Author: paula williamson
Thursday, 11 November 1999 - 04:24 am |        |
Iilkim,
I do not think that Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Jane, I just don't think it is possible that he would do such a thing- I know that he was nervous when he was on the stand but considering the circumstances, can you blame him? I know what you mean about the door though, I just can not believe that Mary would let a complete stranger into her room, although we do know that she was really despararate for money that night.I must say that my intrest in this woman is not just a morbid one, I respect her as an indivdual and even though I know I never knew her,I feel close somehow.
Bye for now... |
Author: Leanne
Thursday, 11 November 1999 - 02:34 pm | |
G'day Paula,
You may be right! Maybe Joe Barnett didn't kill her, but on the 'Missing Key' board, we are just trying to get to the bottom line of the 'Missing Key/Broken Window' thing! Please add your comments.
LEANNE! |
Author: Peg Jones
Friday, 26 November 1999 - 03:09 am | |
G'day Leanne me old fruit,
I take it you have not worked out the Missing Key/Broken Window yet.
Peg |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 27 November 1999 - 03:47 am | |
G'day Peg,
Welcome to 'Casebook'. Why dont you try to help work out the 'Missing Key/Broken window' thingy too? I'm sure we'd all like to read a smart lady's comments!!!!!!!!
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Friday, 17 December 1999 - 06:59 pm | |
Ok, ....it just might be time for the 'Stupid-question-of-the-week'
Photo, courtesy of Stewart Evans
In wondering why Jack placed Kelly's left arm across her abdomen, I began to wonder if in his mind she looked like one of those 'classic' works of art, posing on the bed, legs apart, head turned, facing the artist...with one hand casually across the stomach.
Does that posture ring any bells with any artwork officianado's, a classic pose?
A pose that Jack could relate to, something from his past?
(why do I do this?)
:-(
Have a good weekend, all
:-)
Jon |
Author: Diana Comer
Saturday, 18 December 1999 - 07:27 am | |
| Did any other victim have her hand draped across her tummy? I seem to recall one or more of them did. Suppose as he killed them, he told them with a sadistic grin on his face what he was planning to do. The instinctive thing would be to try to cover the area. |
Author: Bob_C
Saturday, 18 December 1999 - 08:47 am | |
Hi Jon,
If Jack put Kelly's arm there by design or not is, I submit, impossible to say. Chapman had her left arm resting on her left breast as found, Stride her right hand open on her chest. I have not found any description in the case of Eddowes.
Now, Stride, not having been abdominally mutilated, may have put her hand up to protect herself. Kelly, if she did or if she didn't, did not intentionally put her arm where it was found. Jack had ripped the complete flesh from her waist under her arm, so he must have either put it there, or it fell there during the rest of the mutilation. In Chapman's case, the same.
Diana, I don't think jack would have told them what he was going to do, thus giving them chance to raise their arms. They would then also have had time to raise their voices, i.e. screamed their heads off. Nobody ever heard a thing.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: noselite
Sunday, 19 December 1999 - 01:27 am | |
| Kelly's arm was shoved into her abdominal cavity. Lets ponder the meaning of that. |
Author: Charlie Dunnagan
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 05:35 pm | |
| Hello all, forgive me if I'm asking an oft-asked question...but was MJK pregnant? If so, what is the proof/documentation? Thanks for your patience. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 07:38 pm | |
I thought that we now know she wasn't pregnant.
Look at her left arm. If it was placed at her side would it not just fall off the bed and hang down?. Perhaps he put her hand there to keep it on the bed. When patients are asleep for an operation there arms go floppy. They naturally lie on their abdomen if they don't hang down on their sides. If you want to enter the abdomen you have to strap the arms away.
Every time I look at this photo I look for the Maybrick initials. I still can't see them. I'm not convinced or is there another photo. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 12:03 am | |
| It just occurred to me that there may be a Napoleon-like mocking here. I don't recall which arm the French Emperor hid beneath his vest, but it does appear that Kelly's left arm was deliberately pushed into her abdominal cavity. Shades of D'Onston? |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 11:46 am | |
Thomas Ind -
Look vertically just above MJKs left hand, above the abdominal cavity and within the lower portion of wall partition; there is the supposed "FM." I don't believe in it, but once you find it, you'll always see it. Sort of like a "Magic Eye" bit, I gather.
