|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 March 11, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
For New Ripperologists:
Archive through March 11, 2001
Author: Kellie Sharp
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 08:04 pm |        | AS I just joined this site and don't have time to read all your thousands of messages, (if only I had that kind of time!) I would like to know the general consenus on how many women you all think Jack killed and which victims were really killed by the Ripper.
Thanks for your time! |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 08:31 pm | | Dear Kellie,
Hello Kellie. The general consensus (deep intake of breath) is, five, ladies of the night.I always seem out of step and my accounting is atrocious, but I have a figure of 10-11 and 1/2-ish.And I am still collecting!
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Judith Stock
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 10:48 am | | Dear Kellie,
Welcome to the site. It is generally accepted that there were five victims of the Ripper; of late, the tendency has been to drop Stride from the list....her loving lover seems to be well and truly in the frame for that one, so that leaves us with four: Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.
Before you give much credence to the posts of Rosemary, Davidoz, or Ed, I suggest you wait for a response from Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Stewart Evans, or many of the other more rational posters on these boards; there are a great many knowledgeable folks who frequent this site, but sadly, the three (or only one) I've mentioned don't/doesn't seem to among them. Don't be put off by the inane/insane posts of a few; your questions are welcome.
We're glad you came to the gathering; welcome.
Regards,
Judith Stock |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 12:14 pm | | Hi Kellie
According to some contemoraries there were five victims - Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. These are known as the canononical five. Other contemporaries included Martha Tabram before Nichols. Newspapers tended to include two murders prior to Tabram and several after. The police files refer to the Whitechapel Murders and included crimes not generally accepted as being committed by the Ripper.
There is popular current school of thought that Elizabeth Stride was not murdered by Jack the Ripper. I have an open mind about that. Some people have also felt inclined to dispute both Eddowes and Kelly. Another line of thinking, though not one to have garnered much favour, is that all the women were killed by different hands. |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 01:28 pm | | Hello Kellie,
As you can see there is no consensus.  The best guess is between 3 and 6. Three if you blame both Kelly's and Stride's lovers, six if you include Tabram. Any of the other victims are not really considered. I realize I have done nothing but echo Judy and Paul but I just wanted to say welcome to boards.
Ally |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 02:21 pm | | Dear Judith Stock,
A humourous aside should not be so readily seized on. You may, as is often the case in Ripperology,
be proved quite, quite wrong. :-)
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Judith Stock
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 03:27 pm | | I probably will, and don't mind that at all; being incorrect is part of the human condition. I doubt, though, that ANYONE can prove much of ANYTHING about this particular series of murders. All we have is a tiny set of known quantities and an enormous body of surmises, speculations and guesses.
I KNOW, however, that nothing I have read of your posts, Rosemary, convinces me that you could prove anyone wrong, about anything.
One post is all the time I wish to waste on this thread. I posted to Kellie and welcomed her to these boards, and was moved to answer yours; I'm much too busy washing my hair to indulge in a time waster like this.
Again, Kellie, welcome, and don't evaluate the entire Casebook message boards by the posts of a few unnecessarily obtuse and vague people. This really is NOT a place for crazy people to converse...it only seems that way.
Regards to all, and thanks to Paul and Alegria for the posts,
Judith |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 04:55 pm | | Dear Judith,
Thank you for your forthright view.But I must remind you that you see only what I wish you to see, as I am sure by now you are all too aware.
What my particular contribution to the knowledge base of JTR has been, and continues to be, remains
a secret between me & thee!:-)
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 10:45 pm | | Just one point on the 'grey area' of Stride as a Ripper victim. Though A.P.Wolf suggested her lover Michael Kidney as her murderer, the real doubts about her lie in the medical evidence suggesting that she was killed with a different knife from Katherine Eddowes fifty minutes later, and, a little less concretely, that the young man Israel Schwartz saw assaulting her might very easily have been her murderer - (otherwise, as Paul Begg pointed out long ago, she suffered the extraordinary misfortune of being violently attacked twice on the same spot by two different people within about five minutes, the second of whom cut her thtroat) - and the young assailant's open aggression towards Schwartz, and possibly the man who came out of the pub, seems unlike the more covert conduct of the Ripper.
