory inquest of 12th November.
In recent years there has emerged a deconstructionist approach to the Whitechapel murders, with some commentators questioning the candidacy of some of the once-accepted list of victims. On the basis of having been murdered indoors, the extensive mutilation and the seemingly random nature of it (rather than an apparent goal to get the uterus), many people have concluded that Mary Kelly was not the victim of a Ripper killing.
Whilst I disagree with their analysis, let’s accept the deconstructionist's line for a moment… Writers like Bruce Paley now have a much better case against Barnett as exclusively the killer of MJK. They could build their case against him purely on the jealous ex-lover line without having to extend the theory into the realms of the preposterous by suggesting that he murdered the other canonicals to keep Kelly off the streets. If the murder were a 'one-off' it would also negate the objection that the serial-killing Barnett lived on for many years without reverting to murder. But the fact is that you still return to the stumbling block of the total lack of evidence against Barnett at the time of the investigation, and the absence of his name in later police writings.
Regards, V. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 08:01 am | | Hi Leanne,
Ok, Kidney did go to the Police Station in a drunken stupor saying he could help find the killer if he was given a few men. But if he is the killer, then wouldn't that help people disregard him as the murderer since he says he wants to help them FIND the killer? You said it yourself, because he did it, it doesn't sound like something the actual killer would do.
Also, you can't forget how when a person is drunk, they do STUPID things. They think they are invincible. And many reasearchers on the subject, believed that Jack was a taunter. This could be Kidney's way of taunting the police?
Now as to Flemming. You basically just robbed yourself of some of the case against Barnett. According to Paley, after having left her(or possibly being kicked out my Mary, Paley states that he wasn't sure how the actual fight went down.), Barnett went and saw Kelly, giving her money in hopes of winning her back. Later when he saw that it wasn't working, he supposedly went berserk and killed her in the most horrible fashion. So if Flemming wouldn't do it for the same reasons, then why would Barnett? What's good for the goose is just as good for the gander. 
I know Paley is a Yank. I merely stated that I do not have the RESOURCES that our good friend Mr. Paley had to do the research. I wish I did. But unfortunately I don't. 
I agree with you about the statistics on murder in Whitechapel. There wasn't a single murder in 1887.(I believe the same statistic was reported in 1886, but I'm not sure.) However, after the assaults on Emma Elizabeth Smith, as well as Ada Wilson, earlier in the year, there were several attempted murders. At least one was by a gang(Emma Smith). And this occurance happened on the same block as Martha Tabram's murder. So it is possible that Martha may have been attacked by the same group, or maybe even by another gang, an irrate customer, or maybe even our boy Jacky. To hard to say with what information we have.
But I will agree with you and Jeff. Just because Barnett was interviewed, this does not get him 'Off the Hook'. For all of you that remembers Ted Bundy. He had been interrogated SEVERAL times dealing with his murders, as well as having been indicted for one of the killings.(However, he was still able to worm his way out of a conviction.) I'm sure Barnett wouldn't have had to just give an alibi for Mary Kelly's death, but also for the murders of the other women. Yet, I don't feel that it would be too hard to come up with one that the police would believe.(There were dozens of others who had been interrogated and released within less than a few hours. So I doubt much corroboration was necessary for the police.)
Hiya Jeff,
Glad to see I'm not the only newbie around here. 
But as to your statemtents about changes of clothes, well actually it was A LOT more frequent in the area that a person only had ONE set of clothing. If you read any of the books, or case studies of Whitechapel from 1866-1910, you will see that most people couldn't even afford clothing for their children. And there are many cases when people had to live with their recently deceased family members, cause they couldn't even afford burial costs.
I'm not saying Barnett didn't have a change of clothing. It is a strong possibilty that he did. Yet there is also the possibility that he didn't. And even if he did, I'd agree with Viper. They would check ALL of his clothing, not just those on his person.
For a good read on the poverty of Whitechapel, I suggest reading Jack London's 'People of the Abyss'. It is written 14 years after the Whitechapel Murders. But you still get the basic gist of what it was like.(I'm currently reading the multi-volumed set 'London Labour and London Poor' which is filled with a MASSIVE collection of newspaper reports of the area from Whitechapel reporter Peter Mayhew. This is a collection of his works that span his many decades work.(One of them during the time of the murders.)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 08:30 am | | Rick,
I have nothing to prove when it comes to Barnett.
There is nothing.
I have never heard of a man killing 4 or 5 friends/work mates through jealousy or betrayal just to get back with a former lover.
Have you ??
They usually just go straight for the ex.
You Barnett theorists have to do the proving, not I.
Monty
|
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 09:24 am | | | I think it is interesting that with few murders in Whitechapel before 1888 many poeple were yelling 'murder'all the time.The cries of murder were paid little attention, folks just went back to bed or so they said. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 10:08 am | | Hi Chris,
You say you don't feel it would be too hard for Barnett to come up with an alibi that the police would believe. You say there were dozens of others who had been interrogated and released within less than a few hours. You doubt much corroboration was necessary for the police.
But Barnett wasn't a Bundy, or a Sutcliffe, interviewed along with many others and let go because there was no good reason, or evidence, at the time, for the police to keep their eye on him. (And Bundy and Sutcliffe were eventually caught.)
Barnett was the recent live-in lover of the latest victim. He was questioned as such. And he was let go. But I don't believe there is any way the police would not have kept their eye on him, or mentioned him somewhere in their later writings on the case, if there had been even the tiniest lingering doubt about the man's innocence. Clearly, if that were the case, we could have expected at least one anecdote to have survived, along the lines of, 'I always said Joe Barnett was the most likely ripper, or at least that he did for Mary Jane, and if only we could have worked with his fingerprints in 1888, I'm sure we'd have got our man.'
