|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 931
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 7:40 am: |       |
Yes, Richard, I noticed... 
Well, indeed, if you had put the word "circumstancial" in there, I believe it would be harder for me to object to it -- because circumstancial it is.
"One wonders, if kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety, was present at one of the funerals, would we say 'So what'
I would doubt that..."
That is a deduction of error, Richard. It is not Barnett who is the dispute as far as the grave spitting incident is concerned, it is the evaluation of sources. I don't care if the suspect connected to it was Donald Duck, that is not the point. The point is that you are using a product of hearsay, first told several years after it should have occurred and which is not backed up by other sources and then try to use it to strengthen the case against a chosen suspect. From a journalistic AND scientific point of view, that is amateurish in a way that I think you should rise above if you have studied the case for forty years. It is not in any way better than the approach of Cornwell or Knight. This I am not saying in order to be crude or to ridicule it -- far from it; I take such things rather seriously.
Even IF the incident DID happen, and even IF it WAS Barnett who spat at Kelly's grave, we don't know WHY he did it. Maybe because he, as a result of grief, was disappointed at her because she was determined to carry on with the occupation that apparently led to her destruction? But does it necessarily imply or that he -- or the grave spitter, whoever he was -- was identical with Jack the Ripper?
Too many IFS, too many questions, and too much wild speculations and distortions of facts. I can't accept such loose interpretations of an event we don't even can be sure of really happened. "Alleged incident" or not -- there is too little to draw any kind of conclusions from.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 377
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 9:48 am: | |
I just wanted to ask, what makes any of us sure that this person was spitting on Mary's grave if two people were buried there on the same day? If the women who reported to have see this take place were just visiting another grave how could they have known whose grave it was? Of course they would think it was Mary's as they probably found out later that she had been buried that day.
Anyway, this seems to me to just be hearsay and I don't take it that seriously. It reminds of of other women telling stories of suspicious looking man doing things that they perceived as odd when the men they mentioned were probably just going about their own business. Basically many women thought that if someone was doing the slightest strange thing then he must be Jack the Ripper.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1776
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Hi John
Farson said that these two programmes were transmitted by Associated Rediffusion in November 1959.
Rediffusion lost its ITV franchise to Thames TV around 1968. But we can always hope that the programmes still survive somewhere.
I'm just wondering whether there's an archive containing old copies of the TV Times - the ITV equivalent of the Radio Times.
Robert |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 6:32 pm: | |
No doubt old copies of TV Times would be held by the British Library and others.
As for Associated Rediffusion, from Internet sources, it effectively merged into Thames Television in 1967, and apparently Thames still exists as a TV production company (despite losing its franchise in 1992), currently owned by Fremantle Media:
http://www.fremantlemedia.com/
Perhaps it would be worth enquiring of Fremantle whether any archive material exists from the 1950s.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
Or even direct to talkbackTHAMES, as it now seems to be called:
http://www.talkbackthames.tv/page.asp?partID=153
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1780
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 6:42 pm: | |
Thanks for that, Chris. I didn't know about Rediffusion and Thames merging.
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
well has anyone done that yet then or shall i have too???!!!!
jennifer |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
well has anyone done that yet then or shall i have too???!!!!
jennifer |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 553
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 1:17 pm: | |
My dear Peter,
I , and I feel i Can speak for Leanne on this, most certainly do not use peoples posts for ideas, any research we have done towards our book, has derived from our own knowledge on this subject, any quotes we may use from previous publications, will of course be aknowledged to the relevant source.
I am a member of this web site , simply because Jack is my intrest, and not to cash in on posters imaginations.
I Started this thread simply for discussions sake, and the grave spitting , if it occured, does not confirm Barnett as 'Jack' , you may be right , he simply may have spat out of hatred , which would not make him guilty of murder.
The fact is we shall proberly never know.
I do agree with you on one point, any man who abuses a woman,either verbally, or physically, has a problem.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 554
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Dan,
Your post intriques me.
The way you started your post' Richard Wrote' suggests, that you are not addressing the post to me , but trying to gain an audience, for intended sarcasim.
As i mentioned the spitting incident is refered to in a couple of paragraphs, in one chapter, it is not intended to form a base for our publication.
We do indeed have a lot more intresting details to reveal. otherwise there would be no point in continuing our work.
Readers scratching their heads?.
you may Dan, but a vast number of people might find it worthy of mentioning.
you have never met me, so you will have to take my word for it , when I say I am not a vain person,by any stroke of imagination, and I do not believe 40 years intrest, makes me superior, you are right, just an emotional intrest.
I Say respectfully that the vibes I get from your postings suggest to me that you consider, yourself superior, and see yourself as a experienced handicapper, and yours truely a complete novice, you are right in that respect , when it comes to book writing, but not in my involvement , and general knowledge of this case.
Just one last point. I disagree that traumatic events does not effect ones memory, i lost my mother at the age of seven,at the age of 32, that was extremely traumatic, for my father, and
myself, and I can remember the incident vividly,the words my father used to break the news to me, and my reaction, and the words I said to him, and when I went to bed the emotional experiences in my head.
