Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 10:15 am |        |
Dear Bob,
Quite. What is a spring-latch rim-lock by any other name? Certainly not Yale-type...a great generic difference. The Yale tumbler/pin lock specifically refers to the locking mechanism itself, as you are no doubt aware.
The point at issue is not the particular brand
of lock but its principal.
For example, most of the standard locks on the average DWELLING in the nineteenth century is of the pivot and sliding-bolt kind.This mechanism ensured some degree of security of mind...but little real security in fact.
The way that the door was fastened to the frame is via a spring-loaded latch which was FASTENED and UNFASTENED by means of a handle/knob on either side of the door...its axial rotation was by means of a length of square iron or later in the century, steel, that ran through the lock and
wooden door... having a handle/knob on either end.
On occasion, this spring-loaded latch could itself be locked by means of a 'snib', i.e., the handle/knob would not turn to retract the latch.
It does however leave one intriguing possibility,
burglars were known to remove the handle from a door where they did not have a key to lock the bolt and thereby deprive the hapless inhabitant exit...or, in this instance, ENTRY.
Emm...
Rosey :-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 03:10 pm | |
Rose,A Yale type lock does not have to be a Yale lock.It can be of a type similar to a Yale.Bob answered your question for me in relation to the Yale Lock.It is a particular type of lock made by Yale and many imitations were made to work on the same principal.Also McCarthy had just seen a sight which no one would forget in a hurry, or in a life time come to that.So maybe his mind was elsewhere and he did not think to place his hand through the window to open the door.He had other things on his mind at the time.He had one hell of a shock to say the least.If I were in McCarthy's position my mind would not have been thinking as it should.Most people would be in a state of shock if confronted with such a horrific scene.
Mick, Good point made and taken about Mrs Cox's statement which is evidence to show Kelly did indeed keep the lock in the open position to come and go.
Rose, When is a Yale not a Yale? When it is manufactuted by someone else.Spring-heeled Jack indeed. You are such a card Rosie, you must have been dipping into the xmas crackers again.
Bob, Yes I will be at Bournmouth we will have to meet up. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 04:12 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
Rob is not showing us a Yale, nor a Yale-type lock
It is a warded-rim lock...and I suspect it has never been on any house door nor was ever likely to be on any house door.But then you would'nt see the joke?
Rosey 0---M |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 05:36 pm | |
Dear Bob,
A word of advice from your auntie Rose...get your money back...that is, unless you have a pantry you might wish to secure.
Rose :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 06:39 pm | |
Well gentlemen,
I suggest we return back to square one. How does one reach through a window to open a door that cannot be opened from the front?
There can be only one solution...but I admit it is a queer one.
(1)The door key had been 'lost' whilst the lock was in its 'open' state.
(2)The inner knob had been retained whilst the outer knob was removed.
(3)The glass was deliberately broken close to the door lock as possible to facilitate the turning of the inner knob.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Michael Lyden
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 06:55 pm | |
Hello everyone,
Rosemary,in an earlier post you describe,in some detail,a lock that includes an external rotary knob that when turned,will actuate the bolt.You also say that this was more likely the type that was fitted to Kelly's door rather than the example Bob has shown us.I think not.
As we all know,
in his statement to Abberline,Barnett told the inspector that since the key had gone missing,they had devised an alternative method of entering the room.Now to me,this suggests that the key was purely used to retract the bolt and that in its absence,the bolt had to be drawn manually.This would also suggest that an exterior Knob was not included,as they could have just turned it and entered.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 07:01 pm | |
Finally,
(4) Jack's Last Trick: he reaches through the window and removes the knob and axial rod from the lock...cutting his arm/hand in the process.
NO-ONE CAN ENTER WITHOUT THIS ITEM. PERIOD.