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 11:20 am | | Monty,
I know that you know that this coming. And that is coming from me:
Barnett fits the profile by Douglas et al. and if I am allowed to say so Barnett fits my profile as well.
I know that is not proof and a profile can never be used as proof. But....
Philip |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 02:22 pm | | Hiya Caz,
I know Barnett would have had to give MUCH more in an interrogation than the average guy that was picked up off the street. Just saying that it seems to me that Scottland Yard didn't seem to look too much for corroboration when it came into looking at alibis.(Not to mention, interviewing witnesses, post mortems, etc.)
Not saying Scottland Yard did a shoddy job. QUITE the contrary. They did a TREMENDOUS job, with what LITTLE manpower they had. I'm GREATLY surprised that they were able to accomplish as much as they did, with what little they had to go with. So they DEFINITELY have my respect.
As to your statement about the little anecdotes and writings of the police about their suspects and why wouldn't they have one for Barnett, I have a little something to comment on, that I'm sure has been spotted out before. Let's look at those suspects that are mentioned in such things. We have Kosminski, Druitt, and Ostrog in Macnaughton's Memoranda, as well as Swanson and Anderson speaking about them. We also have Tumblety in the Littlechild Letter that Mr. Evans was lucky enough to stumble upon. However, when looking into what official files we still have, there is NO evidence on any of these characters being the Whitechapel Murderer. No evidence against Kosminski. None against Druitt. None against Ostrog. Nor any against Tumblety. We don't even have any OFFICIAL documentation of their being SUSPECTED.(Asides from a memoranda or two, or a letter between the press and the officials. Or something written about them in news stories?) So where did they come from? Where is the evidence of their being suspected, other than papers sent between friends and colleagues YEARS after the murders ceased?
Not saying that these people weren't suspects. That the evidence does(if not did) exist somewhere. Just saying that there are LOTS of files missing. Lots of papers that have disappeared over the years.
I'm not going to say on one of these missing papers is something that an official wrote saying, 'Hey Barnett was probably Jack the Ripper.' Just saying we don't even have the paperwork on Barnett's interogation. What did he reveal? What evidence did he give to prove his innocence? What evidence helped prove his guilt? We have NOTHING!
Now, I'm not exactly a proponate saying that Barnett was Jack the Ripper. However, he is at least a viable suspect. He does have motive, a bit sketchy yes, but it's still a motive. He has opportunity, again sketchy, but still possible. But as I said, there is NO physical evidence that is for or against Barnett. I mean if there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we?
Regards,
Chris H.
P.S. To David. I find it interesting that the screams of murder was a rather common thing. However, in an area like Whitechapel it's not all together surprising. Ever see the film Seven? When Morgan Freeman says, 'First thing they teach you to do in Rape Prevention is when you are being attacked to scream 'Fire'. You scream rape nobody cares, you scream Fire, they come running.' Many people may say, hey that's a movie, so what ever is said in a movie there is no truth to it. But I've gone into some of the worst neighborhoods in the inner city, and I know for a fact, that little teaching is true. |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 05:36 pm | | Chris-
I'm sorry, but your Ted Bundy analogy does not hold up. Bundy was never questioned and released by the police. He did, however, escape from custody twice.
Philip-
If I'm reading the same FBI profile as you, it doesn't seem to me that Barnett fits it at all. The profile says that the Ripper would not have been able to cohabit with a woman; Barnett obviously did. He would have had a job where he could live out his destructive fantasies, such as a morgue attendant or butcher; Barnett was a market porter, and even if he did cut up fish (and I'm not even convinced that he did that) it's not really the same thing, is it? The profile says that the Ripper would have had a residence to which he could return to wash up and get rid of his bloody clothes; would this have been Miller's Court, where he lived with Mary Kelly? Hardly. The profile states that "notwithstanding the Barnett theory", the victims were chosen for their accessibility and not for any conspiratorial reasons.
Barnett may fit the profile in some few respects, but these characteristics (age, race, broken home) could well be applied to thousands of East End residents. None of whom were specifically cleared by the police of any involvement in the murders.
AAA88 |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 06:41 pm | | G'day,
Oh my gawd!!!Didn't anyone read my post directly above Viper's, ruining Barnett's known alibi once and for all? I'll repeat it here for the dumbies:
'It doesn't matter if Barnett's 'alibi' of being at Bullers was checked or not! At the time that he gave it, they didn't know that she was probably killed at 4 a.m. or later! Barnett never gave an alibi at her inquest and no more questions were asked after!'
CHRIS: If Kidney was Stride's killer, why would he want policemen hanging around him?
About Flemming: Mary Kelly was slipping away from Joseph Barnett's 'hold' and Flemming was winning her back. At Kelly's inquest Julia Venturney said that Kelly had told her that "although Barnett had been good to her, (buying her gifts), she could no longer bear him and was instead fond of another man named Joe."
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 07:08 pm | | G'day,
The YORKSHIRE RIPPER CASE:
Peter Sutcliffe had been interviewed by police about four times, but seemed like a nice ordinary chap!
As evidence the police had a boot-print and when asked if he recognized it, Peter Sutcliffe was wearing those boots at the time. Sutcliffes car number plates were recognized 40 times in the vicinity and police had a traceable 5 pound note, but still couldn't catch him.
Sutcliffe was eventually arrested for a lesser offence then confessed!
LEANNE! |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 03:47 am | | Hiya Jesse,
Actually Bundy was interviewed 3 times. The first time he was interviewed the police let him go without suspicion. The second time, which was a few years later, he seemed rather strange so they held a third interrogation. The third interrogation led to his first trial. Bundy represented himself, and was able to prove his innocence before a jury.
