Author: Jane T.
Thursday, 12 August 1999 - 04:03 am |        |
| Is the Women's Refuge building still standing? |
Author: Diana Comer
Thursday, 12 August 1999 - 05:56 am | |
| Could the "crucifix" be a place where a drop of blood splashed up, started to run down, hit a horizontal crack in the wall, spread horizontally for a short distance and then continued its downward course? |
Author: Wolf
Thursday, 12 August 1999 - 01:40 pm | |
Jane, the refuge still stands at 50 Crispin Street and is still run by the Sisters of Mercy as a shelter for homeless alcoholics.
Wolf. |
Author: Christopher George
Thursday, 12 August 1999 - 03:00 pm | |
Hi, Wolf:
Do you know anything about the supposed uniqueness of the crucifix used by the Sisters of Mercy?
Thanks
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 12 August 1999 - 04:15 pm | |
Hi y'all.
Johnno posted on Casebook great photos of his London trip. Go to Main Menu-> Victorian London-> Photographs-> Whitechapel Photographs->. Click on street names on the map to see the various murder sites.
In the background of 2 photos of the Dorset Street area is the Providence Row Night Refugee & Convent on Crispin Street. Is this the same place y'all mention above?
(JOHNNO: The pic of rain slicked cobblestones in Mitre Square is fabulous!)
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Wolf
Thursday, 12 August 1999 - 11:50 pm | |
Sorry, C-G, I hadn't even heard about the crucifix until recently and I have wondered why it hasn't seen the light of day. All I know about the refuge is the address.
Wolf. |
Author: Christopher George
Friday, 13 August 1999 - 04:01 am | |
Thanks, Wolf:
The possible relationship of the Sisters of Mercy - Mary Kelly - the crucifix - James Maybrick - the Diary seems to bear some further investigation. Is it just another nonprovable, tantalizing titbit thrown up to "strengthen" the nonprovable and all too shaky provenance for the Diary?
Chris George |
Author: Wolf
Friday, 13 August 1999 - 11:17 am | |
Yes.
Wolf. |
Author: Kieran
Saturday, 14 August 1999 - 03:05 am | |
Ashling-With reference to your message,yes this is the place we're all talking about!!
Incidentally I read somewhere (A Ripper book)that an elderly nun belonging to the convent was once interviewed for a JTR TV programme she is supposedly to have said"If it wasn't for that Kelly woman none of the murders would ever have taken place."
Another tantalising link perhaps?
Could I have your thoughts please C-G!
Slainte!
Kieran |
Author: Christopher George
Saturday, 14 August 1999 - 10:16 am | |
Hi, Kieran:
Stephen Knight, "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" (Chicago: Academy Publishers, 1986), p. 148:
"All Ripper roads lead to Dorset Street. Dorset Street leads inexorably back to Cleveland Street. An elderly nun at the Roman Catholic convent in Harewood Street, W.1., only a few minutes' walk from Cleveland Street, had an interesting story to tell when the BBC interviewed her in 1973. In 1915 she had been a novice at Providence Row, directly opposite the pub where Kelly and Chapman had rubbed shoulders daily. She clearly remembered an old nun who had been there at the time of the Ripper murders telling her that 'if it had not been for the Kelly woman, none of the murders would have happened.'"
Yes, another tantalizing link. But what, if anything, does it mean? Well, first, we are dealing with hearsay, an elderly nun remembering in 1973 something she was supposedly told in 1915, nearly sixty years before, and itself nearly thirty years after autumn 1888.
Plenty of people in the East End, and throughout London, the United Kingdom, and the world, had opinions on the case. The elderly nun in 1973 is remembering something told to her by an old nun who had been around in 1888 and who had an opinion on the case. . . . Not exactly evidence is it?
Chris George |
Author: JohnLennox
Wednesday, 29 September 1999 - 01:11 am | |
to the gross poet
good on you for repeating the beatles, if you pass that off as your own poetry then you are compleatly without talent
thought, your "idea" (i need a (cruci)fix) is is a good one |
Author: JackisBack
Wednesday, 29 September 1999 - 10:54 am | |
| Cross, smosh, you can clearly see in the picture above that there is a door behind the bed, perhaps closed off, but the supposed cross aligns perfectly with where the door opening would be. It is either a water stain, leak, or just a crack in the plaster which was used to close off the door. |
Author: Nicky
Friday, 08 October 1999 - 05:45 am | |
The crucifix was presented in 1994 as evidence finally proving the diary as genuine.
