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 January 08, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Mary Jane Kelly » Pregnancy of Mary Jane Kelly » Archive through January 08, 2004 « Previous Next »

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

Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 74
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 4:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard,

I can't be bothered by any of this. All I was asking for was an explanation of your statement "but to serious followers of this case, is just not acceptable." The only thing in my mind it suggests is that you think that I am not a serious follower. If this is wrong then please can you explain it. To anyone it would seem to be an insult. If you cannot see it, then fine, perhaps you have a way of saying things without quite realising what you have said. Anyway, as I said I can't be bothered to argue.

Leanne,

It was the statement from Richard that I found insulting. But apparently he cannot see the insult so I can't be bothered to argue about it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 429
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 2:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sarah,
The words I Used I must admit sounded harsh, but to repeat my last post, I was just airing a personal opinion, although i can see a good fictional story deriving from such a theory. John Brookes Barry did a good job in his publication 'The Michaelmas Girls' 1975.
Lets forget the whole incident, for as i have said critisim is a way of life on these boards.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 90
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 5:00 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard,

I realise you didn't mean any harm by what you said. Personally, I can see how it could have happened. Anyway I was trying to discuss the matter of her being pregnant not whether she lived or not, although whether she was pregnant or not could determine whether it was her but the only way to find that out would be to have the coroner's report and also statements from people who knew her, but that isn't very possible. Some websites state that she was pregnant but I haven't found a book saying the same thing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 2:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Guys

Sorry to break in on your argument. I'm not over worried about who has posted the longest. I am however very interested in information about the pregnancy.

Lets just assume for a moment that it was MJK who was murdered. Is it possible given the nature of the muterlation that the killer could have cut a fetus from the body and that the corroner would not have noticed that MJK was pregnant? Is it something, given the medical knowledge of the time, that he would have been bound to know, or, could he have missed the fact that a small male fetus was missing???

Have important reasons for asking this question given that most of the expert advice on these boards suggests that the corpse was not pregnant.

Information on anything to support the pregnancy theory and where to search, most appreciated.

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

Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz

Post Number: 538
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 7:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jeff,

Mary’s killer removed her womb from her body and placed it under her head.

The position was noted in the Bond report, but if there was anything remarkable about the womb’s condition, it doesn’t seem to have been recorded anywhere.

I have no idea how apparent the early signs of a pregnancy, or the removal of a very immature fetus, should have been to the medics of the day. So I suppose the possibility remains that Mary was in the very early stages of pregnancy, but if so, we don’t know who would have known about it, perhaps not even Mary herself (although if Carrie Maxwell did see her throwing up, Mary may have suspected morning sickness and not a hangover).

In any case, I see no reason to think her killer would have known or cared whether she was or wasn’t expecting a nappy event.

Love,

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

Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 309
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 7:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't see why the killer would have removed a fetus at all.

Also, Jeff, why do you say a "male fetus"? Why male?

Since most of her organs were already out of her body, I think the doctor would have examined them. Unfortunately we can never know if she was pregnant or not.

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

Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 5:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Sarah and Caz

I have spent the last few days doing some research into MJK autopsy reports and there appears to be some discrepancy between Bond and Philips on the subject. It has also made me wonder if we can give the same level of consideration to that of a modern autopsy report although I would be interested in anyone's opinions on the medical ability of these two men with reguards modern post mortem techniques.

I have been checking the A to Z (which I beleive to be a reliable source of information on the subject) it states.

The visera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head.

It also states: Viz no visera were draped on nails in the walls: the uterus was neither stolen nor APPARENTLY gravid.

Although it is unclear from the A to Z whether this was part of the original autopsy or in reply to later news paper reports.

A to Z also states: Abberline was apparently unaware of the discovery of the Uterus.

Had he made the assumption that as the muterlations were similar to that of Annnie Chapman that it was missing? or is it possible that as the uterus was badly cut that it was not immeadiately reconizable as a uterus at all?

Bond also states that: The pericardium was open below and the heart absent.

Although it is again ambiguous whether he ment it absent from the body or absent from the room.

If the killer did indeed take the heart is it not also possible that he removed a fetus and that Bond may not have noticed its absence as he was never looking for it? The Killer did after all collect trophies from other victims.