It wasn't until later that he was caught, and escaped.(TWICE!) Until being caught again, and finally getting the death penalty.
Even without this, Leanne is right about the Yorkshire murderer. Interviewed several times and able to avert the police suspicions.
Does this necessarily mean Barnett did the same? Of course it doesn't. Just means it is possible that he may have.
Hiya Leanne,
Actually Leanne, we don't know that Barnett was never questioned after the inquest. Nor do we know if Barnett was asked for an alibi for only one of the murders, or all of them. And we certainly don't know what times Barnett gave for his Buller's alibi. Maybe, it was later than we think, maybe it was earlier. The problem is we just don't know.
As for Barnett's HOLD on Mary Kelly. I doubt it ever existed. Mary didn't seem like the type of lady to be shackled if she didn't wish it. We have AMPLE testimony giving examples of her fiesty and quarrelsome behavior. At best, Mary could be said as materialistic. Enjoying whatever money she could get from any one of her suitors. If anything Mary had a HOLD on Barnett, not vice versa. So, I'd say a better theory for you Barnett Theorists would be that Barnett was upset that Mary was controlling, ruining his life, then tossing him aside like a rag doll, rather than Barnett was upset that Mary was slipping through the fingers of his IRON CLASPED FIST.(The former goes better with the information we have on hand about the couple, rather then the later. I mean after all, if Mary Kelly is under Barnett's hold, she'd be the one giving HIM gifts, not vice versa. After all, we ALL know a woman's virtues can't be bought with a few trinkets. )
Kidney, may just want the police around him just to taunt them, if not to help try and prove he is innocent of the crime. Let's remember Kidney is in a DRUNKEN stupor when he goes to the station, so he's not exactly thinking clearly. Look at killer Henry Lee Lucas. He's confessing to DOZENS of murders he couldn't have POSSIBLY commited, but it got him the nice attention he was hoping for.
Besides, not saying Kidney is the killer, saying he fits the same mold as the case brought against Barnett, just like...
...Joe Flemming. Let me get this straight. One minute Mary Kelly says she fond of Flemming, but wouldn't go back with him cause he was abusive to her because she lived with Barnett. The next she's leaving Barnett for him? Well which is it? You mean to tell me she's leaving a man who NEVER laid a hand on her, for one who abuses her because he doesn't get his way?(By the way, doesn't this whole, abuse because of failure to get one's way resemble the Barnett Theory?)
She left Flemming before, for reasons which we don't know about.(Maybe his abusive nature.) Maybe Mary was just FOND of Flemming's money? And if she was going back with Flemming, then why wasn't he with her? She was splitsville from Barnett for a while, so she had time to meet up with Flemming. And if she hadn't, well then Flemming could have assumed she was still with Barnett. The last straw was pulled, so Flemming went berserk and murdered her.(Same way you, Paley, and your fellow Barnett Theorists make the case against Barnett.)
Again, not saying that Flemming OR Kidney are Jack the Ripper. Just saying that using the motive and oppotunity that you have used against Barnett, then they seem just as likely a suspect as the poor unemployed Fish Porter.
Hi All,
I do have one other question for ALL of you Barnett Theorists. How much did Barnett make at his Fish Porter job? I'll give my reasons for the question after I get an answer.
Best Wishes,
Chris H. |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 06:19 am | | Philip, Leanne,
Phillip,
Yep, knew it was coming.
So you knew Barnett then ?
You knew what made him tick ?
Or is this based on news reports ?
Sorry, but I had to ask.
I ask you the same question I asked Rick, tell me of any jealous murderers that have slain his ex partner or current partners friends or anyone, if known to the victim or not, just out of "love turning to hate"?
Fits what profile anyway ?...the profile of Jack or the profile of Kellys killer ?
Leanne,
Sutclffe murdered out of a need, whatever that may be. Barnett, according to some, had jealousy.
Sutcliffe never murdered is missus either. Barnett, according to some, did.
Think of the outcome if Sutcliffe murdered his wife back in '74 ? Would he have been caught ?
Theres a difference.
Monty
|
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 11:52 am | | Thats just it Monty, I'm going to prove no more than you, you are going to prove no more than me, if the evidence is not there in FACT,then no one is going to prove anything. You got me wrong!--Nichols,Chapman, and Eddowes, (maybe Tabram too) were murdered for the grand plan of creating fear, and perhaps gain,--Kelly's affections being the gain!. Kelly's death was due to jealousy and betrayal. To me it's no good saying that it's a ridiculous reason to kill, a man who, it could be possible was on the brink of a nervous breakdown, teetering on the edge of madness, his world collapsing around his ears, he could have felt himself driven to do that!. How can you say what a man in that condition will do, or not do.
Somebody was Jack the Ripper!.somebody killed them, if you try to say Barnett can't possibly be considered as a suspect!---then JtR was nobody, he didn't exist!!
Rick |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 02:06 pm | | Hello Chris-
That's interesting...I've never read anything about Bundy being questioned before his first arrest. Forgive my ignorance. As Monty points out, though, there is a significant difference between Barnett on the one hand and Bundy & Sutcliffe on the other. Neither of the latter two had so direct and obvious a connection to one of the victims.
As I am sure you aware, it is very likely that Joseph Fleming died in 1920 in Claybury Mental Hospital. That, combined with the allegedly abusive nature of his relationship with MJK, would seem to make him a more likely suspect (at least in the Kelly murder) than Barnett.
AAA88 |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 02:26 pm | | Hi Rick,
If Barnett was, as you say, possibly '...on the brink of a nervous breakdown, teetering on the edge of madness, his world collapsing around his ears...',
do you think slaughtering Mary was his cure-all then? Did that make him come back from the brink of that nervous breakdown, restore his sanity and put his world back together again?