Rosey Dunrobin :-) |
Author: Jon
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 07:35 pm | |
Hey Bob.....there's yer blood on the glass !!!!
 |
Author: Orchetanna
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 07:37 pm | |
Mick,
you say that Cox states 'she (MJK) banged the door shut, she doesnt (not that I know of) she says 'she turned round and banged the door',later she goes on to say 'the man shut the door', so I would assume that MJK banged the door open, this suggest to me that the door was indeed on the latch and also on that cold wet night that perhaps the door was swollen and she had to bang it open. Is there a possibility that the following day when the police tried to open the door it was so swollen in the frame that the police only thought it was locked because it wouldnt budge ?
Anna |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 08:42 pm | |
| Rosey, Daily Telegraph Sat,10 Nov 1888.Stated that when Bowyer pulled open the curtain he noticed blood on the glass.Then it goes on to add, The last person to have left the place must have closed the door behind him,taking with him the key from the spring lock, as it is missing.Kelly and Barnett had a row in the course of which the window was broken ( we have two broken windows so were they both broken during the row?)It goes on to add that the Street-door was closed,but the woman had a latch key. Mick was correct when he stated Cox was behind Kelly and a man as she entered Millers Crt.She saw them go indoors and bang the door.No mention of placing hands through windows to get in. Now kelly could have once or twice forgot to put the latch in the open position when leaving and locked herself out.In such circumstances to regain entry she possibly obtained access by placing her hand through the window( how many times have people locked themselves out of their house or their car by such action, I know I have many a time)So once or twice Kelly could have used the window in such an emergency but it was not the normal means of access. All I want to know is the following.Could the spring lock on Mary Kelly's door be placed in the unlocked position without the use of a key.Could the door be closed from the outside without the spring lock activating the bolt to the closed position.Working on the same principle as a 'Yale' lock. If the answer to both of these questions is yes then I can see no problem about entry or exit. Also Rosie if the door knob and axial bar are taken out of a door lock, a knife,screwdriver,and many other such impliments can be used to open the door.It is no problem to open a door without the axial bar in position. |
Author: Michael Lyden
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 08:47 pm | |
Anna,
With respect,what Mary Ann Cox actually said was as follows:"I saw them go into her room.I said Good night,Mary and the man banged the door".(Pg.317 of The ultimate JtR sourcebook)
So from this,we can infer that the door was Indeed banged shut.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Michael Lyden
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 08:58 pm | |
Jon,
Bob's blood on the glass??????
Mick Lyden |
Author: Orchetanna
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 02:02 am | |
Mick,
I understand your point, but here on casebook on MJK's inquest Cox says ' she turned around and banged the door' and again 'the man closed the door' as I dont have resources I would like help to clarify this point, so can anyone help.
Does Abberline say anything on this ? I've forgotten is it you Caz who has his words ?
Anna |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 06:23 am | |
Dear Ivor,
As we are only too aware...many seemingly contradictory statements appear in the press.
The singular fact of the door which would not open
without breaking and entering is the only solid fact here.
In principal, during the latter part of the nineteeth century, locks had two seperate autonomous working methods...use of a key to throw the bolt and/or lock the handle; and, the
use of a handle/knob via its axial rod to turn back the spring-loaded latch-bolt.
If the lock is in the open state i.e., the locking bar/bolt not yet thrown by the use of the key...then the door may be banged shut using the spring-loaded latch-bolt which is operated by the turning of the handle/knob...but the door is not locked!
Test out your Scouts! Find such a door lock with an axial rod...remove the door handle/knob and the rod...ask them to find something to operate the handle/knob. Hours of great fun .
Rosey :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 07:04 am | |
Dear Bob,
Fear not! Your Auntie Rose will see that you do not go to the Ball... empty-handed. From my vast collection of Ancient Artifacts I will send you photos of some standard foundry-made door locks of this period...in situ...diagrams of the key types, skeleton-keys, anecdotes, and sundry items.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 07:49 am | |
Ivor,
And to add further ingredients to the game of Find
Jack's Knob...tell the unfortunate participants that in the next room spare-part surgery is ongoing...and at any minute, Jack the Ripper could climb in through the window!
