Archive through July 14, 2001

** 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 July 14, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Archive through July 14, 2001

Author: E Carter Monday, 02 April 2001 - 09:49 am
Jon, firstly, let's try something that's never been attempted before! For a moment,you become the drunk that Swartz saw walking up Berner Street ahead of him. You cannot see Swartz because he is walking behind you, but you see Liz, and in your drunken state you decide to attack her. The man behind wants to avoid any involvement so he discreetly crosses the road. This man only looks back when he hears you arguing with Liz, and you shout a insult aimed at offending Jews at him! The outer entrance into the alley leading to Dutfields yard was gaslit, therefore, Swartz would have seen the man with Liz quite well. The Street had sparse gaslight, and Swartz had already gone passed only turning his head to look back when you began to quarrel. So, it's a dark rainy night in an under-lit street, then, from at least twenty-five yards away, in your drunken state. A man with his back to you turns and glances back. In the midst your quarrel, for some reason, you look up at him. You had the glare of a gaslight behind your head and he probably wore a hat He was walking away with the unlit board school behind him. How on earth did you know he was a Jew? I have to go out I will complete this later Best wishes ED.
Author: E Carter Monday, 02 April 2001 - 10:27 am
Jon, firstly, let's try something that's never been attempted before! For a moment, you become the drunk that Swartz saw walking up Berner Street ahead of him. You cannot see Swartz because he is walking behind you, but you see Liz and in your drunken state you decide to attack her. Swartz who is travelling behind wants to avoid any involvement, so he discreetly crosses the road. He looks back only when he hears you arguing with Liz, you select an insult to shout towards him 'Lipski'! The outer entrance into the alley leading to Dutfields yard was gaslit, therefore, Swartz would have seen you quite well. The rest of the street had only sparse gaslight. So, let's sum up, it's a dark rainy October night in an under-lit street, you are arguing with Liz. Swartz has passed you and is now twenty-five yards off, walking away with his back to you. He hears your quarrel, turns his head and glances back. For some reason, in the midst your drunken quarrel you look back. The gaslight glares behind your head, he has the unlit board school behind him and he is wearing a hat. How on earth did you know he was a Jew? I have to go out I will complete this later Best wishes ED.
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 02 April 2001 - 08:23 pm
Medical reports show no signs of chloroform or any other drug.First four victims were asphyxiated hence swollen tonge's etc. First four victims attacked from behind. Laid on left sides, throats cut from behind by right handed killer. Laid on backs for access for mutilation.Stride found on left side not turned on her back because the killer had no intention of mutilating her.The man who was seen to attack Stride was not her killer.
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 02 April 2001 - 08:55 pm
My view also, Ivor, to the letter. Rick
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 02 April 2001 - 10:12 pm
Dear Ivor, Surely it is conditional that the gift of invisibility allows the invisible person to strike from the front, the side, as well as from behind! And since he remains invisible...until Tom Slemen whips his cloak away...it could be a one-armed hypnotist who collected exotic belly-buttons.:-) Rosemary
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 02 April 2001 - 10:44 pm
What are we to do with you Rosemary ?
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 03:41 am
Suggestions on a saucy postcard - an invisible one, naturally. Mustn't offend anyone. Love, Caz
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 03:54 am
G'day, Ivor: I've been reading up on 'Trichloromethane' or 'Chloroform', and found that tests for it's presence in blood and body tissues are unreliable because it is excreted as soon an inhaler exhales. LEANNE!
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 04:40 am
At the inquest, Wynne-Baxter asked the doctor if he had noted any sign of either narcotics or chloroform. The doctor replied 'I perceived neither'. Researchers seldom actually place themselves in the position of the persons involved. Chloroform is a pungent sickly sweet chemical it's use could have only been discovered by simply smell or taste at the crime scene. Now you put your self in the doctors position! You have arrived at the scene to find a woman lying on her back, her throat has been severed from the right ear to just past the (trachea) windpipe. At what stage do you begin to think she may have been chloroformed? Two other points: 1. Strangulation is normally always accompanied by urinary incontinence, even partial strangulation; as half of normal deaths are. Read the 1944 Gay Gibson murder, someone (Camps) was convicted of strangling her and mainly on the strength of urine stains in her bed, though she had been throw from the porthole of the S.S Durban. 2.How did this clever drunken fellow partially strangle his victims but manage to leave no bruising or any signs of strangulation on the right side of Strides neck? Best Wishes E.D
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 04:46 am
Hi Leanne, I have been informed that Chloroform can leave very slight traces of 'burning' (for want of a better word) if it comes into contact with the skin tissues.