It is a very differant statement to make that ; MJK was NOT pregnant, than to say that; MJK was not beleived to be pregnant by the coroner.

Particularly intereted any observations about the accuracy of Bonds report and how reliable his assumption would have been, given a possibility she was pregnant and the fetus removed?

Yours and Merry Xmas Jeff

PS. As an asside thought, has anyone given any thought to why various organs were placed in the position that they were? Could this have had any signifgance to the killer or were they just placed at random? (I'm sure people have discused this before but I'm new and interested in any theories). Merry X
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Michelle Healy
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 1:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Unfortunately we can never know if she was pregnant or not."

Not necessarily true. If it were to arise that it was vital to the case to establish whether she was, or had at any point been pregnant, forensic anthropologists could examine her pelvic bones. In women who have been pregnant there form distinctive 'grooves' on the cavity side of the front bones (please excuse my terminology, I am not an anthropologist by trade), which deepen with each subsequent pregnancy. The grave of MJK is well known, an exhumation could be performed and the bones examined. This method is sometimes used in cold cases and often assists in identification (stating a probable number of children/pregnancies).

Bear in mind I'm only speaking hypothetically!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Caz and Sarah

As I have been informed the only possible missing organ was the heart. The information about the womb being placed under the head most intiguing as I had know idea. Do we have any deffinate idea what state or how badly mutilated the womb would have been? Was it complete? Also would there have been any other indications about pregnancy apart from this? Could it have been over looked if the person conducting the autopcy (please excuse my spelling) had know reason to look for a pregnancy. The information I am looking for is a fetus in a more develoded stage than 'very early" though I'm not certain exactly how many weeks.

Would there be any other signs apart from the womb? I'm afraid I know very little about medical things like this. So any help much appreciated.

I guess I'm saying do we know for sure the state of the womb. Could it have contained a fetus which was removed. Would there have been any other signs of pregnancy besides the womb or plasenta that would have indicated if Kelly was pregnant. Could it possibly have been over looked if someone was not looking for something missing that they did not expect to be there in the first place?

Please very important. Thanks for your help.

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

Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz

Post Number: 565
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 9:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jeff,

All I know is what was in the Bond report.

Being a mother myself doesn’t make me a whizz at biology I’m afraid, but I can’t help feeling someone would have noticed if a fetus of more than a few weeks’ development had been untimely ripp’d from the womb found under Mary’s head.

For me, the absence of remarks about the womb’s condition suggests it was relatively intact and showed no discernible signs of a pregnancy.

Love,

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

Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 19
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:07 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jeff,
Re the heart being 'absent' from the body..can I draw you to Bob Hinton's theory that although the heart was 'absent' from the body it wasn't absent from the room or the environs..I can't help but think that the non-gravid description of M.J.K. speaks for itself!
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Love
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek

Post Number: 311
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If I recall the interminable childbirth classes I was required to attend with my wife before our first was born, the uterus is a rather small, shriveled organ about the size of an orange in a woman who has never been pregnant. After stretching to accommodate a baby it never fully returns to its original size. So it should be easy to tell at a glance whether a woman has ever been pregnant.

The absence in the post mortem of any indication either was is puzzling. Today it would be standard procedure to indicate by the state of the uterus and other indications whether or not such a woman had ever born children. I would say the absence of any remarks regarding this possibility at all is slight indication that Mary had never born children, i.e. that signs of present or past pregnancy would be mentioned as an exception to the norm. But this is by no means certain.

Andy S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 21
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Andrew,
I'm sure your interminable classes weren't as interminable as 9 months felt for Mrs Spallek!!Anyway what about the uterus just being thrown onto the 'fire'..easy!
love
suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 8:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Andrew, Suzi, Caroline

Many thanks for your reply's. Which I have read with much interest. As you seem to agree we can never know for sure unless the body is exumed and I'm not certain that this could be justified. However I was intrigued by the assumption that she had never been pregnant.

How did Postitutes in this time avoid such matters. Surely it was an 'Occupational Hazard' as Norman stanley Fletcher might have said. I'm sure I've read somewhere that MJK might have had a son (but that's by the by).

I'm still more interested in the accuracy of Bonds report. Were the coroners of the day as accurate as today? Can we take this report as gossple. I refer back to Abberlines original thoughts, a man not noted for missing such things as important cogg's to a mechinism.