It's never silly to suggest someone was murdered by their lover/partner: statistics suggest that this should be a normal line of enquiry. But I don't myself see any strong evidence in what we know of their personalities to incriminate Kidney or Barnett.
Martin Fido |
Author: Kellie Sharp
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 06:04 pm | | I want to thank you all for your kind welcome and helpful replies to my inquiry. I personally believe that there were probably 4 actual Ripper-victims, these being Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. I was somewhat unaware that Stride was being discounted, but I had made that decision about 6 months ago based on research at my friendly public library.
Again, thanks and I look forward to hearing from you all again soon.
~Kellie
PS Please do not turn my simple question into a forum for personal arguments. I pass judgement on no one based on their messages and I am interested in all serious opinions. |
Author: Johnno
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 05:01 am | | There are good cases for exclusion of Stride from Jack the Ripper's tally, as the circumstances surrounding her murder are significantly different to those of the other generally accepted Ripper murders.
As Martin pointed out, there are two very valid reasons which cast doubt upon Stride's validity as a Ripper victim: the use of a different type of knife, and the less-than-covert behaviour by Stride's attacker, as witnessed by Schwartz.
There are other facts which would seem to cast doubt upon Stride as a candidate for a Ripper victim. Firstly, half of London's population seemed to have been in Berner Street at some point during the night of her murder. More specifically and importantly, the crime scene was highly risky, as it stood adjacent to a Jewish socialist club which was packed with people at the time of the murder. There was also a door leading from the club into Dutfield's Yard, through which someone may have walked at any time, disturbing the killer in progress.
The commonalities between the Stride murder and those of other Ripper murders are that:
1. she was a prostitute;
2. her throat was sliced;
3. the murder occurred in the East End; and
4. the murder took place on a date fitting the pattern (ie, a weekend).
It is not altogether unreasonable that the approach of Louis Diemschütz disturbed the killer before he could inflict more injuries.
Arguably, the scene of the Hanbury Street murder was also enormously risky, as the murder was committed in daylight, and had someone walked in as the killer was at work, he'd have been literally caught red-handed, and would have no easy means of escape, save for an attempt to bound the fence, crashing on top of Albert Cadosch in the yard of number 27 in the process! Had Cadosch looked over the fence when he heard the faint thud, he'd have caught the Ripper in the act of committing murder.
Kelly remains for some a dubious victim of Jack the Ripper, as, like Stride, the circumstances of her murder were markedly different. The theory that Joseph Barnett, her ex-lover, murdered her, remains popular, and George Hutchinson, the man who very closely observed the interaction between Kelly and a man hours before she was killed, has also been proposed as a suspect. Many people believe that Kelly was murdered by someone who knew her, and that the killer attempted to make the murder look like a Ripper murder in order to divert suspicion from himself. Not an unreasonable suggestion by any means.
The only case of which I am aware for the exclusion of Eddowes as a victim is based on the royal/masonic theory, which claim that Kelly was the reason for the Ripper murders, and that Eddowes was mistaken for her by the trio of killers...
I'm not aware of any cases against Nichols or Chapman, but many people consider Tabram to have been Jack the Ripper's first kill. The use of two types of weapons doesn't tie in with the subsequent murders, but MO can change as a killer "gets better". Tabram does seem to be the victim of a fit of rage rather than a targeted victim of a cold and calculating killer. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 06:33 am | | Hi, Johnno:
Your penultimate paragraph does not seem to discuss a case against Eddowes being a victim as you imply. Surely if Eddowes was killed because she was mistaken for Kelly she was still a victim of the "Ripper" be he one man or three?