Oh, one other important matter. After an hour or so attempting to draw back the spring-loaded latch-bolt...how can they be sure Jack did'nt
forget to LOCK THE BLOODY DOOR!!!!ARGGGGGGGG...
(Gosh, I scared myself witless!)
Fumbling-Rose :-) |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 11:50 am | |
Dear Rosy,
Well you've totally confused me and I've got the lock!
What axial rod and outer knob are you talking about? The lock that I have is fastened by pulling the door to, in exactly the same way a Yale type lock operates, ie the bolt is shot home under spring pressure NOT by operating a key. I do appreciate the difference between a Yale cylinder lock and pin mechanism and an ordinary warded type lock (having drilled a few) but I am quite sure that when the phrase 'Yale' type is used 99.9% of the people reading this understand it to be a spring powered type.
There is no steel or iron or titanium square rod running through the lock to be turned by a knob. The only way of opening this lock from the outside is by means of a key, unless of course you force it.
I don't understand what you mean by 'ever likely to be fitted on any house door' Thats what they were made for. What do you think they are for - charm bracelets for the ostentatious?
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 03:58 pm | |
Maybe the key went missing, (out of anger) at the same time the window,(s) were broken, (out of anger). Perhaps someone could see a situation arising with this latest row, of being locked out of the room! With poscession of key, that couldn't happen. If someone was opening and catching the inside of the door from the window, AND LEAVING BLOOD ON THE BROKEN GLASS,, don't you think they would have cleared the frame of broken glass, and got rid of the hazzard? The key wasn't used until the morning of Nov 9th at around 06:15. I don't believe they had been catching the door at all,,-- except when they retired for the night. There was nothing in that room to protect was there? But,-- on the morning of the 9th Nov, there was something in that room that needed protection from discovery!!. Thats why the key was suddenly found and used!!
Rick |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 05:22 pm | |
Dear Bob,
In the case of the lock you present...a warded
rim-lock, the key being the most interesting and informative item...which in my opinion is not a nineteenth century key.
Having a collection of keys dating from the Roman era unto the present era...this looks to me a modern key-cut.
It has no collar so does not permit a two-sided operation of the levers...having a one-sided ward
which again permits one-sided operation only.
This type of lock one normally associates with a
substantial cupboard, say under the stairs, a pantry in a large house...even a stock room of sorts...
but definitely not the lock of door to a house in the period 1850-1900.
Rosey (Mistress of the Chatelaine) :-)
PS. I have decided that Anna could be right. The door was swollen shut due to heavy rain-fall. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 06:08 pm | |
Hi Rick,To put all this in a nut shell we can be sure of one thing going by the evidence. The door was locked.Entry had to be obtained by breaking open the door. That we do know. Only two methods can explain why the door was locked.
N01. It was a spring lock and the last person to leave the room (Kelly's Killer) made sure that the spring locked the door on his way out.
No2.The killer had the missing key and locked the door on his way out.
No evidence exists to show that the killer jammed the door closed from inside the room and left by the window. No evidence exists to show that the door was swollen. I agree with you and Jon that they had not been catching the door.At the end of the day we are left with two logical choices.The evidence shows that it was a spring lock.This is a lock which does not need a key to lock it.All we have to decide is which method was used to lock that door.The manual method or the automatic method.
Rosie, No evidence exists to show that the lock on the door was other than a spring lock.To state otherwise is no more than sheer speculation. |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 06:32 pm | |
Ivor
Lets not forget that a key was not required to lock the door, just to open it.
(aint that right Bob?)
I dont see the key being important here, the door closed and locked automatically, no key required.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 07:01 pm | |
I think the killer did leave by the window , and he put a table in front of the door to jam it shut before leaving a la fenetre ( how else do we get blood on the window ? ) and the presence of the table prevented anyone reaching the lock via the window to open the door. Remember when the door did open it banged into a table behind it !