Any further thoughts about Bond (How good was he?) and any info on how prostitutes avoided pregnancy at the time would be appreciated.

Happy New year to you all.

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

Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz

Post Number: 581
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 11:44 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Happy New Year Jeff and All!

I don’t see what Kelly’s remains could tell us about possible pregnancies or childbirth. So even if we could argue that Bond may not have been able to judge if she had been pregnant when murdered, it won’t tell us if she was or wasn’t.

As for prostitutes avoiding pregnancy, I should imagine they used every trick in the book rather than provide full sexual intercourse to their customers. We know that wives of all classes in those days tended to be pregnant more often than not during their child-bearing years, with many suffering a miscarriage or still-birth for every surviving child. And families were generally huge compared with today.

Early menopause and diseases leading to infertility may have provided ‘natural’ contraception for many of the older prostitutes.

Love,

Caz



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek

Post Number: 325
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 4:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Regarding contraception:

As to prostitutes of the era avoiding pregnancy, I suspect they did so with varying results. From what I have read, the most common method for an experienced prostitute was to craftily avoid actual penetration (there is an allusion to this in the From Hell film). I recall one prostitute saying she had been penetrated only two or three times in her long career.

As to the reliability of the autopsy:

Determining present pregnancy of more than a very few days or two or three weeks would be very easy from a visual standpoint. Determining a previous pregnancy would be easy from a visual standpoint due to the increased size of the uterus, which never again returns to its original orange-like size. No high tech equipment or knowledge needed. The lack of mention of pregnancy in the post mortem is at least 99% conclusive that Mary was not pregnant -- at least not more than days or a week or two at most.

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

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1756
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 6:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If Jack wasn't particularly clued up on gynaecological matters, he may have got quite a shock, if Kelly had never been pregnant. The thing he'd whipped out and taken away from previous victims, would have been small and maybe, to him, unrecognisable. It makes you wonder whether he carried on rummaging in an effort to find it.

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

jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 8:44 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all

I've seen the From Hell but I dont really buy that every prostitute in London hoped that their Punters would not notice, not given the number of tricks per night and the number of prostitutes. Not every punter could have been that easily tricked. The film also illudes to anal sex which seems more likely. Has anyone done any research on the Matter?

I would imagine that liligitimate children were very common, a prostitue could work without worries for months once gravid. (sorry to sound a little insensitive) What I find hard to swallow is that Mary Kelly had never been pregnant assuming she was at least 24 when murdered. She had been a professional prostitute for some time. Some people have suggested that she had worked in professional brothels and in brothels abroad. If she'd worked in higher class establishments its unlikely she would get away with fooling the customers for long.

Even if she was not pregnant at the time of murder I find it hard to swallow that she never had been. She'd probably have started sexual relations or even been married at a much younger age than today.

Are you saying Andrew that it is simply impossible for Bond to have missed that Kelly was pregnant even if the fetus had been removed? It's the reliability of Bond given his defferences with Philips and the fact that Abberline also seems to have missed the uterus, that has me wondering if it is possible that if she was pregnant, but the fetus removed, that it might have been over looked.

I'm also not convinced we would have been looking at a neat little orange once it had been slashed from her body and placed under her head.

Also would Jack have had such a big surprise if he new exactly what he was looking for?

Again its Bonds reliability that I'm really interested in. As I understand surgions could not even distiguise human blood from animal at this point in time. 99% cirtainty is giving Mr Bond a lot of credense given the fact that Abberline had originally thought the womb absent altogether.

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

Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz

Post Number: 596
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 5:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jeff,

If Bond had enough expertise to recognise a pregnancy, fetus removed or not, we have to assume there wasn’t one because it surely would have been recorded. If he didn’t have the expertise, and a fetus had indeed been removed, with the result that Bond was not looking at the usual ‘neat little orange’, he nevertheless appeared to have no difficulty recognising the organ, placed under Kelly’s head, as her womb.

This suggests to me that the womb looked intact and likely was intact, with no signs of a recent pregnancy.

Love,

Caz

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 2:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oi PS. PS

I have just checked doctor bonds report on this site which startes the following:

The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the s pleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

There is no statement in his report about the victim not being Gravid??????