In regard to Tabram, while I agree there are good reasons for including her in the series, it occurs to me that one reason to perhaps exclude her is the location. That is, Tabram was killed on the landing of a building, a more secluded location than the Nichols murder, which occurred on an open street. From the Nichols murder onward, we see a progression away from murders in public locations, i.e., he murdered in a yard, a court, or a room. The Nichols murder seems to be taking an unnecessary chance, unless that murder was his first, not Tabram, and he then chose less open venues for the attacks. Additionally, the Nichols murder exhibits the slit throat in common with the later murders which the Tabram murder does not.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Johnno
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 06:59 am | | Chris,
Good point about Eddowes. I got carried away with myself there. Perhaps "intentional victim" would have been better phraseology in that case, but even so, the discussion was about excluded victims, not purported mistaken victims.
Re your points about Tabram, I'm of the opinion that Jack the Ripper did not necessarily lead his victims to where they were found; after all, a destitute streetwalker seeking custom would take any prospective client to some quiet place in order to take care of business. It may be so in the Tabram case that Tabram took her client(s) to George Yard Buildings.
If Jack the Ripper indeed murdered Kelly, he struck gold insofar as location. Buck's Row was dark and not TOO risky -- insofar as risk is relative to murdering someone in an open street. Hanbury Street was risky. Dutfield's Yard alike. Mitre Square was risky, but he had three possible escape routes in the event of being sprung. Miller's Court was good for privacy, but based on the reports of neighbours hearing Kelly singing, etc., he would have to remain silent when doing the deed, as indeed he would in an open place.
Assuming Jack the Ripper killed Tabram as well as Nichols, do you see it as plausible that a frenzied stabbing attack would progress to throat slicing and mutilation that rapidly? |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 07:03 am | | The 'case' against Eddowes - (for what it's worth!) - must surely be Wynne Baxter's pronouncement at her inquest that she was the victim of an 'unskilled imitator', mustn't it?
Martin Fido |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 07:20 am | | Hi All,
And if the ripper did kill Eddowes, and was ever in a position to read such a description of himself, one can only imagine what the expression on his face might have been!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 07:28 am | | Hatchet job/ JTR's big chopper
I note the reference earlier to the two weapons used in the Tabram killing and am reminded of the recent discovery/suggestion that an axe of some kind was used to attack Mary Kelly's leg.
I was wondering if anyone had investigated these instances?
I don't myself believe Tabram was a Ripper victim, but if both Kelly and Tabram were attacked by a killer who possessed two weapons this would probably merit further investigation which may lead to firm conclusions being drawn about Martha Tabram's status.
Also I was wondering how widely accepted the hatchet suggestion is and whether it is thought that Jack brought it with him or found it at Miller's Court.
Matt |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 07:31 am | | Caroline,
If the Ripper was indeed as shocked as you suggest by that characterisation of his skills, would it explain the ferocity and thoroughness of the Mary Kelly murder, the next after the night of Eddowes' murder, as if to demonstrate his skills?
Matt |
Author: Johnno
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 07:34 am | | Martin: Wynne Baxter was at the Eddowes inquest?
Caroline: it'd be generally interesting to know what the Ripper thought his descriptions in the press. I'd imagine he would probably have kept up with the press coverage. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 07:46 am | | Johnno: No, of course not. He made his remarks during Elizabeth Stride's lengthy inquest. For the sake of speed, I've gone to a poor-but-I-know-my-way-around-it secondary source for confirmation: Fido, 'Crimes, Identification & Death of J th R', first edn, p.65.
Martin F |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 08:54 am | | Fido, The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, Barnes and Noble Books, 1993, p. 65: "It is clear that Mr Baxter very much wanted this [the Stride murder] to be a Ripper murder. He was starting to feel a rather vain proprietorship over the Whitechapel murders, as he showed when he dismissed the 'unskilful injuries' in Mitre Square as the probable work of an imitator."
