|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 6:17 pm: | 
|
Hi Folks,
Very good topic concerning whether or not we will ever know Jack's identity. I am of the opinion that we will not because there are several strong suspects therefore it will always be open to debate. I will say though that I do not believe that all of the evidence has been brought out in to the light. As an example, the second picture of Kelly is a relatively recent find. I believe there is more to come. I also think that among the suspects, we do have the killer and by deductive reasoning based on future scholarship, we may be able to narrow the list of suspects even more.
My two cents,
Rod |
Petra Zaagman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 1:44 pm: |
|
No, I don't think we'll ever know the Rippers identity.
Maybe that's better.
We would feel so empty..
what if the Ripper seems to be one of the suspects?
Some people would say: "see, told you it were him!" And others would say: "gee, I never considered him as being suspect.."
We would feel empty however..
And how about the possible ascendents of the Ripper? "Hey, did you hear the news today? It seems to be your great great grandfather was in fact the infamous Jack the Ripper!"
Stupid..
And ascendents of his victims.. what would THEY do??
And I don't think the spirits will ever be able to sleep peacefully.. |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 147
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 12:38 pm: |
|
>>I hereby come forward right now and categorically state that I know the truth.
Hmmm, yes but I kind of meant somebody new. We've been not believing you for ages!  |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Hi Mick,
I Never received your E mail, can you try again,
Thanks
Richard. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 9:30 pm: |
|
"Hmmm, yes but I kind of meant somebody new. We've been not believing you for ages!"
>>I can't let this situation stand. If I have been remiss to my fellow posters, please tell me how I can make it up to you. I will do my best to do so. Thank you.
Saddam |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 5:38 am: |
|
Leanne,
Please could you tell me how you came to the conclusion that MJK didn't have any children. It was rumored that she had a young boy staying with her in Millers Court, which I do find a bit strange but also that she was belived to have given birth back in Wales. That is if her story is to be belived. I just want to know how you can be so certain that this was a lie. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 382
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah,
This is one factor that Leanne, and I may disagree on, I believe that Kelly did have a boy, from her marriage to Davies, in wales, Aged about 8 years, we cannot dispute the fact that Barnett told the Star, She had a boy 7-8 living with her, also other comments , like 'She could not bear to see her son starving, also she sent him out to beg on the streets, also the famous her son was sent to a neighbours that night whilst she conducted business,, also Inspector Abberlines, [ dubious] that her son named Michael, was sent to Canada.
I happen to believe , albeit without evidence, that she was supporting a son whilst living with Barnett, if it was with his consent i cannot say.
I fail to see. why this has not been discussed intensely before,
There is so much evidence that a possibility that a boy existed, i feel that it is important issue.
Richard.
, |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 849
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 4:03 pm: |
|
G'day Sarah,
It was rumored in a newspaper report that Mary had a little boy. Remember we can't trust all newspaper reports? I remember someone pointing out that the child that appeared around Millers Court when her body was found, belonged to a neighbour. There was a strong motive behind a reporter inventing that story - to make Kelly's murder seem more horrific because she had a little life to fend for. This reporter could have spotted a little boy, seen him disapear into a neighbours place, and thought "Ohhh, that must be the victim's little boy......EXCLUSIVE!!!!"
Bruce Paley researched Barnett and Kelly for over ten years, found that Mary was married when she was 16, and that her husband died in an accident two years later. No where in his book did he mention Mary having a child, and none of Mary's friends ever stated anything about a child, so until something definate is found that's what I'll stick to! |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 850
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 4:13 pm: |
|
G'day Sarah,
Chris Scott should be able to find out if any children were born to Mary Kelly before she met Joe, as soon as he finds the marriage certificate!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 3:23 am: |
|
Hi,
There is no absolute proof of Kelly having a son, but the very fact That Barnett admitted that there was a son aged about 7years staying with her,is intresting to say the least.
Why would he state that to a star reporter, if he knew it was a complete falicy?.
Surely that would have been denied by all the residents of millers court, and would have put serious doubt on his reliability, and actually sanity,
I believe it is a strong possibility, that once the police became aware of a little boy involved, they put a block on any press reports concerning his existance, but not before the press released those reports.
I would have thought ,the authoritys would in these tragic circumstances, have protected the boys identity, as a sign of respect,and compassion.
Regards Richard. |
Alexander Chisholm
Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 9:40 am: |
|
Hi Richard
I can’t accept your statement: “we cannot dispute the fact that Barnett told the Star she had a boy 7-8 living with her.”