Or, having teetered on the edge of that precipice, would such an act more likely have caused Joe to take a giant leap forward?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 02:46 pm | | Rick,
Teetering on the edge of madness ? How do you know this ? You knew Joe ? You look much, much younger in your profile !
You are so right about proof. I conceed that factual evidence hardly exsists. But the argument for Joe killing Mary would be alot easier for me to except if we are saying that he murdered for his own, unknown to us reasons rather than for some Mills & Boon reason.
Compared to others, no Barnett is no suspect. This all started from my belief that the police would not let such an obvious suspect go without bloody good reason. I asked why would that be. I have not recieved an answer apart from Chris T who suggested it could be because of the hype regarding the preceeding murders. Fair comment, but I still do not see the police being swayed by public opinion and, judging from reading various police reports, I cannot see that they were swayed by the tabliod press either.
So why would they let a man, with the perfect motive, go for the murder of Kelly ?
Someone indeed was Jack the Ripper.
Highly unlikely that Jack was trying to woo back a sweetheart.
Monty
|
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 05:20 pm | | Hi Jesse,
Your right about Bundy and Sutcliffe regarding Barnett. I wasn't trying to use them as a direct correlation to Barnett, just stating that the police can be duped, and have been duped in the past. Nothing more than that.
I agree with you on Flemming. I think a case against him is MUCH stronger than the one against Barnett. Problem is, very little research has been done about Flemming as compared to Barnett. Maybe if more research was done on Flemming, then maybe Leanne and Rick may dump Barnett? Then again Maybe not?
Like I said earlier, I'm not against Barnett being a suspect. Nor do I fully believe that Barnett was Jack the Ripper. Too many holes in the theory, which so far no one has been able to plug for me. I'm just merely stating that the case I hear against Barnett would fit just as well, if not better, with Kidney and Flemming. Does that mean any of these three committed the murders? Of course not. Just means the possibility existed.
All I'm asking is for people to do the research instead of just falling back on the same ideas that were thought up a decade or more ago.(More research would either help the case against any given suspect stronger or weaker. But ya makes ya bets and ya takes ya gambles.) There are MANY facets of the case that have never been looked at.(Look at how Mr. Evans found Tumbelty a hundred years AFTER he was already suspected in the newspaper. Without his diligent research, the facts about the Doctor would never have been known.) We've got witnesses, who we know NOTHING about. People who had relations with the victims who remain faceless through the void of the years. We've also had other victims(Emma Smith, Frances Coles, the Whitehall Mystery, etc.), who probably have NOTHING to do with Jack, but you never know, their may be a link somewhere that ties into Jack.
Very few people have actually done any NEW research. They keep relaying on the SAME ideas over and over again, and won't even support it asides from saying, 'Oh well, there was an article in the paper 2 decades after the murders about this possibility.' I respect men like Misters Evans, Fido, Begg, Rumbalow, Skinner, and Sugden.(I know I'm forgetting a few names here, but trust me, your DILIGENCE is not lost on me.) Because they've actually worked hard at researching the case, instead of just REHASHING old ideas without looking for ANY evidence to support it.
I wish I could be one of these proud few, and help them sift through the MOUNTAINS of paperwork, the literally THOUSANDS of dead-ends, as well as find the files that have gone missing over the past century. Unfortunately, I'm not lucky enough to have the resources available to me like these fine gentleman do. So I must rely on their HARD work, and ENDLESS committment.
I just wish we had a few dozen more gentlemen(and ladies) out there that is willing to do the research just like these hard-working investigators have done. I'm sure they'd like the help. And who knows, maybe with the extra hands, they might just be able to find the missing piece to the puzzle.
Best Wishes,
Chris H.
P.S. Thanks to Stephen, Ally, Chris G., and all the others that have helped to combine the various research together in one set place, so we could all benefit from the knowledge. Without you, I doubt any of us would even be here. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 09:20 pm | | G'day,
CHRIS: According to the 'Daily Telegraph' Barnett told police that he was 'at Buller's playing whist there until half past twelve whern I went to bed.'
Joeseph Barnett said he didn't know why Kelly and Fleming split up, but it's very likely that Kelly's drinking was a factor. It seems to me like she was only using Barnett to make Fleming jealous.
Julia Venturney told how Kelly's frequent intoxication would trigger rows with Barnett. She also told how Barnett objected to Kelly 'going on the streets', (selling herself).
Porters at Billingsgate were paid at varying rates but steady diligent workers could earn as much as 3 pound per week. In the 1880s this amount would have bought alot.
MONTY: I wrote an article on Peter Sutcliffe ages ago for 'RIPPEROO'. I'll dig it up and get back to you!
CAZ: I don't believe Barnett planned to murder Kelly, but did so in a fit of rage. No part of Barnett's life can be traced following Kelly's inquest, except in 1919, Louisa took advantage of a new law that gave the right to vote to any woman married to a householder. How do we know that he went on to lead a normal life?
LEANNE! |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 04:30 am | | Hi all,
Monty: Are you presuming that Kelly was not a Ripper victim? If you are, then you are not alone.
This thread started with the question: Why did Jack stop? Serial killers don't just stop! A lot of theories going around deal with that question. We have suicides, asylums, conspiricies and people leaving London. All these are built on the presumption that Jack was a serial killer. But what if Jack did not exist and none of these murders were committed by the same person or only a few were committed by the same person?
A lot of people hold on to the five victims and try to build their theories around these five. Somewhere along the way they have to presume that something happend. Take the Double Event or take Kelly. The police seem to have been following the same idea and may have missed catching the true murderers because they were looking for one person.