The Times of Wednesday, 24 October 1888 in part writes of Coroner Wynne Baxter's summing up of the Stride inquest as follows: "There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskillful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful."
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 10:40 am | | Hi Matthew, Johnno, All,
Shocked, Matthew? Possibly. Angry perhaps? - as in, "By God, I'll show them now!"?
But we could take our pick of facial expressions really, depending on our individual imaginations, and how we see Jack. He could equally well have been thoroughly amused that the 'experts' could be getting it all so wrong, right from which women were 'his', to how much or how little skill he possessed - as in, "Ha ha, they think I can't be blamed for clown-face now!"
As I say, I bet his face would have been a picture if he did read what was being said. What story that picture tells us is anybody's guess. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 10:53 am | | Caroline,
You're right, you never said "shocked" and indeed shocked is not the word I should have chosen. The train of thought I followed on reading your post was that if Jack read Baxter's comments on his skill, he would be a little indignant if not outraged, and might reflect that in his later ferocity.
I don't know if Jack reading about his crimes fits into my (personal) view of the Ripper. I don't think press coverage was his motive, and as has been many times suggested widespread public coverage of his crimes would have hindered the privacy and complacency needed for him to carry out his work.
As you say, it all depends on your view of the Ripper's psychology/psychopathology and the expression on his face will depend on the type of face you think he had anyway.
Matt |
Author: Kellie Sharp
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 03:36 pm | | Press coverage was not, I think, a motive of Jack's, and indeed the publicity would have been detrimental to his methods.
However, can any of us resist the urge to peek if we know our name is in the paper? I'm sure Jack kept himself informed of breaking news about himself.
As to facial expression, well, I don't think any of us are twisted enough to possibly imagine what Jack looked like at the time.
Til next time,
~Kellie |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 05:37 pm | | But Kellie,
If we only knew, it would tell us so much, so what is twisted about trying to imagine?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Kellie Sharp
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 08:24 pm | | Absolutely nothing twisted about trying... I find myself trying to imagine what went through Jack's mind everytime I think about him.
I simply meant that hopefully none of us have the capacity truly understand that kind of emotion. (And I mean that as a complement; I don't like to think the people I'm talking to are psychotic.)
Everyone should let their imagination flourish, and the case of Jack the Ripper is no exception. In fact, I would write a novel about it if it hadn't already been done.
Until next time,
~Kellie |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 09:23 am | | Dear Kellie,
I will resist your wish for a full facial of Jack, before, during, and after. But we can guess how dreadful his countenance must have been ...grossly loose hanging lips...and those eyes!
On the other hand, Jack may have been beautiful!
Rosemary |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 10:37 am | | Rosemary,
I think it is quite unlikely that Jack was beautiful. Physically attractive serial killers are something of a rarity (Ted Bundy is the only one that springs to mind), and their crimes are often an expression of society's rejection of their appearance.
This strikes me as a possibility towards part of Jack's psychology particularly in relation to the facial mutilations present on Kate Eddowes' and Mary Kelly's bodies.
I'm not saying that Jack was necessarily deformed, but most likely less than attractive.
Matt |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 11:57 am | | Hi All,
It might also depend on self-perception. We often hear of cases where people, who are thought of by others as reasonably attractive, or at least not unattractive, hate their own appearance, and believe themselves to be hideously ugly. So I don't know if we can guess likelihoods one way or another.
There is an argument that a repellant specimen would have had difficulty picking up all but the most desperate women at the height of the scare, but these women must have been desperate, if the only way they could get a bed for the night was to risk having Jack for their next client. Also, we don't know for certain that the victims were ever able to get a good look at Jack's face, or were even given the time or opportunity to make any kind of instinctive or practical assessment of the danger.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Kellie Sharp
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 05:49 pm | | I too think it is most likely that Jack was a man who thought himself at least mildly good-looking if not necessarily attractive, yet was spurned from society. This could breed a great deal of anger in an unstable individual. Of course, something else, far more deep-seated, caused this initial instability.
