|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 June 15, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Was it really Mary Kelly?:
Archive through June 15, 2001
Author: Ashling
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 05:54 am |        | BOB: I sent you another e-mail. Let me know if it makes it through or not.
Janice |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 06:05 am | | G'day,
Chris: I agree with Stewart Evans that contempory newspaper reports should be read with caution ie: descriptions of mutilations etc., but here we are talking about a minor detail, that the official shorthand taker may have missed. Is it OK Bob, to think that someone with an official job, could have made a human error?
I only SUGGESTED that the word 'And', could have been missed.
Bob do you believe that at the time of Mary's murder, Barnett was still a 'fish porter', or that he was unemployed? An ocassional porter and street seller of oranges, would have been an ideal job for an out-of-work fish porter. The official record doesn't say anything about his 'current employment'!
In the files kept at Scotland Yard, No. 32 is a 'Daily Telegraph' extract, concerning a man seen with Catherine Eddowes, ten minutes before her body was found. It describes him as a '30yo man, fair complexion and fair moustache'. The sighting was made by 2 men in the nearby ORANGE MARKET.
The description that Joseph Lawende (a cigarette dealer), gave to police after Catherine's murder, also matches a description of Barnett in every detail: '30 years old, 5ft 7 or 8, medium build, fair complexion and moustache'!
I agree with you Bob, that AS IT STANDS, Lewis's statement is incorrect. Reporters were in such a mad hurry to get 'Ripper' stories out in print. I am merely trying to point out that he could have seen Kelly, not 'Miss X'!
Respecting you Sir,
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 06:11 am | | G'day,
Chris: I agree with Stewart Evans that contempory newspaper reports should be read with caution ie: descriptions of mutilations etc., but here we are talking about a minor detail, that the official shorthand taker may have missed. Is it OK Bob, to think that someone with an official job, could have made a human error?
I only SUGGESTED that the word 'And', could have been missed.
Bob do you believe that at the time of Mary's murder, Barnett was still a 'fish porter', or that he was unemployed? An ocassional porter and street seller of oranges, would have been an ideal job for an out-of-work fish porter. The official record doesn't say anything about his 'current employment'!
In the files kept at Scotland Yard, No. 32 is a 'Daily Telegraph' extract, concerning a man seen with Catherine Eddowes, ten minutes before her body was found. It describes him as a '30yo man, fair complexion and fair moustache'. The sighting was made by 2 men in the nearby ORANGE MARKET.
The description that Joseph Lawende (a cigarette dealer), gave to police after Catherine's murder, also matches a description of Barnett in every detail: '30 years old, 5ft 7 or 8, medium build, fair complexion and moustache'!
I agree with you Bob, that AS IT STANDS, Lewis's statement is incorrect. Reporters were in such a mad hurry to get 'Ripper' stories out in print. I am merely trying to point out that he could have seen Kelly, not 'Miss X'!
Respecting you Sir,
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 06:17 am | | G'day,
Sorry for that Double post!
This time I pressed 'post this message', went to make myself a cup of coffee, came back and pressed 'post this message' again!
Leanne! |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 06:49 am | | Dear Leanne,
At last, you finally agree that Lewis's statment is incorrect, and from this you must accept that his reliability must be called into question, and that any further information from this source must be treated with the greatest caution.
Of course it's alright for someone with an official job to make an error, and I've said so time after time, all I'm asking you to accept is that it's equally alright for a reporter to make an error.
With respect Leanne you didn't 'suggest' the word 'and' could have been missed. In your post of the 10th you said something along the lines of 'put an 'and' in.....' I was assuming this was what the original statement said. Its only when I queried it that you came back and said it was your invention.
Do I believe Barnett was out of work at the time? Well he said he was I've no reason to disbelieve him - have you? Orange seller could have been an ideal occupation for an out of work porter, just as docker, labourer, pure finder,barman, groom, seam setter, matchbox maker.........get the idea?
I'm not quite sure why you emphasise the Daily Telegraph report and highlight the fact that 2 men worked in an Orange Market. I believe it was situated in St James place next to Mitre Square.