If we start carving up (excuse the pun) the victims into groups a different picture emerges and we may be looking for up to four Jacks.
Jack 1 murdered Tabram.
Jack 2 murdered Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
Jack 3 murdered Stride.
Jack 4 murdered Kelly.
Jack 4 could have been Barnett or Fleming.
The strangest account in the Kelly murder comes from George Hutchinson. Why did he come forward? Remember serial killers sometimes get in touch with the police and offer information. What if he knew that Kelly was not Jack's victim and could safely bring forward information? Could Hutchinson be Jack 2?
The problem with the profile and with the profiling of Jack is that there seems to be more than one person and not every crime seems to be committed by the same person.
One last point: Sometimes serial killers will leave their hunting ground and pick up in another city or country. Get a copy of the brilliant "Anatomy of a Myth" by William Beadle. He may present one murderer but he gives a good explanation for why Kelly was the last in London.
Philip |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 05:13 am | | Hi Chris, (H), I could find Fleming very interesting. He's the right age group, fit and involved with the last victim, local also, but thats about it, isn't it?. Nobody seems interested in finding out anything about him. As you say, maybe in fact, he's more of a suspect for the death of Kelly than Barnett, who knows?. I wonder, if we had EXACTLY the same killings done today, and allowing for 113yrs of knowledge and improvements, I think Jack would be caught.
But the important thing to find out, I think is, WHY, why did he find it so necessary to take Mary Kelly to pieces, and methodically slash her face to destruction,---- and not touch the eyeballs?. It seems to me it was someone who knew her, and really hated her, somebody who would have liked her to have been able to get up and walk around after he had finished with her, ---just a feeling I have. I think the why is more important than the who, and maybe it's a little more possible to find that out. Rick |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 05:44 am | | G'day,
THE YORKSHIRE RIPPER CASE:
In 1969, five years before Peter Sutcliffe married Sonia, she was observed with another man. Seeking revenge, Sutcliffe used a prostitute. Changing his mind, the pro and 2 pimps stole Sutcliffe's money. Seeking revenge, Sutcliffe attacked twenty 'loose' women and only seven survived.
Peter Sutcliffe was questioned by police several times, but his handwriting didn't match taunting letters sent to police, and his voice didn't match a tape that was sent.
The above shows how jealousy can cause a lover to lose his mind and murder other women in a rage - women that meant nothing to him. (Remember, I don't believe that Joseph Barnett returned that night to purposely murder Mary Kelly.)
If the JtR Letters started arriving after the 'Double Event' and were merely the work of a journalist, perhaps the fact that Barnett's handwriting didn't match played a big part in making police believe in his innocence.
MONTY: The Yorkshire Ripper was questioned twice specifically about the 5 pound note. His alibi was accepted both times by the detectives.
Peter Sutcliffe was actually interviewed 9 times over the entire investigation. With thousands of typed police reports, no one could look at them all at once, so he was never a major suspect.
LEANNE! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 10:16 am | | Hi Leanne,
Firstly, several of Sutcliffe's twenty victims were not 'loose' women, as you put it. I think we have to clear that one up, even though it makes not the slightest difference - none of them went out asking to be attacked.
Jealousy over Sonia may or may not have contributed to his motive for murdering women who meant nothing to him. We do know that he left Sonia alone, but we don't know why. Could be because he both hated and loved her and, rather than hurt her, took out his negative feelings on these nameless faceless women instead; or because he knew he'd most likely be caught if he murdered his wife; or because his 'quarrel' was never with her in the first place, and only with women he found out walking alone who, in his own experience and in his own twisted mind, were all likely to be immoral swindlers who deserved to die.
There seems to me to be little or no comparison between Sutcliffe and Barnett, and certainly no way of telling from the evidence if they responded in a similar way when faced with 'woman trouble'. And Sutcliffe, totally unlike Barnett, was questioned as just one of hundreds of men who were all total strangers to each and every victim.
And dare I say it, if Sutcliffe was projecting feelings of hatred towards Sonia onto anonymous women who meant nothing to him, doesn't that make him more like the fictional James Maybrick of the diary than the real Joe Barnett, whose life during the weeks, months and years following his ex-lover's murder was not eventful enough to leave us with any recorded details, normal or otherwise?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 12:37 pm | | Philip, Leanne,
Philip,
At last ! Someone who thinks alike...This does mean you are officially mad, you know.
Yep. I have a feeling that Mary wasnt one of Jacks victims. She is one amongst (IMHO) Stride and Coles. And out of them she is the least likely.
I guess Im gunning for Jack 2.
Leanne,
I can see where you are coming from but the difference between Peter and Joe (if we assume Barnett did kill Kelly) is that..er Barnett did kill Kelly. Thats the difference between the two.
Lets suppose Sutcliffe did murder Sonia, in their own place. Do you think he would have been under severe scrutiny ?
You bet.
By the way. Ive a interesting story for you, but it may more than likely bore the arse off you, sorry.
About 10 years ago I was working for an MOD Electronics company. Due to the Gulf war we had a heavy order for Radars so we hired some casuals.
Anyway, one of them was a middle aged chap and he sat opposite me. I felt very uneasy with him. He never spoke (despite my efforts) until the last week of his contract. He told me that he was from Bradford and was pulled in for questioning around 10 times on suspition of being the Yorkshire Ripper. He did look uncannily like Sutcliffe and I never thought about it until he mentioned his tale. He also told me that on one night there were around 30 of them, all with beards, all being questioned on suspition. Imagine, a waiting room full of Peter Sutcliffe lookalikes !
And the unnerving thing about him was the he was so obviously proud of this. So much so that he was writing a musical about his exploits.