It was a four-inch silver and black cross bearing the figure of Christ and a skull and crossbones decoration below it in silver.
It was claimed that even today the Sisters of Mercy at the Providence Row convent wear a smaller version of it.
The crucifix belonged to Anne Barrett who stated that both the crucifix and diary were given to her by her father in about 1975. He had been given them by his stepmother on the death of his own father in 1950.
Anne Barrett stated she had kept the crucifix but had handed the diary to Devereaux to give to her husband.
She said - "I suppose I knew it was inevitable that one day the truth would be revealed. I never showed it to Mike. Why? I honestly don't know. I thought of giving him the diary so he could make use of it as the basis for a book. I knew if I gave it to him he would be badgering my dad for details and by this time he and my father were beginning to irritate each other. So I came up with the plan of giving Mike the diary via someone else. That way he would not connect it with me."
She also stated that she did not know how her family came into possession of the diary and the crucifix.
The link between the Grahams and Maybrick was 'unearthed' by video producer Paul Feldman who had bought the video rights to the diary.
It was claimed that Mary Kelly had and worked at the Providence Row convent run by the Sisters of Mercy. She had then turned to prostitution.
The Ripper was in the habit of taking mementoes from the victims after murdering them.
Did Mary Kelly own a crucifix? Did the Ripper take it?
Sotheby's were apparently shown the crucifix and stated it was about 100 years old.
Feldman stated - "The crucifix tells us that there's a clear link between the diary and Whitechapel." |
Author: Picture
Friday, 08 October 1999 - 05:54 am | |
The crucifix -
 |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 09 October 1999 - 01:56 am | |
It's nice to see a picture of the crucifix BUT:
What real evidence do we have concerning it. As far as I can see the initial story comes frome Anne Graham who has, to put it mildly, been economical with the truth in the past. Even her supporters have admitted this. So here comes the crucifix with just the right sort of story: it's presented as having been in Billy Graham's possession along with the diary and to have been handed to Anne about the same time. It's other people namely Feldman and Fairclough who make claims for it as being associated with Providence Row. So if someone comes up with proof that it is contemporary with JtR and belonged to the Providence Row Nuns then Anne can use it as "proof" that Maybrick was Jack and the crucifix was a souvenir. If it's proved false: nothing to do with the Nuns and made post 1888 then Anne is in the clear. Perfect, isn't it?
I would however like to see some authorative proof either way like perhaps a statement by Providence Row rather than a remark attributed to Sotheby's as to its age. Perhaps a statement by a recognised expert in theological artifacts might be worthwhile.
Peter |
Author: Kieran
Monday, 25 October 1999 - 09:33 am | |
Some good points Peter!! It's looks like the discussion I started as opened a real can of worms!
Nicky-What were the sources you used to compose your message?
Regards
Kieran |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 12:32 am | |
Hi all,
As MJK was;
i) Probably Irish descent
she;
ii) was probably catholic
iii) could therefore have possibly worn a crucifix
She was;
iv) a poverty-stricken girl with little or no hope
v) would probably have flogged such an evidently expensive artifact a long time before her death and only maybe bought a cheap one.
vi) would have had a crucifix over the bed-head if she had been so religious as to not do v)
To produce a crucifix and to claim it was MJK's and therefore Maybrick was Jack does not convince me (and most others) at all. As next someone will produce a vintage roll of BR-toilet paper and claim that was mayBRick's used on the railway journey to bump off Kelly. (Claims that British Rail didn't exist then will be met with the claim that trains didn't have toilets then either.)
The Maybrick diary, friends, is an 'impudent fake' (Sugden) and I have to agree with that, crucifix, toilet paper, crosses, nuns, 'FMs' or from Jack initialed piss-pots notwithstanding.
Where is there any evidence that MJK 'rubbed shoulders with Chapmann'? Which Chapamann (at least three)? I have heard of the old story that Kelly stayed with nuns as she arrived from Cardif, and, so I've heard, it is a story that seems to be embedded in that order's Folklore. It may be true, or partly true, of course, but why then should that have caused Jack?