I know that at the end of a paragraph which begins, “To our reporter Barnett said,” the Star, 10 Nov. 1888, reported:
“On Thursday night he visited her between half-past seven and eight, and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend who was in the same position of life as herself. Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her.”
But this is not to say that ‘Barnett told the Star she had a boy’. The Times, 10 Nov. 1888, reported the same portion as follows:
“On Thursday night he visited her between half-past 7 and 8 and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend who was in the same position of life as herself.
Another account gives the following additional details:- Kelly had a little boy, aged about 6 or 7 years living with her, and latterly she had been in narrow straits, so much so that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself as she could not bear to see her boy starving.”
In fact, if you compare reports from the Star, which first appeared in the afternoon of 10 Nov. 1888, and the Times, which was on the streets a few hours before the Star went to press, the striking similarity suggests the Star simply reproduced substantial portions of the Times. As seen above the Times does not attribute the story of the boy to Barnett, and neither, I think, does the Star. As I see it, the Star merely fails to disassociate the final, and probably unconnected sentence from the rest of the Barnett paragraph.
For anyone wishing to make the comparison, the extracts from the Times of 10 Nov. 1888, which can be found in the Casebook Press section, should be considered alongside the following extract relating to the boy from the Star, 10 Nov. 1888:
“On Thursday night he visited her between half-past seven and eight, and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend who was in the same position of life as herself. Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her.
LAST SEEN ALIVE
There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, and associate of the deceased, who states that about half-past ten o’clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and
A MAN, RESPECTABLY DRESSED,
came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman home to her lodgings, and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbor’s house. About one o’clock in the morning a person living in the court opposite to the room occupied by the murdered woman heard her singing the song, “Sweet violets,” but this person is unable to say whether any one else was with her at that time. Nothing more was seen of the woman until yesterday morning, when, it is stated, the little boy was sent back into the house, and, the report goes, he was sent out subsequently on an errand by the man who was in the house with his mother. There is no direct confirmation of this statement.”
Best Wishes
alex
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Hi Alex,
I still believe that the possibility of a son exists, there is to much mentioned of it , although it is puzzling to decifer.
I Believe somewhere amongst that tangle , is the truth, it is just a question of putting the peices together, easier said then done.
Richard.
|
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 10:44 am: |
|
It's all very confusing indeed.
Leanne, you said:-
"There was a strong motive behind a reporter inventing that story - to make Kelly's murder seem more horrific because she had a little life to fend for."
I wouldn't have thought they would need to invent anything to make this murder any more horrific than it already was. Personally I think it was very possible for her to have had a child, being that she was 25 in an age where women were getting married and pregnant as young as 16. Also she said she had been around a bit (I mean places not people, although she was a prostitute) and if her story of marriage is to be believed then it is quite possible she had a child as what else was there for women of that day to do after they were married? |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 6:31 am: |
|
Hi all
"Will we ever know"
Not unless substantial new information is found.
Consider:
There are a number of murders of women of broadly similar background in and around Whitechapel.
In the popular mind some of these murders are linked in a series - or more than one series. Also in the popular mind, a 'model' suspect - Leather Apron - is created, to be replaced by a second 'model' suspect - our Jack - as a result largely of unattributed sensational letters. These 'profiles' may or may not have anything to do with the nature of one or more of the real murderers.
Ok, that's the 'public impression'.
But - there is no concensus on which of these murders were done by the same hand.
There is no physical evidence left by the murderer(s) that would identify them. (If modern methods had been available, maybe - but they weren't)
There are no known witnesses who definitely saw JtR.
There is not even an official police list of suspects.
In short, there is almost no 'fact' about the case that is not arguable apart from that the killings themselves took place (and even then a mythical one crept in for a while!).
So we cannot do anything but speculate. Anyone pretending that their theory is anything else (unless they bring forward major, unequivocal new evidence) is deluding themselves.
One thing that interests me is that some lines of speculation clearly tap into a kind of enthusiasm or popular support, where other speculations, with at least as much logic behind them, just seem not to 'strike a chord'. Some of these more popular speculations, in my opinion, seem to tap more into ideas current when the theory was formed / discussed than the contemporary Victorian scene.
Regards
Pete |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 2:01 pm: |
|
"...I Believe somewhere amongst that tangle , is the truth, it is just a question of putting the peices together..."
>>In order to put the pieces together, you have to have a central theme. There is no 'putting- together' without an 'in-virtue-of-which.' In other words, if you can only get yourself to ask the right question, there is your answer.