Monty
|
Author: VanNistelrooj@aol.com
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 01:43 pm | | Point One: Hutchinson's story is backed up by an independent witness who unequivocally places him exactly where he said he was at the right time.
Point Two: Take it for granted - Hutchinson saw Jack the Ripper.
Point Three: Hutchinson's description of Jack the Ripper is nothing like Barnett.
Point Four: Although not specifically mentioned, if Hutchinson knew Kelly as well as has been accepted, then he would also have known Barnett.
Point Five: The Coroner's report times MJK's death perfectly in keeping with Hutchinson's story.
Point Six: Peter Sutcliffe started on his murderous reign because Sonia left him for another man. The voices in his head told him that he had to get revenge.
Point Seven: Caz - fictional James Maybrick? Tut-tut. Sherlock Holmes may have been fictional, but James Maybrick most certainly was not.
Point Eight: To argue that Tabram was a ripper victim but Stride wasn't is utter stupidity. What odds on Jack killing Eddowes and someone else killing Stride less than an hour before?
Point Nine: James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
Point Ten: The question: "Why did Jack the Ripper stop killing?" The answer: "Because he died from the effects of arsenic abuse just a few short months after his last murder".
Point Eleven: Hello Monty. Good to be back.
Point Twelve: I'm off to the dungeon to see why Chris T. George states the forty pages that may or may not materialise will make or break JM for the ripper.
Later
Peter ...who has been busy nursing his eight week old labrador puppy, called "Hermione Plum".
P.S. What do you mean you didn't know it was me? |
Author: graziano
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 02:35 pm | | Point one: 180. (twenty, treble ring, 3 times).
point two: 180. (same).
point three: 141.point 1. (3X19, bull's eye, 2X17)
 , wonderful.
point four: 180. (twenty, treble ring, 3 times).
point five: 180. (same).
point six: 90. (double 18, double 15, 25 ring).
point seven: 51. point 2.( 13, 20, double 9).
 , good game but pay attention, a bit tired on the end.
point eight: 90. (bull's eye again and double 20, but only because you threw two darts together).
Collusion.
Third dart on the black area.
 , too much of it ???
point nine: 0. First dart again on the black area.
Second, broken barrel.
Third on the first chair on the left.
 .
point ten: six feet five inches, 300 hundred pounds.
That's the measures of the guy sitting on the first chair on the left.
Good night.  . |
Author: VanNistelrooj@aol.com
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 05:53 pm | | Hopefully that last post (and this one) will be deleted asap.
Pathetic.
Why did I bother coming back? |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 07:40 pm | | Hi Leanne,
Sounds more like your building a case against Flemming than one against Barnett.
As you said, Mary Kelly probably used Barnett to make Flemming jealous. You've also stated that Flemming was abusive To Mary because she was with Barnett. So you put two to two together and you get...
As to the 3 pounds for a weeks wages. That is an OBSCENE amount. NO WAY, Barnett was making even half that.(Which would have equaled about 30 shillings. Even that is a bit far fetched, giving Barnett's and Mary's living conditions.) Let's not forget both Barnett and Mary were kicked out of two places for not paying rent.(3 pounds(which is 60 shillings) would have been almost 2 and a half months rent at 13 Miller's Court.) So if they were making that amount then where'd the money go?(And please don't say on gifts or booze for Mary, cause she never had any items that nice.)
There is more evidence of Mary's 'hold' on her paramours than Barnett EVER had a hold on her. Mary had BOTH Barnett and Flemming giving her money AFTER they had been split up.(Flemming giving her money at least 18 months after they were broken up is display of his obsession with Kelly.) How on earth did Barnett ever have a hold on her? Because of his giving her gifts? That theory doesn't work, because Mary's tale of the man she went to France with, proves that there were much richer men out there for here.(This is of course if this story is true.) Besides, Flemming is giving her money and gifts too, so it's not like Barnett is the only one attempting to buy her affections. Mary used men out of necessity. She knew she had the goods, and hoped to use that to get a better lifestyle for herself.
I also believe Mary was probably a prostitute throughout her relationship with Barnett. We have no evidence that she never did walk the streets while with Barnett, save for Barnett's testimoney, which you have stated you doubt in the first place.(And I believe I read somewhere that one of her residences with Barnett was run by a Madame, but I'm not entirely sure on it.) Remember, Barnett said the reason he left her was because she brought women of ill-repute home with her. He may have stated that this was the reason she went back on the streets, but I feel he only said this because he wanted to protect Mary, even in death.(Barnett NEVER stated that he left Mary because she was a prostitute.) He didn't want her to be seen as a 'WHORE'(or maybe himself as her pimp).
I know your going to say this is far fetched, and stretching the truth, but look at John Kelly and Catherine Eddowes. He also stated that Kate never walked the streets, nor drank while they were together. Yet we have evidence that she did both in her 7 year relationship with the man. This is just the way of two men who loved two lost women, who didn't want their lover's name tarnished any further after death.
Does that take Barnett off the hook as a suspect? No. But it does take away from the motive on why he killed 5 women.
I don't buy the whole idea of Barnett killing a bunch of different women just to get Mary to quit selling her body to the night. I may go with the fact that maybe Barnett killed Mary Kelly, and her only, but I still think Mary Kelly was a Jack victim, and not a revenge killing.
But I do have one question for you and rick. Maybe you can convince me, and change my feelings of Barnett killing the others. Why did Jack the Ripper mutilate Catherine Eddowes Face?(Remember Jack didn't just mutilate Mary's face, but also Kate's too.) Please don't give me Paley's LAME excuse that it was due to the fact that Barnett knew her, because she lived in the storage area in front of Miller's Court for a night or two. We don't know how long before the murders it was that the storage area was closed off from the public. And even if it was open while Kelly and Barnett lived there,(which it probably wasn't) that doesn't mean Barnett ever even met her. (Has anyone ever thought of looking into John Kelly's whereabouts at the time? I mean he and Catherine were supposedly living together for several years, so that might help find out if she ever was in the storage shed.)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 07:53 pm | | Hi VanNistelrooj@aol.com,
"Point Two: Take it for granted - Hutchinson saw Jack the Ripper."