An explanation for why the police did not enter via the window is that , according to Walter Dew , the floor was covered with blood and ( presumably plasmic ) fluid , thus it might have been extremely hazardous to enter the room that way. As it was Dew slipped on his backside when he did actually enter Mary's room , an extremely unpleasant occurance in any case. |
Author: Michael Lyden
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 07:34 pm | |
Hello all,
Anna I was quoting from a reliable primary source,that is an extract from Mrs.Cox's deposition at Kelly's inquest,I'm not sure of the source of the "Casebook" version.I would tend to interpret the phrase "Banged the door" as meaning slammed the door shut.My dictionary even defines the word "Bang" as,amongst other things, the sound a door makes when slammed.
If Mary Cox was describing how kelly opened the door,she surely would have said something like "Kelly barged OPEN the door" or "Kelly forced the door OPEN".
Ivor,at Kelly's inquest,Abberline made it quite clear that the door was infact,not locked,and the murderer did not carry away the key,as some papers had mistakenly printed.
Rosemary,I realy fail to see why you are clinging on to this idea that the door had a Knob.First you say Jack removed the internal knob,then you say the external one was removed.You seem to be making everything to complicated.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 08:08 pm | |
Dear Mick,
Sorry about the complication. Simply...the lock I propose was typical of the era opens and closes by means of a key on either side of the door. It also had a spring-bolt that operated via a HANDLE/KNOB to fasten the door to the frame but which DID NOT LOCK IT. End of story.
Those who propose otherwise...that it was a lock which ONLY OPENED AND CLOSED THE LOCK ON ONE SIDE...
I leave the readers to judge.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 08:23 pm | |
Simon
We cannot be sure the windows even opened. Chances are pretty good they wouldnt.
Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 09:19 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
If the door was "locked" then it required a key to lock it.
If the door was on a spring-latch/bolt then it required the handle/knob to be turned to pull it back.
However, if you think this PARTICULAR lock was on Kelly's door...prove it! Otherwise, you are merely speculating...copper.But it suits YOUR THEORY dunnit?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 09:47 pm | |
Folks, I have hesitated joining this brouhaha
because, quite frankly, I can't see what it
matters if Jack intentially locked the door, or
allowed the lock to lock the door, or even climbed
out the window (I tend to doubt that - what if
someone came along and saw him - it could get
tricky). I do congradulate everyone in discussing
the matter of the type of locks found in 19th
Century urban ghetto rooms. It is more than I
knew before. As for who locked the door, I am
so confused I am beginning to wonder if Mary locked up after Jack left!
But one item raised it's head here, that I did not
see or know of before. Simon pointed out that
Walter Dew found the floor so slippery red with
blood he fell down on the floor. No doubt it was
quite an additional reason to find the crime scene
distasteful, but Dew's clothes were certainly badly stained, and needed cleaning.
My point is this. Assuming the state of the room
from Mary's photographs and Dew's experience, we
have to ask some questions here - for the forensically intersted. It is usally suggested
that Jack had medical training or a good grasp of
anatomy. If he had attacked his other victims from behind, the amount of blood on his clothes
would (supposedly) be limited, because the blood
spurted outwardly away from him. But with Mary,
once he has killed her, he clearly gave himself
over to his darker side totally and cut or hacked
to pieces. A lot of blood is involved. How does
he avoid getting it on his clothing? Is he naked
while he attacks her body? Then where did he put
the clothes he wore. Was the room large enough to
have a corner relatively not covered in blood?
A corner where the clothes were folded up. Or did he have a convenient drawer to put them in -
even a closet? Furthermore, if he has such a
good grasp on anatomy, it suggests he would know
that he does not want to cut haphazardly into
arteries, which would squirt out gouts of blood,
possibly covering him and/or his clothes? Yet
the floor is so slippery with blood that Dew falls
on his rear. Jack did not have the same accident,
despite being in such an intense passion to do as
he did? Was his anger/hatred/mania such that he
did not notice how slippery the floor was (i.e.
how much blood had just squirted out of the corpse)?