Now, if we only knew what it was that pushed Jack over the edge...
Kellie |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 06:54 pm | | Dear Kellie,
"spurned from society", "anger in an unstable individual", sounds like my social worker's reports convincing the world via Court No3 that there exists the remotest possibility for some minor correction (unspurning...reunangering and
stabilisation programmes, Inc)if your Honour can see his/her way to give me 5years instead of 10
years that 'we' all know Rosemary (bad, bad girl)
truly deserves.
The social worker (gord bless 'um)is then freed to
sin no more...and a trouble-free conscientious
sleep at last.
To quoth Jack, "Nothing is forever".
Bloody angry
ARR!SO Y ME? |
Author: Ruth Kyle
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 07:30 pm | | Hello Kellie/All,
My name is Ruth and like you Kelly I am new to this website. However I am overjoyed to have found it and like minded people. Due to my fascination with this man (or as one author suggested woman) and the mystery that surrounds him.
As for the amount of victims Jack slayed I believe in the figure of five.These including Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly. The latter that perks the most interest in me. Why did Jack step up his brutality? Is it just because the location allowed for his full aggression to come out? Or are there other reasons we will never know about because we are unable to talk to him now?
As for Jack's attractiveness, well they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However I find it hard to believe that he was a handsome man, but I think it unlikely that he was disfigured in any severe way. As for the question of the connection of attractiveness to whether or not these prostitutes would conduct business with him.These ladies were in need of money for lodgings and food, would it really matter what the client looked like as long as he paid? |
Author: Diana
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 09:34 pm | | | I think we can safely assume that Jack suffered from low self esteem. Often this goes with a not-so-terrific physique. But a lot of other things can cause it too. |
Author: Paul DUNLOP
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 10:46 am | | First may I say that I am new to this site and find it a great honour to be able to ask questions from persons such as Mr FIDO and Mr BEGG. Both of whom I feel have a vast knowledge on this subject and along with other interested parties find the time to assist.
I have a simple observation and question.
I recall that a 'witness' saw a 'suspect', who was about 5'5'' tall with a 'carroty' moustache.
In the long list of real suspects, who does this sound like? |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 02:43 pm | | Hi Paul,
I don't think any of the known named suspects match that description of Mary Jane's last or next to last punter - (much discussion about the validity of Hutchinson's later sighting of her going on on another board).
You don't need to be that respectful of us. Paul B and I don't bit. Often.
And welcome to the boards
Martin F |
Author: Paul DUNLOP
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 04:32 pm | | Mr FIDO
Thank you for your prompt reply, I have now looked at some of the other boards and see what you mean about 'carroty'.
Coincidently, I came across a book today stating that it was a psychic and astrologic look at the case, going into detail on star charts of the victims and suspects.
I only glanced at it, but it appeared to have a 'famous clairvoyant', forming mental pictures of the killer, as used by Scotland Yard to find missing people and the like.
I can't remember the name of the book ( I'm sure its probably hokum)but have you or any other readers come across it or have any opinions on it.
P.S
I still think its cool to be able to converse with authors of the books that sit on my shelf. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 06:49 pm | | Dear Paul -
I believe the book you mean is Pamela Ball's "Jack the Ripper: A Psychic Investigation." In brief, Miss Ball uses her 'powers' (and one either believes in them or not) to communicate with the victims and some of the suspects to solve the case. Her 'final solution' sounds very much like a rerun of the theory put forth in the 1970s by Stephen Knight, which is now fairly generally discredited.
Because of the large format of the illustrations in it, the book is worth adding for picture purposes, but as a reasoned look at the Ripper case you would be better spending your money elsewhere. And since you know who Paul Begg and Martin Fido are, then your instincts are leading you in the right direction!
Welcome to the Casebook,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 07:23 pm | | Hi, Paul Dunlop:
Please accept my welcome to the boards as well.