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 05:10 am
The first four victims were asphyxiated from behind. The killer placed his left hand over victim's nose and mouth.
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 07:36 am
G'day, Reading the book: 'Forensic Clues To Murder' I came across this: 'Chloroform belongs to the poison goup acids and alkalis, which are corrosive and usually burn the mouth'. Two pages later it tells of the murder case in 1886, of Edwin Bartlett: 'a huge quantity of chloroform being found in his stomach. But there was no trace of any burns to the mouth or gullet. She (his wife) was acquitted on this count'. LEANNE
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 07:44 am
G'day, SPELLING CORRECTION: Chloroform belongs to the group of poisons known as 'acids and alkalis',.... Leanne
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 09:32 am
Chloroform does burn if it stays in contact for a reasonable amount of time, but it is easily administered with out burning the skin or the mucosa. The doctors were unsure how the women were rendered unconscious, the strongest opinion was partial asphyxiation. Had they been asphyxiated into unconsciousness, bruising of two types would have been found on the neck: petechial and the ordinary type. Severance of the skin would not remove this bruising and many other signs would have appeared. A fracture of the delicate hyoid bone at the base of the tongue, the cornua easily crushes with pressure. They were indeed asphyxiated because a chloroform mask was held over the face blocking the exchange of oxygen and carbon-dioxide in the alvioli membranes. I would like to ask some questions again, because up till now they remain completely unanswered. Why was Polly's dress up in the first place, and why was it up so high that neither Cross or Paul could pull it down? Why was Annie's left hand resting on the chest, Why were her feet resting on the out steps of her lace up boots and the toes pointing down. Why did Strides attacker not look around before attacking her. Why was Strides right hand resting on her chest, how did she get the bruising under and over her clavicles. What was the noise heard my Fanny it sounded just like the measure tramp of a policeman. Why did Liz have sweets in her left hand. Why were some scattered on the floor when those in her hand were double wrapped. Why was the back of Katherines dress up behind the knees when the killer had ripped it open right down the front i.e if you have exposed her whole body why lift the dress behind the knees. Why was Katherines right leg flexed at the hip. Would a killer stop to scribe the Goulstone Street graffito. (I will answer this one myself) Not usually, but one that stopped to scribe delicate triangles on Katherines face and eyelids certaily would. Why is the word blamed on line four of the graffiti, written as: B lamed. Why did the skin on Mary's calf not contract after the killer stabbed into it. Why did the killer light a fire in Marys room? Many more, but I have no time to ask at present.
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 01:02 pm
Sorry, Leanne, but chloroform is neither acidic nor alkaline. The credibility of any reference that says that must be suspected; any chemistry student would know this. Chloroform is a chlorinated hydrocarbon of formula CHCl3. However, left in contact with water long enough, it will hydrolyze to a weak solution of hydrochloric acid. Chemical burns from chloroform are certainly possible, as it is a remarkable solvent of fats and oils, but this is not to be confused with true corrosive burns such as from caustic soda (lye) or sulfuric acid, both of which will cause tremendous tissue damage in a very short time. IMHO, the chance of the victims being overcome by JTR with chloroform is miniscule. Consider yourself lucky that Melvin Harris is not a chemical engineer. :-) WTM
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 04:16 pm
Let me answer these questions myself, I would appreciate any criticism . 1. Firstly, the residents of Bucks Row heard no noise because Polly was attacked in Browns Stable yard and then carried to the Row. If you read Detectives Spratling and Helsons reports they tell us that the killer had access to Pollys abdomen via unfastened buttons low down on her dress, therefore the killer had no reason to lift the dress to access the abdomen. Polly's dress was actually up on her thighs because the person lifting the lower torso first lifted the hems of her long Victorian Dress and petticoats, this enabled him to grip under the knees and pick up the legs. On carrying her from Browns stable yard to Bucks Row, the dress and petticoats fell down between her legs, and as they laid Polly down she sat on the hem; and thus the dress would not come down! 2. Annie Chapman's left hand was resting on her chest because the man lifting the upper torso put his arms under Annie's armpits and then gripped over her shoulders. This action forced both her arms onto the chest; one arm fell off on putting her down. Chloroform makes the body floppy therefore on lifting Annies legs in the same fashion as he lifted Polly (under the knees) he stood between her legs, and her feet dropped down and out as he lifted the legs. They stayed there on putting her down! 3. Stride's attacker had no need to look around to check if a policeman was coming, because the attack was planned to happen when a lone person came down the street, between lambs patrol. Liz had her right hand on her chest because her upper torso was lifted in the same fashion as Annie's, again one arm fell off on putting her down. 4.The man carrying Liz's upper torso caused the bruising under and over her clavicles with the heel of his hand, (under) the collarbone, and finger tips, (over) the collarbone, because he lifted and carried her in the same way he lifted Polly and Annie. 