I feel that the majority of people on these boards, will have similar circumstances, which they can recall accurately , from days past.
The above post is not intended to be disrespectful to you
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 184
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Jennifer-
Looks like you'll have to!! the boys are too busy rucking!! no offence chaps!!
Cheers
Suzi |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 8:29 pm: | |
Back to grave spitting are we?
The reasons it's disregarded are pretty simple.
1) The ONLY source for the alleged incident is at least 3rd hand and many years after the fact.
2) If it did occur, we have no real reason to believe it HAD to be Barnett.
3) If it was Barnett, an excess of saliva deposited in a grave is a long way from being evidence of him being a muderer.
I have to agree in general with the comments of Glenn and Dan. Given the uncertanties involved in this source, I find it hard to believe anyone would take it seriously at all. It might be worthy of mention as an example of the sort of oral tradition that has arisen regarding JtR, but to try to use it to support a particular suspect is definately beyond Cornwell territory even.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 8:04 pm: | |
Richard wrote:
"The way you started your post' Richard Wrote' suggests, that you are not addressing the post to me , but trying to gain an audience, for intended sarcasim. "
Putting "so-and-so wrote" (or some variation) is standard practice in newsgroups and messageboards so people know who said what without having to dig through old posts. Lots of boards give the option to do that automatically to messages you reply to. This one doesn't appear to, so I do it by hand. You shouldn't read anything into it other than that I have posted online for a long time and it's second nature to me.
"Readers scratching their heads?.
you may Dan, but a vast number of people might find it worthy of mentioning. "
Have you actually read the responses to this thread? Nobody here finds it worth mentioning. On the contrary, people are finding it ludicrous in the extreme. The "beyond Cornwell territory even" phrase John uses above should be a clue that it makes you look foolish.
"so you will have to take my word for it , when I say I am not a vain person,by any stroke of imagination"
Well, I don't doubt that you think you came to your conclusions based upon logic instead of vanity.
"I disagree that traumatic events does not effect ones memory, i lost my mother at the age of seven,at the age of 32, that was extremely traumatic, for my father, and myself, and I can remember the incident vividly"
The problem with that is you can't say that you remember it well if the only way you have to judge it is your own memory and the memories of other people with whom you've compared stories over the years. When people's memories of traumatic events are tested and there's a way to verify them (such as a videotape of the incident) most people are completely wrong, and they are more wrong if they talk with other people about it and compare notes before being tested.
And, again, even if trauma somehow caused memories to become etched in stone, I'm not seeing where there's any trauma involved in this bit of folklore (it's a real stretch to think that seeing someone else spit on a grave is traumatic) or how such supposed trauma could be preserved through three different people. It doesn't make sense even using your explanation, let alone what that scientific studies say. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 564
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 2:22 pm: | |
Hi Dan.
I disagree with ,some of the points you have made regarding my posts.
Regarding the alleged spitting affair,and I will state it is only alleged, I would say two teenage girls living in east London, at the height of the Ripper madness, would be somewhat traumatised, by such an event, once they became aware whose funeral they were witnessing.
The thought of the London Bogeyman, scared the living daylights of women regardless of their occupation throughout the land, my dear old grandmother would confirm that if she could, but she would have been 125 years old today, hense she has been dead 40 years.
She remembered[ memory] the scare amongst the local population of Redhill[ 20 miles south of London] at the time, and could vividly remember, the mention of the Bogeyman, would send the children playing in the streets after dark , scurrying indoors.
So one can imagine, should this , in my opinion incident at 'St Marys ' cemetary occured, two teenage girls, who one should remember, were more innocent of life then those of similar age today. I would say once they realised, that they were present at Kellys funeral, would have seen the alleged incident, as horrifying.
Refering to your comments on memory, as stated I can recall incidents, from the past, i mentioned one important episode, and I can assure you, that the words I spoke , and the words spoke to me were confirmed as accurate by my late father many many years later, and the incident was very rarely discussed.
Scientific studies, may imply clever explanations, but memory depends on how each indervidual stores these traumatic events,
I along with others think you should register Dan, Conversation, especially from people like you good self, is beneficial, and I Welcome regular contributions from you on these boards, also I like a good argument.....
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 963
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Richard,
I can second to every word Dan has written on this thread.
As I myself have for many years studied cases that are hundred years old, I have learnt that one must keep in mind, that these were times, where events like the Ripper murders became discussed in every corner and crimes were getting larger attention than they get today. Subsequently, this easier leads to myths and gossip, spinning over several generations.
Since you are leaning against an oral source -- a 2nd or 3rd hand one -- one must treat such information as stories passed through during several years, and since the story is unconfirmed we can't really know what the incident originally looked like, if it ever happened.
As far as my own cases are concerned, I have stumbled across numerous stories and information, originating from circumstances or persons connected with the crime, and they can never be trusted. For the most part they are folk tales, and should be treated as such if there exists no other material that can support at a least parts of it. These kind of stories are a natural part of events that happened a hundred years ago, and one shouldn't read much into them. It is really quite simple. I for my part can't understand why you give that incident the time of day.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 203
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
Well hello everyone!!
