| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 5:34 am: |       |
G'day Rich,
Hutchinson was probably paid that much money after he went around the neighbourhood with police to try to find his suspect. They never did find his suspect and alot of false arrests were made.
I've pointed out in the Hutchinson chapter of 'our' book that may never be published, how he described his suspect to Abberline as having a "pale" complexion, with a "slight" moustache, yet told a press man that he had a "dark" complexion and a "heavy" moustache. That doesn't sound like a man with a great memory!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 5:52 am: | |
G'day CB,
Thanks for your Hercule Poirot impression. Do you want to be him or Columbo? You can't be both!
When Joe walked out on Mary he made it clear that he would return when Maria Harvey found other lodgings. He may have been angry to see her there still and had yet to be told that she had found new lodgings. I agree that he may have had enough money to give Mary, but kept it back until he was asked to move back in.
I believe the man's black coat was still hanging over the window when her body was found. I also think the clothes were burnt as a sign of hatred for Maria Harvey. If the killer merely needed more light to see what he was doing, why were Mary's clothes left undisturbed on the chair?
LEANNE |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 8:44 am: | |
Hi everyone.
On June 7th Richard Nunweek wrote:
'Barnett liked a drink, he was obviously a regular user of the dorset street pubs, Maurice lewis claimed to have seen him with kelly in one of them.'
I am unaware of any such statement by Lewis, can someone please tell me where this is documented?
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 900
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 8:57 am: | |
Hi Bob,
Mayby i should answer that point, as i was the one who stated it.
Barnett himself mentioned that him and kelly had been evicted from accomodation for going 'On a drink'
Also as it was reported that Barnets nickname was Danny, and Lewis had seen him and julia drinking with kelly the previous night in the Horn and plenty.
So with those points in mind I would suggest that it is more than possible Barnett indulged.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 850
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
Hi
As Lewis was obviously,as were most of the witnesses, a frequenter of the hostelries in Dorset St I feel that his statement may be somewhat spurious. I know that I'm a big supporter of Mrs M but Mr L's 'statement' that he also saw MJK outside The Britannia at 'about'10.00 am on the 9th Nov must also be a tad worrying
As to the 'Danny' nickname....,it appears that it was 'said' to be his nickname.....by who? and why?
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 851
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
Bob-
The only ref I can find to hand is in the A-Z under LEWIS,MAURICE where there's this buisiness about seeing MJK drinking with 'Danny' and 'Julia' in the Horn of Plenty on the night of the murder
Suzi
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 410
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 6:55 pm: | |
Joe's brother's name was Daniel. I've never seen any testimony about Joe having a nickname of any sort, especially not one that cooresponds to his brother's name (which would be an odd nickname).
- Jeff |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 7:08 pm: | |
Dear Richard,
Many thanks for your answer - you're not a politician by any chance? You've managed to completely avoid answering my question at the same time giving the impression you have answered it fully!
I specifically asked where this statement was documented - you haven't answered, instead you have given another piece of spurious information presumably hoping we will accept it as fact.
You say : 'as it was reported that Barnetts nickname was Danny'. Really? Where did that come from? Since he had a brother named Danny don't you think that may have been a bit confusing?
The only source I have found for Lewis's statement after a cursory investigation is the story in the Illustrated Police News and here is what it says:
He saw her on the previous (Thursday) night, betwen ten and eleven, at the Horn of Plenty in Dorset-street. She was drinking with some woman and also with "Dan," a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields markets, with whom she lived up till as recently as a fortnight ago. He knew her as a woman of the town. One of the woman whom he saw with her was known as Julia. To his knowledge she went home overnight with a man. He seemed to be respectably dressed. