Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through October 11, 2003 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Mary Jane Kelly » Mary Kelly or not Mary Kelly? » Archive through October 11, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

albie
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, June 21, 2003 - 6:11 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If she was so badly mutilated, and she was spotted alive after she was upposed to be dead, then maybe it wasn't her corpse at all?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil A.
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 12:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Allbie,
There is a theory on that.
One story is that the witnesse(s?) got their days wrong. They were maybe thinking of the couple days before.
Another theory is that she WAS actually spotted in the morning and she WAS actually killed in the morning.
And the simple one, she wasn't killed.

-Phil-
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

shanney
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 11:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

has it ever occurred to anyone except myself in my wilder moments that mjk herself could have been responsible for the killings (that kelly woman etc.etc.)the motive remains unknown as yet but it would explain the singing late at night and mrs maxwell and the 'disappearance (?) of lizzie albrook..just a thought....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

shanney
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 11:15 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

might also explain why mjk saw barnett off early in the evening ,leasving the evening free and giving him a distinctly "fishy" alibi!!!Also if mjk was seen entering or leaving the court at anytime during the evening and night...so what? she lives there!Of courase the motive is bizarre to say the least but it's a fun thought..any suggestions?? Godd one for a natter over at the conference
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65

Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 10:57 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Guys,

This theory has been debated before, but the prevailing sentiment is that it is more likely that Mrs. Maxwell was incorrect than that MJK wasn't MJK. She was positively identified by Barnett, and she was wearing the clothing of MJK, laying in MJK's bed, in MJK's flat.

MJK being the killer is probably a new one, but also extremely unlikely. She wouldn't have had the strength needed to make some of the cuts the Ripper did - Chapman in particular - and the crimes themselves are not the crimes of a woman. I don't think I've read yet of a female sexually movtivated serial mutilator.

B
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stan Russo
Police Constable
Username: Stan

Post Number: 4
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 12:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Here's something that may never have been brought up, or that I may have missed on other posts regarding Mary Kelly's clients on November 8th.

Where is the remnants of the sexual encounters?

There has been no sexual relations found between 'JTR' and the victims, including Kelly, yet as is known more than one and as many as three or four men were taken back to her room. No contraception so, sorry to be gross, but where's the dried sperm on the bedsheets or inside Kelly?

Perhaps nothing but perhaps something to think about.

STAN RUSSO
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Lawrence
Police Constable
Username: Rl0919

Post Number: 9
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 10:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Stan,

Not to be gross, as you say, but given the extent of the mutilations, perhaps any semen was so thoroughly mixed with blood and other bodily fluids that it wasn't identifiable when the scene and body were examined.

It is also possible that Kelly practiced "contraception" by not having regular intercourse, which might make her clients' fluids harder to find.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stan Russo
Police Constable
Username: Stan

Post Number: 5
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 12:08 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard,

The body was thoroughly looked at and no semen was detected. This is known because 'JTR' is known not to have had any sexual intercourse with any of the victims.

For a prostitute as Kelly was, with approximately four men, no semen found indicates to me that something was wrong. It could have been another woman murdered. It may have been that Kelly simply brought home four men to spend time with without any sexual activity.

Something regarding the known evidence is wrong and what that something is may never be known.

To state that the doctors, most notably Dr. Thomas Bond, overlooked any seminal fluid in their post-mortem because of the mutilations is an absurdity. They knew the heart was gone and Dr. Bond's report on Kelly is pretty thorough.

STAN RUSSO
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Lawrence
Police Constable
Username: Rl0919

Post Number: 10
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 12:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Stan,

I'm not sure what makes it "an absurdity" to believe that the spilling of a body's worth of blood, plus lymph, bowel contents, etc., might create a mess in which it would be difficult to identify semen. The substantial abdominal and genital mutliations would virtually guarantee that he contents of her vagina would be mixed with the rest of the spillage. If you have some specific knowledge regarding 18th-century forensic techniques that makes it clear that they would have closely examined the copious amounts of blood that "saturated" the bed and formed a "pool" on the floor (per Dr. Bond's report) in order to distinguish seminal fluids, then by all means please provide that evidence.

In any case, Dr. Bond's post-mortem report does not say anything about whether there was any evidence of sexual activity, nor was any testimony to that effect given at the inquest. So to assert that it is "known" that her killer did not have sex with her seems somewhat speculative. I think that it may very well be the case that they did not have sex, but belief and knowledge are not the same thing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 3:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Guys,
In the case of Kelly, I Would say that even modern day science , would have not produced any trace of sexual connection, she was so badly mutalated,that It would have taken a advanced trained eye to pinpoint semen amongst that.
I would say however that sex may have occured that night, did she not ask Hutchinson for sixpence,and there was a rumour that she might have been a four bobber[ 4 shillings] if that being the case, another sixpence would have paid Marcarthy, a weeks back rent.
WE should not forget Kelly was not unattractive,and by her own words had spent some time in the west end, I would have thought that when prostituting, she would have only gone with men that had the means to pay her fee, which I would persume was far in advanced of the normal local prostitutes,therefore I Would suggest she had sex that night, and had gained her fee by the time she met Hutchinson.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon

Post Number: 103
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 10:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Periodically questions have been raised as to whether the doctors in 1888 had the knowledge or ability to detect evidence of sexual activity.

If anyone recalls Edward Johnson, he gave evidence at Stride's inquest. He was assistant to both Dr's Kay & Blackwell.
The same Dr Kay was involved in the Lipski trials of 1887, and gave evidence concerning the death of Miriam Angel. Dr Kay explained what he did in order to form the opinion that Mrs Angel had not been sexually assaulted.

"After the last sitting of the inquest I extracted from the vagina of the deceased some matter I found there. I have put it under the microscope. There are no spermatozoa. Had there been any I could have proved it was semen. It might be semen. I agree with the remark of a textbook that the semen even of a healthy young man varies much and is scarcely ever twice alike, so that the absence of spermatozoa is no proof that the matter is not semen. There is no other test. I produce a glass bottle with some of the matter taken from the vagina, sealed and marked 'A'."

From the above, by Dr Kay, it is apparent that 'he' had the ability and knowledge, not only what to look for and how to treat it, but also points to be wary of and familiarity with medical literature on the subject.
There is no reason to suppose Dr Kay to be any better informed than his peer's.

Just thought it might be of interest.
Regards, Jon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Lawrence
Sergeant
Username: Rl0919

Post Number: 12
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 11:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jon,

Thanks for the info. If the only test contemporary medicine had for semen was to look for spermatozoa under a microscope, then this would have been rather difficult if the semen was diluted into a large quantity of blood. Given the extent of the abominal mulilation, I suspect this would have been the case in the Kelly murder.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stan Russo
Police Constable
Username: Stan

Post Number: 6
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 6:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard and all,

Then that opens the door for Kelly's murderer to have sexually abused her, before or after death, and also makes Donston Stephenson a more valuable suspect, since he states that he was told Kelly was sodomized.

STAN
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vincent
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 10:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

One thing that has always puzzled me about Maxwell's testimony is her quote from MJK on Friday: "I can't sleep. I have the horrors from drink". I have always taken this to mean that she was saying she simply had a hangover and was sick from the beer. But what if it referred to the DT's? "Horrors" could mean all sorts of nasty hallucinations. If true, this would seem to rule out MJK as the woman Maxwell saw because no one has suggested they heard anything other than "murder" from her room that night. I would like to hear what the native Britishers say about the possible meaning of that phrase, DT's or simple hangover?

Regards, Vincent
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 12:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I believe that MJK was not killed on that fateful night. It was well known that she used to rent out her room to other unfortunate women, so why would it have been her. Barnett also only identified her by "glimpsing" through the window at the bloody mess on the bed. Still no proof it was her. There had also been a constant rumour that MJK was at least 3 months pregnant and the corpse was not, nor were there any signs of an abortion. Her body was mutilated beyond recognition. There has been more proof uncovered that MJK lived than that she had actually died. Just thought I'd point this out.

Regards, Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Maryanne
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 6:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well I've read that she was actually discovered to be in the first trimester of pregnancy during the post-mortem. Also the way her legs were spread, sorry to be crude, implied positioning of internal examinations that women undergo. I've also noticed the same positioning of the other victims.

The film "From Hell" gives the idea that perhaps it was not Mary Kelly murdered, but a French girl who was staying in the room.