The description quoted above probably could be said to vaguely fit Barnett, and just about every other male in HM Forces at the time.
Its interesting you mention this description according to the A to Z the official records give Lawende's description as:
'a man of medium build and sailorly appearance, wearing a pepper and salt loose jacket, a grey cloth cap with a peak and a reddish neckerchief. His age was about thirty; his height 5ft 7 - 8 inches. He had a fair complexion and moustache.
The Times reported this description as " 5ft 9" and shabby appearance"
His porters licence gives his height as 5ft 7inches, fair hair blue eyes.
I believe his appearance at the inquest was described as neat and tidy with a 'military' appearance.
So we now have a composite description of Barnett as being 5' 7" (expanding to 5' 9" in hot weather) not particularly large but of medium build, wearing a peaked cap which looks just like a bowler, with the appearance of a sailor who served in the Army, neat and tidy but with a shabby appearance.
My point is using the various descriptions given of the (supposedly) same person it fits just about anyone!
One final point I notice in the Illustrated Police News (November 17th) it quotes Barnett as saying " I was originally a fish porter but now I am a labourer. I work at the river side and carry fish".......... No mention of oranges there either. How accurate is this report? I've no idea, so can any of us point to any one report and say this is right TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS? Of course not.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 05:11 pm | | Hi Bob , I am back after being incommunicado for a while , all the telephone lines destroyed themselves in the house and I am now working on a 20m extension work to the downstairs phone socket which was the only one which could be repaired. Here are my questions to you , concerning the quotes on p.118 of ' From Hell ' : (1) Were does the following quote about Mary come from - a " short dumpy woman , but quite attractive." ? (2)Who said " I have known her for about five years , she had long dark hair." ? Was that Maurice Lewis or some other person ? (3) Where does the quote from Walter Dew come from , that Mary was a " short dumpy woman." ? Stewart Evans didn't think it was from ' I Caught Crippen ' , is it from some other publication ? Thanks for any help you are able to give. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 05:57 pm | | | I intend to post my article on why the body in the MJK photo was circa 5'7" in height tomorrow , at about 6pm GMT. It will use the photograph in Sugden to prove the argument. Previously I had used the photo in the 1987 hardback edition of Rumbelow to show this point but as not many may have this edition , the paperback edition of Sugden's book is probably more readily availible to people so this time it shall be used instead. Good luck to anyone who tries to follow what I have done and I apologise in advance ( as I should have done before ) for dissecting and breaking down what was once a person even further , into a series of lengths and measurements. But hopefully it shall prove conclusively that it was not MJK who was murdered , provided that you accept her height was 5'2". |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 May 2000 - 02:39 pm | | I hope to show that the body in the picture was not MJK. I am using photograph 13 from Philip Sugden's " The Complete History of Jack the Ripper " paperback edition. First , let us confirm the measurements of the picture : they are 114.5mm by c.103mm. Let us make another measurement : the length of the arm from shoulder to elbow is 30mm. Now let us try to determine the length of the body on the bed. Measuring the body's right leg from its base to the knee gives us a length of about 30mm. Now switch to the left leg. I estimate that the knee on the left leg starts at a point 25mm in from the left edge of the picture. I would estimate there is about 20mm of leg before we come to an indeterminate area of flesh around 50mm in from the left edge of the picture. If we estimate that the body's upper leg is about 20mm then the length of the bodys legs lying straight comes to about 50mm. Is this a reasonable assumption ? Next we measure the torso and I would say that the torso length is c.48mm from the body's neck , thus so far we have a total length of 98mm for the corpse. Measuring the face , we find it is about 18mm. Thus the total length of our corpse is 116mm long. Now this means nothing unless we have another object in the picture to relate the length of the body to. And we do , the pillow. Mark a point on the picture 95mm along and 43mm up : that is the bottom of the pillow under the corpse's neck. Now mark a point 60mm up on the right hand edge of the picture and draw a line between the two points. This line should measure 26mm long and I estimate this as the width of the pillow. Now if you measure the width of your pillow at home it should be about 40cm long. Thus let us make an approximate equation here : Each mm in the photo is equal to 1.5cm in real life. We will allow a 5cm