5.The echo of two men carrying Liz sounded just like the measured tramp of a policeman to Fanny because the men carrying her had their feet in unison to maintain balance. Liz was lying skew-whiff to the right wall because the man walking behind stayed off to one side in order to see ahead. 6.Liz had sweets in her hand because the killers were afraid a Dog or the police might notice the smell on her face. Then as the building was searched the police would notice the same smell in the composition rooms where the chloroform was stored for printing. Liz had two blood smears on the back of her right hand because the killer wiped his knife on her chest to clean it, but in the dark, he could not see that her hand was lying there. 7. There was no reason to lift Katherines dress to access any part of her body because the clothes were ripped right up the middle in the front. The dress was infact up behind her knees because the killer lifted the lower hem of the dress to grip under her knees, as he did Polly and Annie. By the way Stride's dress was up too! 9.Katherine's right hip was flexed because she was carried in the same fashion as Polly and Annie but she was laid down sideways. 10.' Blamed is written as 'B lamed' because it is part of a code 'lamed is the letter 'l' of the Hebrew alphabet. 11.Marys skin did not contract because the wound was made with the hatchet on the table. 12.The smelly volatile chloroform was carried in an American oil cloth, the killer discarded it before leaving the room. It burns like petrol, the chimney sucked oxygen from the hole in the window right through the room, making a short but fierce fire from dry clothing place there by the killers. But they gave no thought to the kettle, it was empty of water therefore the the joints expanded and contracted very quickly. When the fire died down, the same draft cooled the joints and they contracted too quickly they buckled and the spout fell off.
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 06:16 pm
Sorry; chloroform does NOT burn "like petrol" either. In fact, it may be used as a fire extinguisher for many combustibles. It IS smelly and volatile however, so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Even though it may evaporate, the odor will linger for long afterwards, especially when in a porous media like cloth. Take it from someone who used to work in a plant that made the stuff. Sorry folks, but chloroform and the 'lamed' Hebrew postulation are 100% diary territory. None for me, thanks. WTM
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 06:27 pm
G'day Ed, I just read that chloroform easily evaporates into the air. You have mentioned the reason you believe sweets were found in Stride's hand. Fair enough...they may not have known all the facts about it in 1888, but maybe that's why no one detected the use of chloroform or even thought it possible? I am reading more than one book on this. I am searching the internet! LEANNE
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 10:09 pm
Hi, ECarter, Many assumptions are made in the Jack the Ripper case. One is that the slayer authored the Goulston Street graffiti. It is sometimes ignored and forgotten that at the time of the killings opinion was divided upon whether the scrawl had been written by the murderer or whether the graffiti was old. Officer Walter Dew felt the torn apron was tossed down near the message by coincidence and Inspector Swanson suggested that the writing appeared not to be recent. But because the story that the graffiti was the work of the ripper is compelling, this theory now is considered by many fact. Rich
Author: Jon Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 10:53 pm
Ed If you dont mind me saying.....you've scripted the whole thing to suit your theory. Nothing wrong with that in a work of fiction, but you are proposing answers to your own questions. And I think (personally) that the questions you raised got no replies because they were thought to be insignificant questions. I certainly did not see them as significant in any way. We could discuss any number of answers to those questions, none of which require two killers. It's your perspective and you are quite welcome to make your case but dont be surprised if you are in a minority. Regards, Jon
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 01:08 am
One more time. Polly Nichols dress was not, "up so high that neither Cross or Paul could pull it down." Charles Cross had stated, "The woman's legs were uncovered." (From The East London Observer, 8 September 1888.) This seems hardly, "up so high" that we should attach some hidden meaning to it. Here is what Carter is going on about, "Charles A. Cross: The other man (Robert Paul) tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down." (From The Illustrated police News, 3 September 1888.) Yet, Carter does not tell us what Robert Paul had to say about it. Paul had stated, "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down." (From The Daily Telegraph, 18 September 1888.) Very mysterious. Annie Chapmans feet were not "resting on the out steps of the lace up boots and the toes pointing down." Dr Phillips was quite clear about this, "...the deceased lying in the yard on