Author: Ashleah Skinner
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 12:04 pm |        |
| The facts point to James Kelly as the ripper because firstly why are the Home Office keeping his documents until 2030? Some documents have been removed and again why? What are they hiding? |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 11:36 pm | |
Why would the H. O. be interested in concealing the identity of JtR?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 12:05 am | |
Dear Ashleah,
In my experience, stupidly closed documents - (of which I've seen quite a few) - arise from two things.
(i)The belief that innocent people's involvement as witnesses would cause them undeserved personal embarrassment if their evidence came out. (And this embarrassment could last unto the fourth generation: there are an awful lot of unknown illegitmimate parentages out there, for example).
and (ii) The misplaced fear that "national security" (blowing a spy) would be threatened by "premature" exposure. (I've known the latter case applied to a situation in 1870 when the spy, the spied-on-group and the intended illicit action were all about as relevant to your life and mine and anybody else's today as the possibiity of having a brontosaurus take up residence next door.)
I've never come across one, or, from detailed knowledge of the circumstances, suspected one, which was closed for the purpose of concealing incriminating evidence from the public.
I do, however, think that such documents concerning Victoria's wicked uncle and the violent death of his valet may have been concealed or destroyed. But I've never worked in the royal archives.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ashleah Skinner
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 04:49 am | |
Thanks Martin,
My opinion is that they are covering up something but to the basis we have no idea and can you as a ripperologist say beyond reasonable doubt that they are NOT hiding something of importance? |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 06:10 am | |
Hi Ashleah,
I should like to answer simply ,"Yes, I can say so," but have to qualify it by saying that the amount of doubt considered reasonable will be a subjective estimate that may differ from person to person, and that this is the kind of negative one cannot conclusively prove.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ashleah Skinner
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 09:47 am | |
| So in a way yes and in a way no? |
Author: Elizabeth P. Cochran
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 04:30 pm | |
| Oh, c'mon, Martin, how many times can you say "no". |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 11:48 pm | |
Ashleah - from my point of view, yes; but I can see why from your point of view, no.
Elizabeth - I'm sorry if I'm dense, but I don't follow what you mean.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Stuart
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 10:42 am | |
Just finished Tully's book about Kelly and he makes an interesting and strong case.
One of the top suspects I would agree, but Kelly's years of inactivity point away from him being Jack for me.
Good book though.
As to the cover ups alleged. I don't know about that, but I would say that people don't like to admit they are wrong and have made mistakes. Some will go to great lengths to pass the buck or gloss over what really went on. It goes on all the time. Everywhere. |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 04:25 pm | |
Hi Stuart,
I am guilty of changing my mind several times re
JtR, however one that has never been dismissed is
Kelly. He sure had motive. His mom was a prostitute, he suspected his wife of being unfaithful and so on, there are many good points in the book to point his way. And even though there is a lot of empty space, time unaccounted for, it certainly does not dismiss him as a suspect. In his case you cannot put him at the
scene nor can you put him away from the scene. His
inheiritance from his mom could buy him several
favors.
This case needs to be tagged as active, maybe.
The police & investigators at the time seemed to
dismiss suspects based on the fact that they could
prove WHO they were. But they were not able to
prove or disprove, where they were, at the time of
the crimes.
There's no question, It is very much an OPEN BOOK.
julie |
Author: Vila
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 08:39 pm | |
Hello all,
I've always enjoyed the Tully book, but felt disappointed that Kelly's movements couldn't be traced in any greater detail. I'm afraid that I have to file Kelly on the list of "good possible suspects" with a notation that I'd need to look more closely at him in the future should more information on him become known.
Vila |
Author: julienonperson
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 10:49 am | |
Hi Vila
I think one of the reasons that Kelly makes a good
suspect is that his movements cannot be traced. He
cannot be excluded nor can he really be included.
He did have good motives though, his mother being
a prostitute and his obvious resentment toward her. He suspected his wife of being a prostitute,
plus he contracted V.D. from a prostitute causing
the fight which led up to his murdering her. There
are as many good points in his favour as a JtR
candidate as there are against his being JtR. Not
being able to nail his whereabouts down tends to
put him more in a suspicious unknown territory
in my books.
regards
julie |