margin of error on the final result for the corpse. Thus the equation is 116 * 1.5 = 174cm tall. Now if we allow a 5cm margin of error then this means we have a height of circa 5'7" to 5'11" which would definitely encompass an appropriate height for the victim and a width of about 34-44cm for the pillow. All I have done here is enlarged the picture according to a ratio , and it is possible that the corpse was even taller than 5'7". When I first did this experiment I believed that MJK was 5'7" and thus I thought nothing more of it , but having read ' From Hell ' my mind was changed. Thus Bob , can you provide the sources to show that MJK was only about 5'2" tall ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 May 2000 - 02:43 pm | | | Even allowing a margin for error of 10cm on the final count only gives us a minimum height of 5'6" and a 15cm margin of error gives us 5'4". The cadaver was not a short woman IMHO. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 14 May 2000 - 10:17 pm | | | Dear Mr. Owen, Being a mere man (--:, I would not expect you to know (since it is usually women who buy them) that pillows come in various sizes. Alas they are not standardized. You might have better luck going by the mattress as one would think that mattresses and bedframes would have had to both be standardized or they wouldn't fit each other. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 05:08 am | | Hi Simon,
I appreciate your measuring. But there is some fault creeping into it. You have to be very carefully relying on measurements of limbs in a perspective view. Most of Kelly's body seen in the picture is reliable on that point for measurement, except for the legs. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 07:25 am | | The margin of error allows for a pillow of 34-44cm in width , I accept humbly that I am a mere man but anything other would be most uncomfortable to the head. Jill , I am fairly sure about the lower leg of the body being 30mm but because of the perspective of the photo , the upper leg measurement has to be a estimate. Hence a margin of error is allowed on the final result. If there is an error in my measurements it would lead to the body being longer not shorter IMHO. I would be most interested if anyone else tried this experiment and came up with a different result. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 07:32 am | | Dear Simon,
My office is a complete mess at the moment having just moved it into my home. However I will be answering your questions just as soon as I can wade through the paper.
I'm afraid your method of calculating the height by a very basic form of photo interpretaion won't work, in my opinion.
Photo interpretaion is a highly skilled art and even experts make horrendous mistakes. I believe the first shots of the V2 were declared to be barrage balloons.
The problem is you have far too many variables eg:
1. The angle of the shot. If you look at modern Scene of Crime photos many of them are shot on a single plane, ie from above, this is to eliminate, as far as possible the effect of foreshortening the object being photographed.
2. When it is neccessary to use photos to establish measurement a scale is always included in the picture, to enable estimations of measurements to be taken.
To interpret the MJK photo correctly you would need to know,
a. The angle the camera was placed at in relation to the bed.
b. an accurate scale within the photograph of known length.
c. The distance from the bed the camera was situated at.
you have none of these. To use the pillow is useless as you have no idea how big it is, you also have no idea how much the pillows size is altered by the pressure of the body lying on it.
However I would not dismiss your idea out of hand, as these are only my opinions. I would suggest that the next stage is for various posters to send you photos of themselves in similar posture, recreating the scene as closely as possible, and see how you get on with them.
You would need at least twenty photos to make a reasonable experiment. Don't forget there must be nothing in the photo that you could use as a scale such as books or computers.
Best of luck!
Bob Hinton |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 04:09 pm | | Okay posters , thats your challenge ! Send a nude photograph of yourself lying on a bed to this board ( being covered in blood is optional ) and I will attempt to interpret your ' measurements '. Male posters please note , I make no apologies for any wounded egos at the end of the day. Make sure there is some household oject in the picture too so I can attempt a scale. Caz , I know you'll be up for this so post quickly ! You can even keep your socks on too ! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 04:15 am | | Simon -
Surely you realise the trouble you can get into by suggesting to female posters that they post nude photographs of themselves here? I trust you're not about to start accusing women who have the temerity to challenge your views of being lesbians, are you? ;-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 04:43 am | | Hi Simon,
Can I keep my ears on?