Despite an occasional bit of levity in my comments, I do consider the Miller's Court glut
one of history's most horrible moments. But in
all the discussion about the lock, the practical
problems of the "dissection" going on in that
room seem to get overlooked.
Jeff |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 05:59 am | |
Dear Jeff,
Not to mention bloody footsteps through the doorway, blood on the lock and handle/knob...or the window when he reached through to 'secure' it.
Did he have a change of clothes? Foresight!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Michael Lyden
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 07:25 am | |
Hello Jeff,
As far as I am concerned the main purpose of this discussion is,to once and for all,
establish exactly which type of lock was fitted to Kelly's door.Above all, we need to ascertain whether the door was lockable.
At the time of the Millers Court murder,it was said by some, that the door was locked,therefore the murderer must have had a key.As only a limmited number of people would have had access to a key,then this fact alone, would considerably reduce the number of susspects on our list.However,all the evidence seems to point towards the fact that Kellys door was in fact,not lockable and,as I have already explained,Abberline made it quite clear,at Kelly's inquest, that contrary to what the newspapers had printed,the door to No.13. was not locked.So maybe its time to move on.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 07:53 am | |
If the door wasn't locked with a mortise lock and key, and if the door was locked with an automatic interior spring lock, and if Barnett explained how they,--Kelly and himself-- secured the door by reaching through the window,,, then why wasn't the door opened by the police in the logical way, from the inside,-- from the window?. The door surely didn't need forcing from outside if no key had been inserted into a mortise lock locking the door, and then removed from the scene
Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 09:31 am | |
Ivor, how is it possible to make any headway at all in the JtR mystery when well known facts are continually changed and explained away--- "not necessarily so". I also thought it was Bagster Phillips who insisted on being first into Kelly's room, and who slipped on the blood soaked floor,that description was in Steven Knights book.
Then in Daniel Farsons book, you have parts of Kelly hanging on the backs of chairs and picture rails!. In other books you have it written, the only excess blood was on and under the top right of bed, and down partition wall. It seems to me you can make what you want of this mystery,(within reason) just be sensible and logical about it. I am pretty sure of one thing, it's a tangle, and the more you talk it through with different people, the more tangled it becomes!
Rick |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 11:07 am | |
Dear Mick,
We can only speculate on the type of lock and its condition...which begats further speculation. I think the JtR events can only be addressed through
this spekulative-mikescope.
Rose-Tint Spekulatorum :-) |
Author: Michael Lyden
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 11:15 am | |
Dear Rosemary,
Please don't think that I am picking on you,and despite what I said about moving on,I feel I must clear up this point cocerning the door knob.
I think we can state with absolute cetainty that there wasn't one,and therefore show,that the type of lock which you describe,was not fitted to MJK's door.
Forgive me for repeating various bits from my earlier posts,but I feel I must clarify matters.
Joeseph Barnett explained to Inspector Abberline, that he and kelly,had devised an alternative method of entering No.13.
There would have been absolutely no need to do this if an external knob had been fitted.In other words,using a key was the only external means of entering the room.
So Rosemary,do you see the point I'm making?
There simply was no doorknob.
I must also point out,that I can find nothing to
rule out the possibility that the lock shown to us by Bob Hinton,was the type fitted to Kelly's door,quite the opposite in fact.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 01:45 pm | |
I'm pretty sure it was Dew himself - he tells us in " I Caught Crippen " that it was he himself who slipped on the floor , but sadly I don't have a copy to check. Can anyone provide the quote ?
Maybe Doctor Phillips slipped on the floor as well !!!
Simon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 02:00 pm | |
Dear Mick,
Thats fine by me.
Rosey:-))) |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 03:03 pm | |
From " The Crimes , Detections and Death of Jack the Ripper " by Martin Fido , p.94 :
" ...Arnold had the bolted door broken in at 1.30. According to Dew the floor inside was slippery with blood and he seems to have fallen over in it"
Dew himself described it as an "...awfulness" on the floor , since the blood hadn't clotted I'm supposing it was mixed with either bodily fluids or water ( maybe the killer did wash the blood off ) and thats why it was still wet.