her back, on the left hand of the steps that lead from the passage. The head was about 6in in front of the level of the bottom step, and the feet were towards a shed at the end of the yard. The left arm was across the left breast, and the legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards." (From, The Daily telegraph, 14 September 1888.) Here, Carter seems to take the phrase, "the feet were towards a shed" and twist this to mean that Chapmans toes were pointing down. Hard to do as we can all plainly see that her feet were lying flat on the ground. Chapmans toes would have to be buried in the ground to be pointing down. According to the inquest testimony, Dr Blackman, in answer to a direct question from a member of the jury, stated that he could not tell how recently the marks to the shoulders had been inflicted. "The Foreman: Did you notice any marks or bruises about the shoulders? Dr Blackman: They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure, but subsequently they became very evident. They were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion. Each shoulder was about equally marked. A Juror: How recently might the marks have been caused? Dr Blackman: That is rather difficult to say." (From The Daily telegraph, 6 October 1888.) The Coroner mentioned this point agin when he summed up for the jury, "...Possibly the pressure marks may have had a less tragical origin, as Dr. Blackwell says it was difficult to say how recently they were produced...." (From The Times, 24 October 1888.) Also, There was no "bruising under and over her clavicles." as Carter claims but did the doctor have any idea as to how the marks were caused? "A juryman. - Do you know how these marks were likely to have been caused? Witness. - By two hands pressing on the shoulders." (From The Times 6 October 1888.) What we seem to have here are some bruises of an indeterminate age which point to someone pressing Elizabeth Stride down, not, as Carter fantasizes, from two people carrying the body. Fanny Mortimer claimed that she went outside after hearing the measured tread of a policeman and that she was outside between 12:30 and 1:00, therefore this was P.C. Smith passing on his beat at12:30. If, as Carter thinks, Fanny Mortimer heard the noise at roughly 12:50 then she seems to have lied to reporters about being outside for the entire half hour and this is perhaps why she was not called as a witness to the inquest, she was an unreliable witness who seemingly expanded her story or made the whole thing up. There is no evidence that the packet of cachous was "double wrapped" and that somehow this has created a deep mystery as to how some of them had spilled onto the passage to Dutfield yard. If you read the inquest testimonies with care you will see that Dr. Phillips was one of the last witnesses to arrive at the scene of the murder. No witness who arrived before Phillips mentioned cachous spilled in the gutter. Position of the body, what she had in her hand, amount of blood and direction of flow of blood were all noticed by several witnesses who had obviously looked at, glanced at, and searched the ground around Stride. None, except Phillips, mention spilled cachous. Dr. Blackwell gave his testimony first, on 2 October 1888, Dr. Phillips gave his testimony on the next day, 3 October. It was then that he, and only he, mentions spilled cachous. Dr. Phillips was recalled by the Coroner on 6 October and in answer to a couple of questions, again claimed that cachous were spilled in the gutter, however, this claim was refuted by the very next witness. Dr. Blackburn, also recalled, almost immediately pointed out that it was he, who had spilled the cachous and that they had nothing to do with the murder. This is what Dr Blackman had to say, "I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand." (From The Daily Telegraph, 6 October 1888.) Apparently E. Carter believes that Dr Blackman is lying about this because he finds it easier to believe in a mysterious conspiracy rather than the facts. Catherine Eddowes's clothing was not ripped open "right down the front". Again, this is not based on any facts surrounding the murders. Some of Eddowes clothing were cut but her clothes were not ripped open to expose the body. This is from the official police list of Catherine Eddowes clothing, Chintz Skirt...Jagged cut 6½ inches long from waistband, left side of front... Brown Linsey Dress Bodice,...clean cut bottom of left side, 5 inches long from right to left. Grey Stuff Petticoat, white waistband, cut 1½ inch long, thereon in front,... Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt, Jagged cut 10 ½ inches long in front of waistband downward... Very old Ragged Blue Skirt,...jagged cut 10 ½ inches long, through waist band... White Calico Chemise,...apparently torn thus in middle of front. (It is unknown whether the murderer tore it or if it was already torn.) Mens White Vest,...torn at back...(It is unknown whether the murderer tore it or if it was already torn.) As anyone can see, the killer did not slash open Eddowes's clothing in order to expose the body but if more proof is needed, here is what Dr Frederick Gordon Brown had to say about the body in situ, "The clothes were drawn up above the abdomen, the thighs were naked, left leg extended in a line with the body, the abdomen was exposed, right leg bent at the thigh and knee....The upper part of the dress was pulled open a little way. The abdomen was all exposed...." (From the official reports of the inquest into the death of Catherine Eddowes.) Wolf.