I also read that Mary Kelly was only identifiable by her hair and eyes. She had striking hair!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 9:43 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Maryanne,

Where did you see that the body was in the first trimester of pregnancy? It seems strange to me how you have found something that has eluded the rest of us. Yes the film "From Hell" gives that impression but I belived this long before the film. Her hair also changed colour on many occasions using the henna that so many prostitutes used, black, red, etc. She had been called Fair Emma and Black Mary too. There is still no proof to speak of that MJK was killed in that room.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Maryanne
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I had always believed this to be a well known fact, admittedly it's become exaggerated over the years with people even implying the baby was cut up inside her - but it would only have been very tiny - the internet - various books (most of them I didn't purchase) have only recently purchased "Letters from Hell" and "The Diary of the Jack the Ripper," "An Encylopeadia of Serial Killers." I've also read that one of the post-mortem reports went missing. I've not heard about henna dyes either, although most I've read is that she supposedly had red hair that was almost to her waist. I'm surprised that people seem to doubt that it was her - I suppose nothing is really an impossibility.

But in my opinion in all probability it was her.

After looking at the gruesome photograph again I'm of the opinion that either she had invited someone in to perhaps perform an abortion, or the person who killed her was a doctor or midwife - it's even more sickening to think of it like that.

I've not come across the nicknames either that you mention. I suppose the problem is that things through the years facts do become distorted, the forensic science wasn't up to scratch.

And I'm also sure that fact be known, if it was any other woman rather than prostitutes being murdered they would've caught the man responsible.

Another problem is "sensationalising" the idea of the Ripper. As lovely an idea as it might be about Mary Kelly "escaping" as portrayed in "From Hell" I don't think it very likely.

It happened so long ago and with such limited forensic evidence to hand, it's perhaps too late to do real detective work now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 4:36 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Maryanne,

If you look through these other posts you will see that many people have said that the corpse in MJK's room was not reported to have been pregnant. You are the only person to have mentioned that she was. Also, about MJK's "red" hair, if you look in the description of her in the victims section on here you will see she is described as having blonde hair. Also somewhere in there you will see she was called those other names I mentioned, unless they are in one of the books I have, I can't remember too well. I still believe that MJK survived as there is more evidence that she did than that she died. But everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 277
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 2:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Sarah,
I am convinced that Mjk was either murdered after Mrs Maxwell saw her , or as you say the only other possibility was that she survived.
The latter seems unlikely, for many reasons, it would involve a major conspiracy.
The fact is Mrs Maxwell undoubtably saw her at 8am -815am on the morning of the ninth november, alive and kicking, so did Maurice Lewis who had known her for 4 years, unless both of these people were lying , or mistaken[ the later seems unlikely , Maxwell swore on oath, even tho she had plenty of opportunety to retract her statement.
I must admit the possibility that her room was hired out by Kelly to perform an abortion on another person is possible, the Man and two women in dorset street in the early hours of the 9th, were acting to suggest such a occurance, also press reports that her room was frequented that evening by a well dressed woman, not known in the neighbourhood is intresting.
As you may be aware Leanne , and myself are co writing a book , which puts Barnett in the frame, so that is were my efforts lie, but I am not clairovoyant, so who knows.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Maryanne
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 6:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Sarah! Do you think I'm making it up about Mary Kelly being pregnant? I've read it, after always having a sick fascination of the Ripper. Unfortunately I don't buy many books and only recently purchased two - I mentioned those in another post to you. I only stated I "thought" that she was pregnant because I've always "grown up" to believe she was. Popular rumour or fact we'll never know. As for her red hair, again I wasn't making that up either. It's mentioned in one of the books I do have and makes reference to a comparison with Florence Maybrick James Maybrick's wife, one of the suspects! (I'm sure you know him anyway - not personally of course :-) ) Her youth, her red hair possibly reminded him of his wife. The "FM" found on the wall besides her body could possibly stand for Florence Maybrick who he regarded as a whore owing to the fact that she was having an affair - his way of hitting out at his wife?

We'll never know for sure!

Hi Richard!

I thought the body looked as if she was posed in such a way to imply some internal examination that could be performed by doctor or abortionist. Perhaps it was Kelly needing an abortion or otherwise? Totally unsuspecting then! She'd put her trust in such a person.

The way the legs are posed with other victims has also occurred with me - a giveaway perhaps that modern detectives would be able to pick up. Who knows?