Simon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 04:21 pm | |
Dear Simon,
If it was a matter of a bolt...everyone knows what a bolt is, don't they?...then a lock played no part in securing the door...at all. And it is a truism that one bolts the door from the inside...unless that is you happen to be in a cell.
Example of bolt...boLt...--¬
Rosey :-)) |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 04:41 pm | |
Rosey
I'm sorry but your are confusing the hell out of me!
Not long ago you posted that you didn't think the door had been forced because if it had it would have shown severe damage. You then went on to describe your own door as being typical of the type of door fitted to back up this statement. On this particular subject a few days ago you state that it only required one kick to open this type of door. Which is it?
You are quite correct in stating that his type of lock permits key operation from one side only - which is exactly what I have been saying all along.
This is not a pantry door, a cupboard door or even a stock room door lock. It is designed to be opened from both sides - unless you are saying that the Victorians suffered from so many servants getting locked in pantry's and cupboards that they had to fit this feature as standard! It is a lock designed for a normal type of door. Why do you have a problem with this?
You go on to say that the lock you are talking about has a spring bolt operated by a handle/knob that fastened the door to the frame but did not lock it. Fine that is a description of a normal rim lock BUT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LOCK WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE. The lock we are discussing here is as per my photo. Proper name - a night latch, common name spring bolt or spring lock.
You then go on to say "If this door was "locked " then it required a key to lock it. WRONG THAT IS A NORMAL RIM LOCK NOT A NIGHT LATCH. A night latch locks the same way as a Yale type. You pull the door to and the bolt shoots home. To open the door from the outside requires a key or forcing the door. The knob sliding back only withdraws the bolt on the inside of the door not the outside. There are no handles, knobs or other protuberences on the outside of this lock. Are we clear now?
Mick Lyden
You say Abberline made it quite clear at the inquest was in fact not locked. Can you tell me where you got this from? Its the first I've heard of it. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 04:50 pm | |
Jon, Thanks for reminding me that a key was not required. So only one method remains (No1.)Also the killer had no need to place anything behind the door and leave by the window it would have been a wasted execise.Thanks.
Rosie, Unlike you I am not debating what type of lock was on the door. I have been trying to determine whether or not a key would be needed to secure it. I now know that a key would not be needed to secure it. Also I dont have to prove what type of lock was on the door because I have not put forward a theory dictating to others that such and such a lock must have been on the door as you have.So you are the one that needs to prove it not I. My purpose in debating this subject is solely to find out if the killer used a key to lock the door.It would appear that he did not.I dont understand the attention you are giving to door knobs. I think you are confusing door knobs with someything else. I can hear music playing in the background and it goes something like this, Rambling Rose,
Why you ramble no one knows,
wild and windy, thats how you've grown.:-)Mick's post to Jeff explains my interest in this matter.
Hi Rick, In normal circumstances if you were to research a subject you would read as many books as possible to give you a basic idea of the facts.With ripper research it is ars* about face. The more books you read the more confusing it becomes. That is why I dont bother reading many ripper books.In fact the last one I read I threw at the nearest wall.And that was well before I had read it a third of the way through.I like to do my own work research in this matter because I found that I could not rely on the experts to give me the answers I was seeking. I found the subject a farce with the blind leading the blind.However on this site I get to chat with those who know what they are about (as well as those who think they know but dont).It appears that in this game you have to sort the chaff from the wheat if you know what I mean.Too many egos on the line and far too many games of one-upmanship being played for my liking.Bottom line is Rick that this subject has been milked and milked and the truth got disgarded years ago. It is a money making cottage industry and many people dont want it solved.Self interest comes before the truth.Many of these ripper suspects should not even be suspects.It is a bloody disgrace to say the least and needs sorting out. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 04:56 pm | |
Ivor , you might be interested to know that Stephen Knight made £20 million sterling from sales of ' The Final Solution '.
And that was told to me by Joseph Sickert himself.
Simon |