The one suspect that I can think of who matches the description of the man with the carrotty mustache seen with Mary Jane Kelly is the less well-known suspect John Anderson, a sailor who was the subject of an article by Nick Connell in Ripperana 25, July 1998. I personally find this sailor an intriguing suspect and plan to do some more work on him.
Connell reprints the text of an article that appeared in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper on October 18, 1896 in which Anderson is said to have confessed to the murders on his deathbed in Chile, South America, in April 1895. The story was told to Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper by James Brame, a shipmate of Anderson's aboard the sailor's last ship, the barque Annie Speer. Brame said that that Anderson was "about thirty-eight years old, and was a fine, well-set up man with a bearing almost military. In complexion he was fair, his hair being red; he wore a moustache and a slight beard, and his face was much pitted with the smallpox."
This description thus vaguely matches the man with Mary Jane Kelly seen walking up the passageway to 13 Miller's Court by Mary Ann Cox at a quarter to twelve on the night of the murder and described by Cox as being "A short, stout man, shabbily dressed. He had on a longish coat, very shabby, and carried a pot of ale in his hand. . . . [He wore a] round hard billycock. . . He had a blotchy face, and full carrotty moustache." (Kelly inquest testimony as reported in The Daily Telegraph, November 13, 1888.)
Again, according to Brame in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, "Anderson, who had obtained a knowledge of surgery in the United States Navy, through acting as a hospital assistant, had been robbed and almost ruined by a low woman in London. He brooded on this, and at length resolved to be revenged as far as he could on the whole class. He had shipped in the weekly boats running between Rotterdam and London, but when he determined to carry out his vengeance he left these, and having a little money took lodgings at a quiet farm-like house near Bromley, where he passed as a ship's watchman, engaged at night work in the docks. He would leave his lodgings in the evening, and make his way to the Whitechapel district where he committed the terrible deeds as he found opportunity. The knife he used was similar to that used by slaughtermen. He had found a confederate in his awful work, and it was this fact that enabled him to evade capture. The confederate would wait at a spot appointed with a clean smock, which Anderson at once drew over his blood-stained garments, so avoiding any suspicious appearance. It is significant, if the story be true, that Anderson described himself as terribly frightened after each deed was committee, but immediately before the murders as being filled with an insane fury that made him careless of everything. Two days before his death Anderson was delirious, and kept screaming out and jumping up in bed, with cries of 'There's another! How she bleeds!'" After his death, the man was buried in the necropolis in Iquique, Chile.
There is more to the story but those are the essentials.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 01:25 am | | Chris, I don't subscribe to Ripperana, but did
Nick Connell try to check in any Chilean sources
or in U.S. Navy sources anything further about
John Anderson? When he served in the U.S. Navy
as an assistant surgeon, for example.
Jeff |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 06:09 am | | Paul D
- Note from Chris's fuller, more useful and more accurate response than mine how far people who are not on your bookshelves may have moved beyond some of us who are!
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 07:53 am | | Hi Jeff:
In terms of what Nick Connell has done in researching Anderson, his 1998 Ripperana article is mainly a retelling of the article that appeared in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper in 1896, so unless he has done more work on him, work still needs to be done. I assume since Nick is in the UK, that is as far as it went, at least in terms of checking out the U.S. Navy aspect and maybe the Chile part of the story, but I may be wrong. I may be in a better position to continue the research at least in navy records. I mean to dig into U.S. Navy records at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., to see if there might have been such a man called John Anderson who worked as a hospital assistant. However, as an expert on maritime matters wrote to me, "It would be easier if his name wasn't a common one like John Anderson, but rather something like Ahasureas Blotznagle, which would be easier to spot."  The danger in this type of research is that you might find a number of John Andersons but how do you determine which is the right one if there is no independent corroboration that he is the man mentioned in the Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper article? It is the same dilemma faced by researchers who are trying to pinpoint the details of Mary Kelly's earlier life.
Best regards
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