Author: E Carter Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 07:45 am
Jon, as I wrote earlier Polly's dress was up on her thighs and neither Cross or Paul could not pull it down, we know this from testimony of the next person to find her. The fact that her dress was up is very significant; as are all my points. The position of the body is of huge importance and this is why today you will see chalk marks around any murder scene and why photographs are taken from every angle. I remember reading about a murder committed in 1965, 84 photos of the murder scene were taken. If a woman is either knocked over or falls over and she arrives on the floor with the dress up on her thighs, it is rational to think she may have been sexually abused after she landed. But if the dress will not come down we must ask why! The story concerning her dress begins is in the Star on September 3rd and can be followed to the end of September. Victims of assault do not fall over with both legs slumped out and open and bent at the knees. However, they would arrive in this position if the legs are laid down in whilst already positioned thus. If I ignore Woolf you must excuse me. On his first post, directed towards my my observations, he said there was no hint of dogs until after the double event, and he was proved totally wrong. He then claimed, and still claims, that Fanny Mortimer was standing at her door from 1230-0100. Yet all the evidence refutes this! On reading Paul's statement he does not bother to read the testimony of the next person who found Polly's body. Which 'is' the next logical step in discovering the position of the dress after Cross and Paul had left her. I have read what the doctors said and indeed Blackwell did spill the sweets when he passed them to Phillips, but on reading all the statements carefully you would know some were on the ground before this occurred. Because someone opined that the bruises on Liz Strides clavicles were made by two hands pushing her down, it does not mean they were! It means that the person who said it simply could not think of a more rational answer at the time. But someone has to then ask what was Liz doing whilst he forced her down, and with both his hands on her shoulders. Woolfe quotes a statement concerning Eddows, but ignores the fact that two sketches were made of her in Mitre Square. In sum, he carefully reads my post( which is very flattering) then rushes to Phillip Sugdens book and tries to find something that will try to disprove what I have written. I wonder has he has actually been to a records office himself? Therefore, concerning the dress, I suggest he go again to Sugden and read page 38 line 14. Best Wishes ED
Author: Jesse Flowers Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 12:41 am
Hello all I was reading a column from Nov. 18, 1888 by DAGONET (G.R Sims) in which I was surprised to see him refer to Marie Jeanette being accompanied home by " an elderly, respectable looking man with the appearance of a clergyman." This sounds remarkably like the description of the man who appeared in Emily Matthews' shop. Does anyone know where Sims got his information from? He was known to have high police contacts (e.g. Littlechild). Could they have been the same man? Jesse
Author: Dave Sceats Friday, 04 May 2001 - 02:57 pm
HELP....... I read in some books that MARY was pregnant, was this the case, or are we talking about more muddy waters. Also fact or fiction cloths burning in the fire place. Many Thanks Dave
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 12:11 am
Dave - The rumour of Mary Kelly's pregnancy was present almost from the moment of her death. Until the rediscovery of Dr Thomas Bond's post-mortem notes, which made no mention of pregnancy, the question was open. It is not now, although I have heard some argue that just because the pregnancy was not mentioned in Bond's report does not mean she was pregnant - perhaps the police were holding back a clue? However, unless we are formulating some fantastic conspiracy theory, I see no reason why we should not take Dr Bond's notes as given, and believe that MJK was NOT pregnant at the time of her death. With regards to clothing, I quote to you from the man himself, FG Abberline, testifying during the Kelly inquest: ". . .I have since gone through the ashes in the grate & found nothing of consequence except that articles of womans [sic] clothing had been burnt which I presume was for the purpose of light. . ." The "clothing" was likely as not a black crepe bonnet, and possibly a boy's shirt, a child's white petticoat and / or two men's shirts, all left in the room by Maria Harvey. As ever, CMD
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 05:53 am
G'day Dave and Chris, Hey, maybe the rumour that Mary was pregnant, came about because the police held-back the information that her heart was missing. I mean maybe a reporter heard that "a certain organ was missing", and let his imagination run wild! Leanne!