I don't take anything for granted. Even if one believes everything Hutchinson said, we cannot, with any certainty, fix Kelly's time of death. It's conceivable Hutchinson's man was not JtR.
"Point Three: Hutchinson's description of Jack the Ripper is nothing like Barnett."
His description also does not fit Maybrick. If one believes Hutchinson's statement, then one must fit it to a Jewish suspect around 35 years of age.
"Point Five: The Coroner's report times MJK's death perfectly in keeping with Hutchinson's story."
Not so. The reverse is more exact i.e. Hutchinson's story fits the Coroner's (sic) report. Dr. Bond was a Police Surgeon.
"Point Ten: The question: "Why did Jack the Ripper stop killing?" The answer: "Because he died from the effects of arsenic abuse just a few short months after his last murder"."
That's possible, but still not as likely as death, incarceration, or emigration from the East End.
Cheers,
John
p.s. Have you met Otto yet? You have a new ally! |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 03:24 am | | Mr VanNistelrooj,
I don't understand you.
You do not want to speak with John Omlor or Chris George because they are too rational, intellectual, demagogical, dialectical & al.
You do not want to speak with me because I am pathetic, bisbetic, maybe lunatic, or even schyzophrenic....hic!,..sorry!
Each of us has to cope with what mother nature has provided him at birth with.
Big brain, big balls or both.
But it's one or it's the other.
You may choose but there is no third option.
So, with them or with me.
If neither your question "Why did I bother coming back ?", is well à-propos.
But, maybe I am wrong.
As Jack/John/Jack said here above there is an Otto Von I-do-not-remember-what who just came and who said that (more or less) a tanned face is easy to be confused with an east european person.
Yes, I know, the guy never went south of Reijkhyavick but you see, it was useful to come back.
Now (and eventually) at least you have a solid, genuine, serious argument to state that yes, May..prick (I know, I know, but after all I am only thirteen and a lot of months) was the Ripper.
Good bye, Mr VanNistelrooj.
P.S.: Or did you simply come back because the voices you heard in your head asked you to claim revenge....and kill them all ? |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 05:15 am | | Hi Peter,
it drove you back what drove me back - the fascination with Jack! Don't worry. If Monty calls me mad so be it, my dad says the same. It made me study psychology and go into forensic psychology and earn my money with profiling killers and doing hostage-management. Yes and it it got injured. But now for this:
Point 1: As a profiler I don't see one murderer but at least three (if not four).
Point 2: Hutchinson may have been seen, but why did he come forward days later?
Point 3: Barnett's statement is odd (ears - hair).
Point 4: None us know what made him/them stop.
Point 5: James who?
Point 6: Sutcliffe was on a mission and did not kill out of revenge.
Philip |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 05:22 am | | G'day,
CHRIS: Kelly was continuing to see Joseph Flemming and kept no secret from Barnett. She told her close friend Julia that she preferred Flemming to Barnett, whom she "could no longer bear".
Jeseph Barnett had worked at Billingsgate for at least 10 years and stated at the inquest that he "was in decent work".
CHRIS: At Kelly's inquest Barnett contradicted a key statement that he had made earlier to inspector Abberline: According to the Coroner files he told Abberline the day she was found that he had left her "in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution." At her inquest he testified "it was beccause she took in an immoral woman.....my being out of work had nothing to do with it."
LEANNE! |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 06:05 am | | Phil
I have always been of the opinion that Stride was definitely a ripper victim and that Jacky boy killed two people that fateful night. I feel that there are those who would discount Stride just to fit in with their own theories. Same as there are those who would discount Kelly.
The point to this, Phil, is that you can discount victims from the canon (thus increasing the number of murderers to your 3 or more) as much as will fit any one theory. But the police at the time thought there was one murderer for five women. Some of the police officers put a different number on it, true. We are told that murder was quite a rare event back in Whitechapel in them days (those days?) Do you really think that is the case, or do you think forensic science was not so advanced as to be able to tell the difference between a murder and an accident?
Wouldn't you think that, given the set of rules they lived their lives by, murder would have been far more prevalent than it is today? If it was then we have to account for why the recorded number of murders was so low. I'm speculating ...
I would have Tabram down as being killed by her soldier client. I don't think he was Jack.
The five victims in the accepted canon were all Jack's work.
Frances Coles et al? I don't know, but whoever you posit as Jack, would he still have been around then?
And as for "Why did Jack stop killing?" - would you think it possible that he got bored? Or simply decided to stop? Moved away? Died? What?
One hour till kick off. I have to nip down the M62. Monty will know what I mean.
Peter. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 10:03 am | | Hi Peter,
It's good to have you back.
Of course you are right, that everybody adds or deletes to the number of victims according to their theory. I was asked a while back to make a profile on Jack and went through the murders step by step. I found it easier to make a profile on the person who murdered Chapman, Nicholls and Eddowes. Tabram, Stride and Kelly had a different touch to them. Even though Tabram is the only one I would cleary not add to Jack's list. Stride and Kelly could have been his victims.
The police thought they were chasing one person. But the press of the time were saying the same. Did the press make the police go for one person? Try baring in mind that serial killers were rare in th 1800s and nearly all we know about them comes from the second have of the 1900s.