And please don't steal my heart. It belongs to Daddy. :-)
Love,
MM (Ms Morris) |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 11:32 am | | Hi, Simon, Bob, et al.:
I think we can already see that Bob's suggestion (tongue in cheek?) is unworkable. I also share Bob's reservations about your measuring technique. Bob is correct that, for example, in photographs of archaeological sites, or in police photography, a rule is often placed in the shot so we can get an accurate measure. This is not the case here, so we are left with guesswork, which may not be good enough. A pillow of 1888, manufactured in probably some year before that year, is probably not comparable in size to a modern pillow. I doubt if pillows of that date were of a standardized size. There is certainly foreshortening in the photograph, and nothing, barring the pillow, that might give us a certain measure of the woman on the bed. The bedpost is visible, but is behind the corpse. In the version of the photograph in the Pam Ball book, you can see the width of the bedspring, but it appears to be at least a foot deep, and actually makes the woman appear to be a short, smaller woman than you are implying. In short, I am not certain that your technique will give the correct results.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 11:43 am | | Phew, thank God for that.
Can I get dressed again now? ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 07:13 pm | | Ah well , it was worth a try.*8-{)> I'm not sure about the pillow argument however , I should think that pillows would be of a similar size then as now. At what date would manufacturers start making bigger pillows and for what reason ? Don't laugh , its a valid question ! |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 17 May 2000 - 06:08 am | | Simon,
Perhaps the pillows were of a home made variety.
In a time when money was hard come by,people would make quite a lot of items or have them made by friends.Clothes and bed linen were high on the list of those items.
H.M. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Wednesday, 17 May 2000 - 07:38 am | | Hi Simon et al.:
Actually I have to question whether head of the body in the famous, bigger picture is resting on a pillow at all. If you look at the smaller picture published in some books (e.g., Harrison's and Evans and Gainey), there appears to be a bolster-type pillow at the back of the table with the flesh upon it. What is under the head in the larger picture may be only rumpled bedclothes.
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 17 May 2000 - 04:29 pm | | There does seem to be some object on the table in the second photo of the victim , shot from the other direction but I would say that was some sort of bedclothes or rolled up sheet. If you look at the picture in the A-Z , the object under the head does seem to be a pillow , its propped up against the headboard. I know its gruesome but in the interests of research , would anyone be able to do the same experiment as I have done , but on a different version of the photo ? The photo in Ms Ball's book would be an ideal choice , or perhaps the A-Z photo itself. What I want to see is if anyone could produce a substantially different result from the one I reached. For those who still believe MJK was blonde and 5'7" tall , take a look at the A-Z photo. No matter how you look at it , the corpse on the bed is not blonde or at least does not appear so to me. I would say the hair was dark red , dark brown or perhaps even black. But blonde no. I know colours on old photo plates tended to come out darker than they were , but I think blonde would still appear as a light colour. What do others think ? |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 17 May 2000 - 10:15 pm | | What was that object placed on the back of the bedside table in picture # 2? The end of it looks like an alligator head. Was this a kind of prop-up pillow used to sit up in bed to watch TV? I've never seen anything like it before. I'm trying to imagine what kind of sexual acts MJ could have used it for also, considering her occupation.
Thank you.
David |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 17 May 2000 - 11:55 pm | | Hi Chris, David, Simon:
George Baxter Phillips' inquest testimony: " ... the large quantity of blood under the bedsted, the saturated condition of the paliasse, (sic)* pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedsted and her head & neck in the top right hand corner."
*palliasse: A mattress filled with straw, sawdust, etc. = Webster's Dictionary.
1. It's highly possible that there were 2 bed pillows--one for Mary & one for Joe (or whoever). Mary's position in the bed would obscure the demarcation line between the 2 pillows.
Why does Phillips mention pillow in the singular? Perhaps because only the one on the far right--where Mary was originally lying--is soaked in blood.