Saddam
|
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 6:19 am: |
|
Hi Saddam
Actually, your approach interests me - you seem to be hinting that , in effect, if we looked at the case from some radically different angle then there would be a solution that would make obvious sense.
But, even then, I doubt that such a repositioning could come up with conclusive proof, because the available evidence is so arguable. However, I await with interest the eventual revelations that I hope you will bring forth (I don't mind waiting - there are many other theories to ponder in the meantime ).
Cheers
Pete |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Pete,
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I don't think what the Ripperologist should be after is conclusive proof, at this point 115 years down the line. Instead, what I have worked at is developing a comprehensive theory that logically ties all the known evidence together and points to a perpetrator. Conclusive proof, I believe, is sought by those who've been stung by the plethora of bogus theories that have sullied the case for so long. It is a kind of reactionary posture in the field, I believe, that keeps people from thinking as straight as they might.
Saddam
|
Opal Elaine Small (Moyer)
Police Constable
Username: Bonedigger
Post Number: 7
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 9:25 pm: |
|
I think you are right, Sadaam; there are so many theories floating around, that it becomes confusing to a layperson, such as myself. Maybe it's not one of the popular suspects, at all. JtR may not have been a well known person or have even had a rap sheet. How did he manage to conceal his identity for all these years? Regardless, JtR still does keeps us all thinking, after all these years.
Will we ever know? If the whole mystery of JtR is ever solved, what would we do, then? We'd have to find another mystery to ponder.
Bonedigger
|
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 5:55 pm: |
|
If the day ever comes when Jack the Ripper is found out for sure. The arm chair book readers would be very unhappy I believe. However if you could put a "WHOLE" person to Jack the Ripper and for that matter the Zodiac. Though Jack the Ripper has to be dead by now, the Zodiac might still be alive. In any case, finding out who they really are would help the people who hunt these sorts of killers down. A profile of a killer of this type of killer only goes so far. The more is known about any "SERIAL KILLERS" the better. Also I would like to point out that the term "SERIAL KILLER" is from the 1970's I read. |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
The answer: no.
We will never know. Even if we found a document from Abberline himself saying "I know who he was his name is..." There will still be a bunch of nay saying nay sayers who will say "nay" to the whole debarkle. You can't convince all the people all the time. |
Opal Elaine Small (Moyer)
Sergeant
Username: Bonedigger
Post Number: 15
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 6:32 pm: |
|
I don't believe the JTR mystery will ever be solved. Again, because of the number of suspects involved. Also, because he may not have been any of these suspects. If this is the case, I think that the person was a Ted Bundy type- the sort no one would ever suspect. He might have been prominent and successful, hiding his secret bloodlust from family and friends. He may have even discussed the murders with his peers, appearing on the outside to be shocked and apalled. Bundy always comes to mind when I think of JTR; I believe their profiles would nearly match.
Wintergreen, you are right. If documents of Abberline's were to turn up, now. Someone would surely denounce them as fakes, even if they were authentic.
OPAL
Bonedigger
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 204
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
If documents of Abberline's were to turn up, now. Someone would surely denounce them as fakes, even if they were authentic.
A lot would surely depend on provenance.
There was no real question about the authenticity of the Swanson Marginalia (even if the content raises questions for some).
If something similar emerged for Abberline - a further scrapbook, for instance (that matched the existing ones in style etc), then I think it might gain wide acceptance.
If the alleged Chronicles of Crime of Dr Dutton (see Maccormack's book) were to emerge, there might be an interesting debate. But if the chain of evidence were firmly established, they might be accepted.
Similarly a greater volume of material clearly originating from someone like Sims or Littlechild
might be accepted.
Phil |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
"I wouldn't have thought they would need to invent anything to make this murder any more horrific than it already was"
Hi Sarah-
If you crawl through the contemporary news reports you'll find that they did indeed, and quite frequently, make up additional sensational facts.
The degree varies by nespaper.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Or by NEWSPAPER even. So that's what "preview" is for.
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Neil K. MacMillan
Inspector
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 157
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
I really doubt we'll ever know conclusively.Too much time has passed. If there was evidence of who he was it has likely disappeared over time.
I read with interest the Custer comparison. Custer's troops used a Springfield carbine called a trapdoor Springfield extant about 1870. It was, as Shannon stated a single shot weapon. the cartridge was not very reliable and tended to split, the mechanism was prone to jam and the most cheritable thing that could be said about it is that it was, in the hands of a skilled marksman, more accurate than the Henry and 1873 Winchester repeaters that the Native Americans were using. basically the native Americans had better weapons, far more combat forces than Custer did and had a far better lay of the land. While it is romantically called a massacre, the fact is it was a battle lost due to arrogance and confusing orders.