Charlie - Kelly was not pregnant. Anyone who has asserted that she was has never provided proof.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 04:33 pm | |
Hello, Folks--
I'd like to offer a bit of elucidation, if I may, on what my friend Mr. Scott Nelson has written just above. Not everyone on these boards, I don't think, would pick up what is meant straight off.
What I interpret Scott means is that D'Onston would pose his victim in Napoleanic form in order to structure the minds of the police into thinking that the murderer was a Frenchman, D'Onston himself being an Englishman from Hull. This would throw police off D'Onston's scent by sending them down the wrong corridor, looking for a Frenchman. A Frenchman would think of Napolean's famous pose with his hand inside his clothes, so D'Onston placed MJ's hand inside her abdomen. D'Onston, we remember, tried to get people to think the graffito was written by a Frenchman who wrote the French word "Juives" without dotting the 'i' very largely, leaving the British police to transcribe it "Juwes."
I think this is a smart and creative contribution on the part of Mr. Nelson.
David |
Author: JacksBack
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 07:53 pm | |
| Would somebody please put a pointer or a circle on the MJK Death picture to specify where the initials are supposed to be, even if they are not there. I still can't see anything and am going blind trying. |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 06:38 am | |
Hi JacksBack,
I had the same problem until I got a copy of S.Harrison's 'Diary' book. There you can see the marks as if (hmmm...) purposely exagerated. I believe this picture to be 'enhanced', in other words, manipulated. That does not mean that I would suggest criminal intent, only that the picture has been electronically treated to e.g. show these marks more clearly.
The 'FM' marks are IMHO scratches or stains (HOOWWLLL!!!) and are only partly visable, being hidden at the lower end by the bed. The 'MacDonalds'-M has no graphological simularity to the graffiti-type 'F' anyway, and is not near enough to the M if we want to think of them as initials.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 09:34 am | |
It is impossible to see the "FM" on the pictures posted to these boards; probably something to do with resolution.
It is interesting to compare 3 printings of the MJK photograph. In Shirley Harrison's book, the letters are circled for easy identification, but the reproduction is so poor that the letters would not be seen if they were not pointed out.
In Philip Sugden's "CH," the letters are much more obvious, if you look for them following my instructions as above. This holds true for both the hardback and paper versions.
However, on looking through the 3rd edition of the "A-Z," which contains a very well-reproduced photo, the letters - while obvious if you're looking for them - appear to be much more the dirt and/or blood splashes that I believe them. Additionally, look at the supposed horizontal crossbar of the "F" under a spyglass - that is almost certainly part of the wood partition, or my eyes deceive me.
CMD |
Author: Colin David Goodman
Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 08:55 pm | |
Hi,
This might have been asked before but does anyone have an idea as to why Kelly's body was mutilated so badly compared to the other "offical" murder victims?
Thanx |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 03 March 2000 - 04:44 am | |
| Hi Colin ! As a 'Conspiracy' theorist , I would say that Mary Kelly was the intended target from the start and , when they got her , the killers really went to town on her. Because she had annoyed them big time. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 03 March 2000 - 09:26 am | |
Colin -
The "standard explanation" is that Mary Kelly was the ultimate unfortunate in a series of escalating ravages. If you look at the earlier canonical victims, you will see a progressive increase in mutilation (excepting Elizabeth Stride), and Kelly was the culmination of this. Additionally, unlike the other victims, Kelly had a room of her own, poky and squalid though it may have been. Her killer did not need to immediately worry about nearby witnesses or passing constables, and so had the time and privacy to glut himself to the fullest.
Simon -
I don't believe it for a second, but "just for jolly" - if MJK was the intended target, then were her previous sisters in death known to her or not?
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 03 March 2000 - 10:48 am | |
| Since Kelly lived at 26 Dorset Street and frequented the Britannia public house , Chapman lived at 35 Dorset Street and frequented the Britannia public house and Stride lived at 33 Dorset Street , I think they probably did know each other. Eddowes and Nichols may have known the others or each other , but I think Nichols was killed for failing to provide information on the whereabouts of Kelly , and Eddowes was probably killed by mistake - the killers believed she was MJK. I believe Chapman , Kelly , Stride and possibly 1-2 other women were involved in a plot to blackmail the government , Nichols may have been involved also but I'm not sure. |