Would Joe have taken his pillow with--when he moved out? No. --
John McCarthy's inquest testimony: " ... the furniture and everything in the room belongs to me."
2. The pillow on the bed could be one of those extra long bolster types.
3. I've made at least 10 guess about the whatsit on the back of the table in the smaller pic. It's one-or-more-pillows, two-huge-turkey-legs, and so forth. What say we hold a contest? Name the Table Thingy and win a tee-shirt or some-such.
HARRY: Excellent point about the home sewing. Making clothes is a moderate to difficult skill to master (I still put zippers in backwards once in a while), but even a child can stitch together a cover to hold pillow stuffings.
I'm off to hunt up the Mary Kelly photo that Stewart posted here ... it might be linked to her bio on the main menu.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 18 May 2000 - 03:02 am | | Simon- The color of the hair can be darker, because it probably also was saturated with blood + darkening of plate pictures = maybe original light hair.
What people are called (blond, brown or dark) depends on who's describing them. For example I tend to say dark blond, when others think light brown. And I know of a man whom I think of as dark blond (thus for most light brown), some call him just blond and others almost black. There is no mistaken identity, it is the same man again and again, and he doesn't color his hair either.
Jill |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 18 May 2000 - 09:02 am | | G'day Simon,
Looking at the photo of Kelly on the bed, here in Casebook, I can see a fair haired woman, with her hair messed with blood. Definately not black!
Leanne! |
Author: Diana
Friday, 19 May 2000 - 02:15 am | | | Blonde may have meant a darker shade than it does now because today we have Clairol (I should know!). |
Author: Michael Lyden
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - 10:30 pm | | Hello everyone,
For me, the lack of specific details in the various descriptions of MJK given by witnesses,is one of the most frustrating aspects of the entire case.
We have good descriptions of the other four(of the cannonical five).For instance we are given their hair and eye colour.
Nobody has yet given a satisfactory or acurate description of Kelly and we all seem to be just guessing.
How tall? Was she blonde,was she ginger? etc..The only conclusion I can draw is that Kelly's hair was either blond or ginger but not dark brown or black.The photo of course seems to show otherwise.
There have even been discussions where some have suggested that Kelly may have dyed her hair,as the "colour" in the photo didn't seem to fit the various descriptions given.I think this is unlikely unless of course Mr.Blotchy face, Carroty 'tache was carrying a Quart pot of hair dye!
It is likely that,in the case of the Millers court murder,the police were determined to keep a watertight seal on the whole buisiness and made sure that many of the details were suppressed and couldn't be leaked to the press.
They could not afford to waste time following false leads(and some will disagree) as was the case with the Lusk letter/kidney.
I think, more than any other reason,this is why there are so many holes and inconsistencies in the case of the Kelly murder.
Given the fact that there was not one,but several sightings of Kelly,way after the estimated time of death ,there are only two possible explanations as to what happend on that November morning.
1.Someone other than Kelly was butchered at No.13 Millers Court.
2.Kelly was Murdered sometime after 10.am that Friday morning.
The problem of the hair colour remains but I would still plump for option No.2
AS far as I see it,Kelly,like others in Millers court who shared similar nocturnal habits,was enjoying a mid morning kip when the Ripper paid a visit.It was probably Kelly that lit the fire before undressing and climing into bed.A little later,Jack got in,using the window trick and possibly tried to stifle the fire using the clothes that had been left in the room.He did this to give the impression that nobody was home(Many had gone to see the Lord Mayors show) and as it was mid morning, he had ample light to work by of course.The fire may have smouldered for quite a while before flaring up as we know it did.
I am aware that what I am about to say is in conflict with most other commentators,but I think the Ripper probably took about fifteen minutes at the most,to kill and carry out the mutilations on poor Mary,after all we are not talking about micro-surgery here,just frenzied slicing and throwing around lumps of flesh.
AS for the odd looking object on the bedside table next to the pile of flesh,it is almost certainly a rolled up eiderdown.
Any comments would be most welcome.