What had the nunnery, or at least MJK's possible residence there, to do with at least Nicholls, Chapmann, Eddowes and possibly Stride? The old Knight poppycock over this theme convinces me even less than some crucifix. There is no evidence anywhere that I know that suggests that they knew each other.
Having lived in Soho myself, I can say that I didn't even get to know my neighbour, let alone the tart over the street. Whitehall wouldn't have been all that different for such as me then (No, I didn't have a TV, or even a radio then, my evenings were spent boozing in the pubs with the boys and chasing young ladies just like many did in 1888. I just didn't chop them up. Sacrilige!)
If, then, we take it that the victims had no serious knowledge of each other, any connection between Jack and the Nuns lies in a shakey tale that Kelly live with the Sisters and served in a tobacconist's(?) while or then whoring all over London.
Convincing?
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: John
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 02:21 am | |
| Well said Bob, and probably correct on every point you make. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 05:15 am | |
Hi, all:
Since the Diary
1) has no provenance that would tie it to Maybrick
2) has handwriting that does not match Maybrick's
3) has facts in it that could have been obtained from modern books on the Maybrick and Ripper cases, including apparently some incorrect facts about the Whitechapel murders,
all it has going for it is the belief that it MAY have been written by James Maybrick. What better then than to produce a crucifix, a relic associated with a religious order, an artifact that in itself denotes faith, as if it would bolster the untenable story that James Maybrick is Jack the Ripper?
Chris George |
Author: Alan
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 05:33 am | |
Quite right Chris, and if it hadn't received the imprimatur of certain well-known Ripper authors in the first place it would never have got off the ground.
They have a lot to answer for. |
Author: Laurel
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 11:10 am | |
| Sadly, even without names of well-known Ripper authors being cited or involved, the Maybrick diary and its follow-on books would probably have gotten well off the ground. People are just too tempted by anything that a) mentions a conspiracy, b) invokes a famous/infamous name as being involved, and c) offers the fertile ground of "what about this -- why didn't so-and-so do this, hmmmm?". Common sense, like courtesy, is in short supply. I'm interested in the provenance of the Maybrick Diary, should it ever be traced, but other than that - I'm happy to leave it lie. So to speak. |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 11:31 am | |
Hi Laurel,
I'm afraid that you are not completely wrong with your remarks about courtesy and common sense, although I can say that we fortunantly have more than our fair share of such on the board.
The whole diary thing would be tedious in the extreme, though, if there weren't some dissedents. However, the first diary sentence says it all. Another FAMOUS playwrite started one of his pieces in similar manner;
Now is the winter of my discontent...
Nice bit about the lie..
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Laurel
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 12:25 pm | |
| Hello Bob C - I agree; most posters to the boards are remarkably even-tempered (compared to my limited experience in reading other open Internet forums). Congratulations to Stephen for maintaining this! Yrs, L |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 12:28 pm | |
Hi, Bob:
I was not aware that James Maybrick, or rather the James Maybrick wannabe who wrote the Diary, was a "great playwright." But you are right about the beginning of the Diary. As we know, the photograph album or scrapbook in which the so-called Diary is written has some missing pages at the front, so the narrative begins in midsentence. How much is missing? Probably not much if any.
". . . what they have in store for them they would stop this instant. But do I desire that? my answer is no. They will suffer just as I. I will see to that. Received a letter from Michael perhaps I will visit him. Will have to come to some sort of decision regards the children. I long for peace of mind but sincerely believe that that will not come until I have sought my revenge on the whore and the whore master."
Actually, Bob, I think Shakespeare's words are "Now is the winter of our discontent..." rather than "Now is the winter of my discontent..." but maybe you meant to misquote the opening lines of "Richard III." Certainly, just as effectively as Shakespeare quickly revealed the satanic character Richard of Gloucester plotting his machinations, whomever wrote the Diary just as quickly establishes the scenario for Jack's evil deeds.
Chris George |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 27 October 1999 - 12:05 am | |
Hi CG,
Yes, indeed. Also Play'write'. (He does like his little joke.-Bah.) Willy S did write 'our' which was correct because nasty Hunchback Gloucester was at least of aspiring royal stock.