What makes a serial killer stop? Not much. He may have died. He may have been caught. He may have gone insane. He may have murdered all he wanted to kill. We don't know.
The key to his identity lies in the number of victims and who his last victim was.
Philip
PS As I said somewhere else cricket is my sport and so my attention is in New Zealand at the moment. |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 10:13 am | | Peter,
Yeah, I know about it all right.
Knew you would return. It was just a matter of time.
Your idea about Stride and her fitting into certain theories is almost the same as mine...except the other way around. She is included to fit in with whatever theory.
I know you except her as Jacks but you, being a full supporter of the diary, would say that wouldn't you. For tis written in your bible (diary).
Take her away and the diary falls apart.
But Im talking about the wrong subject on the wrong board.
Good to have you back.
PS Dont call Philip "Phil". He starts clenching his fists and steam bursts out of his ears.
PPS Philip, Me calling you mad is a complement. I regard madness higher that genius. Genius has its restraints, madness not.
Mad March Monty
|
Author: graziano
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 10:20 am | | One murderer for five women is not what "the police at the time thought", Mr VanNistelrooj.
This very original thought originated in Dr Bond report after the only post-mortem he made, the one of Mary Kelly.
Dr Phillips did clearly not agree, neither did Dr Brown.
The same Dr Bond who after stated about Alice McKenzie's murder that the skilful resolute cutting in this case had been made by the same murderer than in the previous cases.
Back to the books, please.  |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 11:47 am | | Philip,
Why would his identification tie in with the last victim ?
What would/could the connection be ?
Curious Monty
|
Author: VanNistelrooj
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 03:07 pm | | Philip
Is that right? You prefer to be called 'Philip' to 'Phil'? If so I have done you a disservice and you have been a gentleman not to take umbrage.
News is breaking over here that the Queen Mother has just died. May she rest in peace.
It brought to mind something John Omlor was talking about the other day (yes I was reading the posts when I wasn't contributing), about the oldest person in the world dying.
I believe the Queen Mother was born in 1900. Twelve years after Jacky. Twelve years before the Titanic. Queen Victoria was still on the throne. And John, if you make it here, I'm sure that there was a resident of Japan claiming to be 124 years old some time ago... if that were true, he would have been around 12 years old when Jacky was plying his trade. Worth thinking about.
Jack Traisson - do you mind if I just call you 'Jack'? Now, as to Hutchinson's description of "Jacky" ... if I am correct Hutchinson didn't refer to his suspect as 'Jewish' but 'foreign' looking. That was apparently an accepted euphemism for 'Jewish', but it doesn't necessarily follow that when he said 'foreign' he meant 'Jewish'. Do you see what I mean? He could have simply meant exactly what he said ...'foreign', and that could encompass a whole host of things. 'Foreign' looking as in what? Skin colour? Clothes? Hair? Watch this:
"He was, said Hutchinson, of a dark 'foreign' appearance, respectable, wearing a long dark coat with astrakhan collar and cuffs; a dark jacket and trousers;light waistcoat, dark felt hat 'turned down in the middle'; button boots with spats; a linen collar; and a black tie with a horseshoe pin. A thick gold chain was displayed over his waistcoat and he carried a small package. He was 34 or 35 years old, 5' 6" tall, with a pale complexion and a slight moustache curled up at the ends.".
Read that again Jack. Then tell me where it is incompatible with Hutchinson's suspect being Maybrick. 34 or 35 years old? Paul Feldman deals with that one discrepancy quite admirably, Maybrick was a successful businessman used to the ways of good living. When someone in the East End describe "34 or 35 years old" they would have been describing someone who had grown up in their habitat, not someone who had all advantages Maybrick had. Just look at Joan Collins! Or Des O'Connor.
In fact Jack, I would go further. Hutchinson's description is so like Maybrick as to be uncanny. You can rule out your Tumblety's, definitely rule out your poor polish imigrant Jew (a gold chain? Hmmm). Joe Barnett? Hutchinson would have known him. This wasn't an 'Eastender', this was an outsider.
And the diary does make claim to associating itself with Hutchinson's suspect when the diarist writes 'a handkerchief red led to the bed', for Hutchinson described his suspect handing a red handkerchief to Kelly.
Monty: I see where you are coming from, but would ask you this: Murder was apparently a rare event in 1888, what price Eddowes being murdered by Jacky and Stride being murdered by someone else less than an hour before and just ten minutes away. I'm sorry if you think I'm making leaps in reasoning, but there is no other option - both women were killed by the one man. You logicians (is there such a word?) can say what you like- yes, yes, yes, there is always another option. But the most likely scenario is that one man killed both women. Having accepted that, look at the M.O. for Eddowes. Look at the start of the M.O. for Stride. Look at the M.O. for the rest of the accepted canon. I'm not trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here Monty, just asking you to accept that Stride was a victim of Jacky. And don't forget, she was an accepted member of the canon before the diary came along, even if Paul Feldman says 'modern opinion' was tending towards her not being a ripper victim. I'm not inventing Stride Monty, she was real, she was killed. She was accepted as a victim of Jack the Ripper about 78 years before I was born...
A great win for your team today. Alas, I fear it is too late. A great win for my team today. Alas, I fear it may be too late.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 04:40 pm | | Deposition of George Hutchinson taken by Sergt E. Badham the 12th of November 1888 and signed by the same G. Hutchinson:
"About 2 a.m. 9th I was coming by Thrawl street, Commercial street ...............
.........................................
.........................................
Description age about 34 or 35, height 5ft6, complexion pale,.........................
...................., Jewish appearance. Can be identified."
You do not need to be tall to be a Boss, but you had better be broad shouldered.
Good night Mr VanNistelrooj. Good reading. |
|
|
|
|