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 07:09 am
That's a very interesting conjecture, Leanne, as I seem to remember that one newspaper report, following the original extravagant accounts with entrails hanging from the wall and missing organ/s specifically stated that no organs were missing. This in itself coloured my reading of Bond's ambiguous 'heart absent' until Stewart Evans pointed out the existence of his assistant's report which conclusively shows that the heart had been taken away. While we have no direct evidence of the police in 1888 deliberately withholding evidence or information, we may infer it from Hutchinsons' quite definite word 'Jewish-looking' in his signed statement still on the MEPO files, and the universal press publication of that as 'foreign-looking'. The source for the press quotation of Hutchinson's statement must have been a release of some kind from either the police or the Home Office. And other correspondence on the files and statements made to the press from high police sources indicate that after the Leather Apron scare, the top brass really were anxious to minimise the risk of antiSemitism being aggravated by the case. All the best Martin F
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 06:52 pm
G'day Martin, I get this information from Bruce Paley's book: 'The 'People' reported that: 'no portion of the murdered womans body was taken away by the murderer.' Both 'The Times' and the 'Daily Telegraph' insisted: 'We are enabled to state that notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing'. Leanne!
Author: Martin Fido Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 06:06 am
Hi Leanne, Yes, indeed. Those reports were what coloured my original interpretation of Bond's ambiguous 'heart absent' to mean merely abstracted from the thorax. But Bond's assistant Dr Charles Hebbert - (you'll find bits about and by him through the index of Evans and Skinner's 'Ultimate Source Book') - also wrote a report which states explicitly that the heart had been taken away. Most unfortunately this was not available on the files reprinted in the 'Sourcebook', and has to be tracked down in an article in the now defunct journal 'The Criminologist'. With all good wishes, Martin F
Author: Simon Owen Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 04:26 pm
Does anyone have any evidence to support the following statement by Andy and Sue Parlour from ' The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper ' p.272? : " In the summer of 1888 , Mary Jane was claiming to be pregnant by the Prince of Wales " Simon
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 04:52 pm
Hi, Simon: The statement that you quote by Andy and Sue Parlour in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripperp. 272), "In the summer of 1888, Mary Jane was claiming to be pregnant by the Prince of Wales" sounds very much like something made up by a supporter of the Royal conspiracy theory to bolster their theory. I don't believe there is anything in any of the press reports or the official files to support this allegation that MJK was making such a claim in the summer of 1888. But then of course the conspiracists will say, "Of course there's no evidence of it! It was hushed up!" So we go round and round and round. Best regards Chris George
Author: David Cohen Radka Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 08:28 pm
I've just read the last 1 1/2 month's postings on this board. What a pandemonium of bizarre philosophies! How could anyone coming upon this not retch like a coyote? Please, let's undertake minimally decent standards in posting, lest the most draconian censorship be required! Fraternally, David
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Monday, 07 May 2001 - 01:00 pm
Simon, it is apparent from a quick re-read of the Parlour's entry in The Mammoth Book of JtR, that they get their information from John Wilding's book, Jack the Ripper Revealed. Here is the pertinent passage: "It is my contention that during this disturbed period, Mary Kelly, an East End Catholic prostitute, selected a reliable contact (to be discussed more fully later) [Druitt], and announced that she was carrying the Prince of Wales's child." Jack the Ripper Revealed, page 118. Wilding gives no hard evidence to support this statement, nor any to support his overall theory that M.J. Druitt and J.K. Stephen were the co-murderers. Wolf.