Bye for now xxxxxxxx
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 284
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 2:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Maryanne.
I will agree that most of the victims legs seem to be in a position that might indicate , abortion or sexual activity, and you are right, modern detectives would proberly pick up on that point.
However I cannot see a pattern between Nichols ,chapman, stride, eddowes, and Kellys possible pregnancy. I doubt very much if Kelly was pregnant, but as I have said previously, it is entirely possible that the victim at millers court was not Kelly, but a frantic attempt to hide a failed abortion, this would explain a mutalated female, and the fact that kelly was seen alive the following morning.
There are facts to suggest this, exspecially if Kelly was aware of that abortion attempt in her room. she may well have attempted to scarper, rather then explain delicate details , and swopped her clothes with the dead woman, who was beyond help even before mutalation occured.
This would make a fantastic story, but as I have been told many times on these boards Pure speculation?.....
keep on thinkin and writing Maryanne.
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Maryanne
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 6:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well witnesses can be wrong and get their facts muddled up. I didn't mean of course that I thought the others were pregnant as well, just the way they were displayed implied something (how can I word it?) posed by someone who was perhaps not conscious of what "clue" they were leaving behind.

I probably haven't read up as much as the rest of you have, but I don't come to any conclusions that she survived. I would like to think that she did, but it's too romantic an idea for me to really think possible.

Wasn't 4.00 a.m. the possible time of her death?

Perhaps the midwife or whoever (it's been suggested previously on this forum) dressed up in her clothes to get away.

I don't know about you I can't remember what exactly happened yesterday...so I'd be no good as a witness and that's for describing someone - well I'm useless at that as well.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 10:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Maryanne,

I didn't mean to make you think I was implying you were making it up, I just simply wanted to know where you got that information from since you are the only person I have come across to say that you have read that the corpse in MJK's room was pregnant. Also I know you are not making up the colour of MJK's hair as she dyed it many colours, well mostly blonde, red and black although I don't know if blonde was her natural colour as it's in her description. I'm sorry if I sounded rude, I honestly wasn't trying to be. I was just interested where you found information that others haven't found.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 12:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi everybody, I would fist like too say I enjoy the casebook I am new too the messageboards but i really enjoy reading the theories. There are so many knowledgable people. I learn something new everyday However I feel the problem with the case for JTR is it is often over analyzed. This killer has been made out too be more then he really was. JTR was just a cold blooded butcher. Unfortanately Mary Jane Kelly has been the center of the case. When in fact she was just another unfortunate. Okay Elvis is dead Marilyn Monroe commited suicide and Mary Jane kelly died on november 9th 1888. I feel this is the most logical scenerio. I think she was behind on the rent and she new the rent was due the next day. Kelly had been working that night tring too make enough money to pay at least a portion of what she owed. Dont forget Mary Ann Cox Identified Mary Kelly as the women she saw that night entering her room with a man. She stated at the inqest that she saw Mary intoxicated at around midnight. Kelly wore a dark shabby skirt with a red coat and no hat. Cox stated she said goodnight before Kelly enterd her room. MJK replied I am going too have a song. I feeel COX is a very reliable witness becouse she lived at no5 millers court and obviousely knew MJK. Cox would not have mistaken Kelly for another unfotunate. George Hutchinson also stated he too saw Kelly. GH said he talked too her around 200 that morning. GH said he saw her entering her room with a man. He too knew Kelly and would not have mistaken her for another unfortunate. This is important becouse given the time line it is hard too believe that Kelly had rented her room to another prostitute. Although Coxs discription of what kelly was wereing matches the discription that the women who claims too had seen Kelly around eight in the morning. so it is possible that Mary was working alnight and in to the dawn tring too make her rent. The time of death may be disputed. However I believe Kelly was murderd. The fact that seaman was not found is an interesting point. If there was a tub at the foot of the bed it is possible that MJK might have washed up that night? That could explain the singing. Many women sing when they bath. This might also explain the fire. Kelly would have wanted to stay warm. She also may have undressed and folded her close neatly. Out of modesty she may have put her slip back on.The ripper may have even been inticed and not able to preform sexually it drove him into his most violent frenzzy many lust killers are unable to prform sexually. Has anyone wonderd about George Hutchinson maybe being Kellys pimp and or protector. It would seem logical too me that Kelly would have a protector. This could be important because it would give more creedence to his eye witness testimoney. I do believe the Kelly murder suplied some clue to the rippers identidy. Thanks for reading. CB

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.