Regards,
Mick.Lyden |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 06:15 am | | Hi Mick,
I tend to agree with you on one point - that the ripper may have worked much faster on MJK than others believe. Even if he chose an indoor victim this time to afford himself more time and security than on previous occasions (either because the heat was on him out on the streets, or because he craved the chance to utterly destroy a victim), I still feel he would not have risked staying overlong and finding himself trapped, in that tiny confined space, when any number of possible visitors, day or night, could have come a-calling.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 01:20 pm | | Hi Caz, Mick,
I agree with both of you that the mutilations on Kelly could have performed much faster than many people believe.
Consider the extensive mutilations done on Eddowes in what must have been a very short period of time. There was only about 9 minutes between Lawende's sighting at 1:35, and PC Watkin's discovery of the body at 1:44. Allowing 1-2 minutes for the walk down Church Passage, and a similar length of time for the Ripper to make his escape, and we're probably looking at a time period on the order of 5 or 6 minutes for the Ripper to complete the extensive mutilations on Eddowes.
Certainly Kelly was far more extensively mutilated than Eddowes, but assuming they were slain by the same hand, I just can't see that it would have taken the 1-2 hours that some have postulated. 15 to 30 minutes was probably more like it, IMHO, of course.
Caz - certainly a chilling thought, one that's occurred to me more than once when pondering Kelly's murder. How would JtR have reacted if someone had came knocking, or, heaven forbid, an arm come through the broken window to release the latch??
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 04:46 pm | | Dear Jim,
God help the person who came aknocking... And the one-armed man would have been the suspect!!
Rosey:-) |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 05:56 pm | | Hi Jim, Caz, and Rosey:
Certainly the caller would have been 'armless. 
Chris |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 06:05 pm | | Dear Jim,
Seriously...did he know he would'nt be disturbed
under any circumstance? Why was he so confident?
I mean...he felt as safe as houses!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 06:39 pm | | I would think that a lot of thought about that night is left up to the person who views it.
For example, the idea that Saucy Jacky spent more time slicing up MK than others is BECAUSE he was in a enclosed place.
Others might think that there's more danger in enclosed space BECAUSE of the possiblity of entrapment is greater.
In this case, people look upon it as "since JtR cut MK up SOO much, he must have spent a longer period there."
Well, it is all quite debatable because we're not Jack so we don't know for sure, we just speculate.
I would think he would spend enough time to do the deed, wait 'til it was clear and leave, most likely locking the door on his way out "just in case" someone came home, found the body and trailed after him.
With the confidence, I not so sure about. The police were looking for him, so he might as well hide in a home to commit his act, compared to a street or alley way.
So one would think that the MK murder in the home was a necessity not a confidence trip.
Mark |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 07:28 pm | | It was also cold and wet outside !  |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 07:34 pm | | Yeah,
no need for Jack to "catch his death"!
aaachooo!!!!!
Mark |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 07:49 pm | | ....someone stick their arm through the window while Jack was 'opperating?
Anyone come up with a reasonable explanation for the reported blood stains around the glass?
Any one-armed person's show up at Whitechapel Hosp. during the night?
:-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 07:18 am | | Hi Rosey,
You wrote:
'Seriously...did he know he would'nt be disturbed
under any circumstance? Why was he so confident?
I mean...he felt as safe as houses!'
The only way Jack could have known he would not be disturbed by one of MJK's neighbours, lady friends, boyfriends or clients (or rent collector, depending on the time of day or night), would be if he had a lookout posted in the court, ready to deter any would-be callers.
Failing that, Jack's sense of purpose must have taken over, possibly making him temporarily oblivious to such risks, at least until he'd done all he came to do.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 09:34 am | | Dear Caroline,
Good point! A look-out...an accomplice? Ermm...I
think we must resist the temptation to read more in this projected scenario...Jack had a twin- brother, namely, Jock McGribber (the haggis- zipper).
Rosey :-) |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 01:01 pm | | Jon,
About the blood stain around the window--
Could be Jack's,
MJK's landlord looking for rent(who found her body)
Or maybe been there before that night.
Mark |
|
|
|
|