Sometimes when I look over some of my past posts, I see I have to thank you all for your patience with me.
The bit about another 'great' playwright was unconcious, however, and certainly wrong. Richard III was on German Television a few weeks ago, thank heavens also in original tone, which prompted my doodlings.
Nice to hear from you, CG.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 27 October 1999 - 12:13 am | |
Hi CG,
Yes, indeed. Also Play'write'. (He does like his little joke.-Bah.) Willy S did write 'our' which was correct because nasty Hunchback Gloucester was at least of aspiring royal stock.
Sometimes when I look over some of my past posts, I see I have to thank you all for your patience with me.
The bit about another 'great' playwright was unconcious, however, and certainly wrong. Richard III was on German Television a few weeks ago, thank heavens also in original tone, which prompted my doodlings.
Nice to hear from you, CG.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 27 October 1999 - 12:15 am | |
Whoops!
I wasn't shouting at you
Bob |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 27 October 1999 - 04:34 am | |
and.. for those who need it, Richard III was not on my TV himself, nor was he even standing by it. The play by Will. Shakespear was transmitted by NDR and was received by my television set.
Bob |
Author: D L Lewis
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 12:34 am | |
Hi everyone,
Just placing another post (my second in 12 months, and both done within 1/2 an hour!) I suppose I am not entirely convinced of the fakeness of the diary, though I admit the numerous problems involved with it. The earlier poster who said MJK would have sold the crucifix or put it over her bed has, I respectfully put, underestimated the social and cultural power of Irish Catholicism. MJK, if she had any problems was an alcoholic - although even this is doubtful. It is reasonable to assume that she was one fo the millions of part-time prostitutes (was it the Mammoth Book of JtR which explains the matriarchs going out for a few 'tricks' just to make ends meet occassionally?) Hence, money is not an everyday problem, but an occassional one. The power of her faith would prevent her hocking such an object of spiritual devotion, and she would keep it near her to protect herself from the consequences of the sins she would commit. This is of course, all conjecture, but based on certain knowledge of CAtholicism, Irishness and poverty. Had MJK been a smack addict (impossible then), the case for selling would have been much stronger.
Just for discussion... |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 03:33 am | |
| D L Lewis, I have to go to work now; however, let's begin to look at the photo concerning Mary Kelly's body, and in more detail than before, ED. First, look at the crease 3'' below Mary's anal sphincter what do you think caused the crease? ED. |
Author: Stephen Powell
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 06:48 am | |
Dear Ed,
The crease was caused by...um...well you know...
it could be...ah...
I give in. |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 05:43 pm | |
| LOOK, AND THINK; ABOUT THE CREASE! : LOOK AND THINK ED. |
Author: D L Lewis
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 12:38 am | |
Dear E Carter,
Thanks for your message - I haven't looked at the photo of MJK for a while (it gives me the willies - the strange fascination some people, ie me, have with JtR). Will have a look - what do you think is there? |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 08:11 am | |
This scene was supposed to give you the 'willies' it's called 'terrorism'! ED.
PS A late 'Happy birthday' to Graziano! ED |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 08:29 am | |
D L, ask yourself why has no one ever noticed that the white cloth laying over poor mary's lower abdomen is the sleeve from her night dress?
I have certainly discovered the nature of the killings and the killers. Hasen't anyone noticed something a liitle odd about these boards over the past few weeks? Who's missing? And Why? ED. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 09:55 am | |
Dear Ed,
CAROLINE? IVOR? THE THREE WISE MONKEYS?
Rosey :-) |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 10:48 am | |
Hello Ed, 
thank you my friend, may I offer you this last  .
It's the only thing left.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 11:06 am | |
| Ed, You crease me up! Rose, Never left still here simply observing comments. |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 11:08 am | |
Hey Ed,
I know I may be abusing and I know you already gave me a very appreciated birthday gift, but there is something that has been knocking on my mind for weeks now.
So, you are not compelled to answer.
I would not take any shade from it. Not at all.
But that's the question (you know, ask....and it will be given to you.):
.....Hassidic Jews....in Russia.
In Russia..........or in Ukraine ?
Bye. Graziano.   |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 02:46 pm | |
| Both Polish and Russian ED. |