But back to the subject at hand. I believe we'll never definatively know at least not with enough proof that would bear up in front of a Queen's bench. Kindest regards, Neil |
Opal Elaine Small (Moyer)
Sergeant
Username: Bonedigger
Post Number: 16
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 8:44 pm: |
|
That's exactly right; any truly conclusive evidence was probably destroyed over time. Plus, most people with a Ripper theory has their minds set upon that theory and that theory alone, myself included, I daresay. Most will find some hole in any opposing theory or proposed "final solution".
Back to the newspaper post: I, too, am sure that newsreports of the day were embelished with additional information that was less than factual. People are people, no matter where in time they lived, the public surely ate it up much as people do our modern day tabliods.
OPALELAINE
Bonedigger
|
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Neil/Opal - you overlook the possibility that additional information may well still exist - in "lost files", manuscripts by people involved etc that currently repose in attics and storerooms unnoticed and unrecognised.
The fact that the "Diary" is so pathetic and contemptible should not blind us to the fact that it COULD have had provenance and contained reliable, new and useful information.
Think how that might have opened up the case.
Phil |
Neil K. MacMillan
Inspector
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 158
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Phil;
You're right I had overlooked that. Weren't some files and evidence destroyed in the London Airaids of 1940? The big problem would be establishing province after all these years and the problem that unless the documents told us something verifiable against extent evidence it would nly fuel speculation.
I've read the MAybrick diary and wasn't convinced I'd be interested in your views on it. Kindest regards, Neil |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 2:28 am: |
|
The maybrick Diary lacked provenance, is suspect given it's physical nature and the inability of scientific tests to authenticate it as even of the period, beyond question.
I think it more than possible that material might still be held, unknown to the individuals, by members of families of those involved in the case. I think the Swanson marginalia and Lady Aberconway's version of the Macnaghten Memorandum have always been universally accepted as authentic.
Who knows what might appear from APs forays into the Old bailey records?
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 9:48 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
The diary could have contained reliable, new and useful information?
How so? If it contained new information, how could any of it be verified, in order for it to be pronounced reliable and useful?
One might have expected the diary to be proved not of the period, especially if it were a post-1987 creation. But I'm not sure any scientist would claim the ability to 'authenticate it as even of the period' if it were. The nearest we could expect to get, in that case, would be 'consistent with 1888/9'.
So I think you may have it the wrong way round, from a scientific viewpoint. And not one of the scientists who have so far reported on the document has offered a clear opinion on age that gets us to the magic post-1987 date.
Love,
Caz
X
PS And if anyone even thinks of having a go at me for mentioning the d word - I didn't start it, right?  |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1054
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
If it contained new information, how could any of it be verified, in order for it to be pronounced reliable and useful?
In the same way as any new discovery of say an ancient text produces useful information
* by internal criticism - ie looking carefully at the text to see what it says, how it says it, what it infers etc;
* by checking statements against known facts; names against directories and registers etc; to see if they tally or confirm each other;
* by looking at new details to see how they fit with the known information
Credibility is of course established by scientific tests; by experts in the type of document etc.
It is the lack of concensus among the reports that I believe sinks the Diary as a useful lead. Even getting it to within a year either way of the 1888 date would be useful.
But the blandness of the text in many senses tends rather to suggest clever forgery than genuineness IMHO.
phil |
Uninvited Guest
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Phil Hill wrote: The fact that the "Diary" is so pathetic and contemptible should not blind us to the fact.......
Some of the statements made on this site beggar belief! I am speechless. (well almost...)
The diary was quite obviously written in 1888/1889. The reasons why, I could really not be bothered discussing on this forum. Can't see the wood for the trees as usual, no-one seems to sit back and look at the big picture objectively, everyone tries too hard and gets tangled up in unimportant discussion over pointless detail. |
Neil K. MacMillan
Inspector
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 159
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Dear uninvited guest, you state that the diary was obviously written in1888/1889 yet don't give your reasoning. I would be interested in your reasons. Neil |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 141
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Hi Uninvited Guest
C,mon ! Fire Away ! I gave my reasons why I believe in it. Join the discussion and we'll see how much you can take. But don't forget to put your helmet on first.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 2:35 am: |
|
Uninvited Guest is critical of statements on this site and then, amazingly, makes a totally unfounded, and mistaken, one of his own. There is nothing 'quite obvious' about the diary other than it is a transparent hoax. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page