Where are 'you' sorry 'we' getting this information from i.e. where does the A to Z get this information about MJK being Grivid?
It is not!!!! Dr Bonds Report.

It does not appear to be part of Dr Bonds report. He simply staights uterus under head, does he not??????????

Sorry to appear a git... but still digging.. Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 1:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Caz

And yes I do see that. The question as you so correctly outline it.... is.... did he have the expertise, given the knowledge of the day, to be sure.

Your assumption that he would have needed to recognise the organ is logical. But I dont agree that it is proof of the state of the womb.

Sorry to play devils advocate but it also seems rather topical with the recent discussion about Diana's pregnancy in the news at the mo.

Not that I'm suggesting that Diana was pregnant, I dont buy conspiracy theories, escpecially when they involve someone as obviously incappable as Charles.

However given all our modern scientic advance there still seems to be dabate about the subject . If they cant tell 100 % today (given blood tests etc) how could Bond have been 99% cirtain in 1888?

Ok the womb must have been recognisable, this is logical, but does that mean whole? It's state of completion is surely guess work, from our point of veiw.

Surely we can only say she was probablely not pregnant but there is an area of uncirtainty.

I also do not buy that Kelly had never been pregnant. She'd been a known prostitute for some time. 25 not 24 as previously stated. My logic dictates that she would have carried children, perhaps even have been a mother at some point, at least had abortions. I dont think were looking for a neat orange, although I except that it would have had to be recognisable as a uterus.

Is there any other sorces of information about Dr Bond. Anything else or records about his ability with gynocology (sorry about my dyslexic spelling) That might give some better clues in this area to his ability?

Sorry if it sounds like I'm 'unwilling' to face the facts but its rather crucial to get my facts straight , as I start editing next week and would rather not leave it out due to lack of information.

Many Thanks Jeff

P.S.To be honest the term I was given was
'Slashed Out' "Fenzeed' so I think your logic holds true, unless our suspect was pretty skilled, which I dont think was the case, as I also have him as high.

Back to the old drawing board...thanks for bouncing..Caz
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek

Post Number: 326
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 5:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jeff,

Of course I'm not saying it is impossible that Mary was pregnant. But I would have to say it is nearly certain that she was not (at least not further than the extreme early stages).

Her uterus is mentioned in the PM, thus it was identified and at least relatively intact (though removed from the body). Since the uterus was identified and since it requires no technological aid at all to determine at a glance whether a uterus has ever contained an fetus more than a few weeks old and since no such pregnancy is mentioned, I must conclude that she was not pregnant (again, at least not more than a very few weeks).

Could she have been in the very early stages of pregnancy? Yes, of course. But it would be questionable as to whether she would even be aware of it herself at such a stage, much less anyone else being aware.

Furthermore, I fail to see any evidence suggesting that Mary was indeed pregnant.

Andy S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 167
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 6:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all
Non gravid springs to mind!! Methinks too much conspiracy here!!Caz I agree! won't go on 'cos you've put it very well!
Cheers
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 390
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 6:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

No that this has anything to do with MJK's pregnancy of lack thereof, but Jeff, what did you mean to this "The film also illudes to anal sex" I don't recall this in the film.

I apologise for trailing off the topic for a bit.

Also, many prostitutes did trick their punters, and of course most wouldn't notice, for a start they were probably drunk and so if it felt like it then I bet more got away with it then you may think.

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

Jeff leahy
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 7:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Sarah

Sometime since I've seen the film but sure it did. Perhaps I read the anal sex thing somewhere else. However still dont buy that prostitutes could rely on tricking customers. You can Fool some of the people some of the time etc etc.

Desided to read through MJK inquest last night, and Barnett definately illudes that Kelly had been married and appears to have lived in brothels, where tricking the customers would be far harder to do. I think it would be foolish to assume that Kelly had never been pregnant at some point in her life given Barnetts testomy.

Still it was great reading especially for Abberlines discription of the room, including the candel being placed in a broken wine glass. Excellent detail for our reconstruction.

I beleive that as long as I make the exact wording of Bonds Report clear it is justifyable to state a posibility of pregnancy in context of what I'm doing. Will continue research into Bond. If anyone knows where the A to Z gets the term not Gravid from I'd be most grateful.

Jeff

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.