This is turning into a serious row isn't it! I'm SPITTING feathers!! Right I've been to too many funerals for my liking.,.when you're born in 1951 all your chums seem to be dropping off the perch with depressing regularity! Seems like one year at present..is it me??!!As to the boards over the 'hole'..as to the last two I had the misfortune to attend..the'box' was lowered into the hole which seemed to be horribly deep! and people were invited to drop in whatever was relevant!! A great wargaming chum had a beautifully painted figure (15mm) of Gen Lee mounted on 'Traveller' then we just all sort of shambled off and got 'happily' drunk with lots of 'dits' about the departed..Surely this is a sensible way of dealing with these matters!! Anyway..if I had had the urge to spit..this would have been the opportune moment..not a board in sight chaps!! I think these only go onto the hole prior to the filling in in case anyone else drops in as they're passing!!
Well?
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 568
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 3:30 am: | |
Hi,
Just to follow on from suzi's point, after the service, the boards would have been positioned over the hole for obvious reasons, therefore as i Have said before, the only male person, who was present at the service , apart from the Father, was Barnett, and one would have imagined , out of respect, the mourners, and grave fillers would have left the area, in order for him to pay his private last respects.
I can see no wrong in suggesting then, that IF, the alleged incident is true, and as the grave was filled ,and flowers were placed, before any other person was allowed through the gates, then suggesting this is incriminating evidence, against our suspect is fair play.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 964
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 7:28 am: | |
Spitting -- incriminating evidence. I would think not.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 216
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 1:07 pm: | |
Richard/Glenn
O.k. where do we go from here?? I don't believe that the rituals of funerals have changed that much over the years..boards/flowers /last respects etc.Does anyone know the name of the officiating priest at Mary's send off?? Keep going chaps pour us all a large one and we'll really 'dig' into this thread! Yes??
Cheers
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 968
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 2:43 pm: | |
Hi Suzi.
I have no idea and I have no time at the moment to look it up, but for those who have access in London to the original books and documents, the priest who held the service should be mentioned in the church's records. I believe Richard or Leanne would know the answer to that.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Suzi.
Father Columbran [ possible wrongly spelt] he was described as a rather large gentleman, at least in height , which is clearly depicted in sketches made at the service, and Barnett is clearly shown at least in sketch mode standing behind him . I have had several large ones, hense the probable spelling mistake, day off tommorrow, which is a rare occurence, so am knocking it back , while waiting for my rather late sunday lunch.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 229
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 5:56 pm: | |
Richard
There's a post answering your last one somewhere in the ether..don't want to type it again in case it comes up twice again!!
Suzi |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 11:02 pm: | |
Hi All
In light of continued discussion about grave-spitting claims, I thought the following contemporary account of grave-side events might be of interest.
Lloyd’s Weekly News, 25 Nov. 1888, page 2 reported:
"The funeral of Marie Jeanette Kelly took place on Monday at Leytonstone cemetery in the presence of a large number of people. An hour before the remains left the mortuary many hundreds of persons assembled around Shoreditch church, and watched the arrangements. At half-past 12 the coffin was borne from the mortuary, and the cemetery at Leytonstone was reached at two o’clock. The Rev. Father Columban, O.S.F., with two acolytes, and a cross bearer, met the body at the door of the little chapel of St. Patrick, and the coffin was carried at once to a grave in the north-eastern corner. Barnett and the poor women who had accompanied the funeral knelt on the cold clay by the side of the grave, while the service was read by Father Columban. The coffin was incensed, lowered, and then sprinkled with holy water, and the simple ceremony ended. The floral ornaments were afterwards raised to be placed upon the grave, and the filling-up was completed in a few moments, and was watched by a small crowd of people."
Best Wishes
alex
|
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 232
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 4:13 am: | |
Hi Alex,
Thanks for that
Richard,
Have a good day off (humph!) looks like that other post went down a cyber plughole somewhere..Oh well can't remember what I said now anyway!..some rubbish no doubt!
Cheers
Suzi |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
Richard, OK, let's humor your side for a bit. Let's say spitting is traumatic. Let's also say trauma turns a brain into Memorex.
Fist up, does someone hearing the story get traumatized as well? If not, then there's no reason at all to believe that it was told or remembered accurately. If so, well, then you recklessly traumatized everyone who read this thread by posting such psychologically damaging information here, and we should all sue you for therapy bills. 
Secondly, how can you tell the difference between a totally made up story and this mythical trauma-induced super-memory? Joseph Sickert alleged to have traumatic stories about his father and some Masons. Why should anyone believe your alleged grave-spitting story more than Sickert's story? Not that I believe either, but if we believe one we should believe the other, and they contradict.
So even if we ignore what science has to say about memory and what Glenn has posted about his experiences with witness statements and give your side the benefit of the doubt, it still doesn't make sense. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