Author: sean patrick day Friday, 06 July 2001 - 05:28 pm
Good evening from a rather humid evening in North West England. It has been a great many years since I last pondered on the crimes of our 'light hearted friend', but the discovery of the Maybrick diary has, I must confess, wetted my interest once again. As I have not read any books (apart from the diary)since Peter Underwoods book so long ago, I must ask your forgiveness for any ignorence I may display regarding new evidence being found in the numerous publications that have sprung up in the intervening years. Anyway, my reason for posting this is to inquire if anybody out there has a true plan of Miller's Court, showing any waterpumps, privies etc. Also, a plan of number 13 would be most helpful. I thankyou all in advance, and trust that this shall be the start of some most interesting discusions.
Author: graziano Friday, 13 July 2001 - 05:29 am
Hello Sean, since nobody answers you and I have some time I will try to do it but take in consideration that I am not an expert on the case. Try also to forgive my english but as you can guess by my name is not really my mother language. I do not know what you call a "true" plan but I remember there is an excellent one in Bruce Paley s book about the Ripper "The simple truth". I do not think anybody can swear on this plan or on whatevers other plans should they exist but if you go on the Board : Ripper victims/Specific victims/MJ Kelly/Site of 13 Miller s Court there has been a fantastic discussion going on that can give you interesting hints and details ( there is also a wonderful photo posted by Chris George that alone deserves the visit to that board . Bye. Grayiano
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 13 July 2001 - 10:15 am
Hi, Sean: Graziano is correct that a plan of Miller's Court taken from a contemporary newspaper is printed in Bruce Paley's book. From that plan, Philip Sugden for his book, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, derived a modern plan of the layout of the court and the murder room, 13 Miller's Court. The only plumbing evident in the plan is the water pump which was located outside in the court and at the side of the murder room. According to information recently posted by Viper, a description of the court written a few years before the murder places the public privies at the far end of the court, i.e., the end of the court furthest from Dorset Street. This location conforms with the usual layout of the poor courts in the slum areas of England at this date. The photograph Graziano refers to and that I posted on the "Site of 13 Miller's Court" thread is of privies in a court in Liverpool which would have been very similar to those found in Miller's Court in 1888. Best regards Chris George P.S., Graziano, I looked for my copy of Bruce Paley's book this morning but failed to find it. As soon as I do locate the book, I will look at the illustration of Buck's Row that you mention and comment upon it.
Author: Christopher George Ray Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 08:27 am
Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim at all? Is it just me or does this final killing break with Jack's usual modus operandi? She was killed inside - unlike all the others. She was literally butchered - unlike all the others. He took his time - unlike all the others. And what about the missing key? Did Jack take it from her or was the killer well known to Mary Kelly (the boyfriend for instance)and the key given to him. Something doesn't quite add up - Chris
Author: graziano Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 09:40 am
Hello Chris George, just a very rapid thought about the words "inside/outside". You say the others were killed outside. It is obviously true (at least it seems to be). But even excluding Martha Tabram (who was not found outside but on a landing of a staircase) what is the similarity of the modus operandi (speaking only about the site where the body has been found) between Mary Nicholls and Kate Eddowes (whose bodies have been found on the open street) and Annie Chapman ( in a private yard ). Can t we say that to kill someone in a private yard or in the open street is as much different as to kill someone in the open street or his home. Concerning the word "butchery". Mary Kelly was butchered. Yes. Annie Chapman was not ??????? What word would you use for Kate Eddowes ? I do see only marginals differences (even with Elizabeth Stride). Bye. Graziano. PS: Have you found your Paley s Book ?
Author: Simon Owen Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 01:36 pm
Huh ??? Is this Chris George posting under another name ? Or a different Chris George ? Or someone else ? Please help ! Simon
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 01:57 pm
Hi, all: Just to clarify, the posting by Christopher George Ray on Saturday, July 14, 2001 at 08:27 am was not by this long-time poster! CGR must be a newcomer, methinks. Indeed, it looks as if we have another Christopher George with us, as if the Christopher-Michael DiGrazia - Christopher T. George confusion is not enough! Well, welcome Christopher George Ray and I hope your visits here prove fruitful. Best regards Chris George P.S. Please note that my byline when I post on this site will always read "Christopher T George." Thanks.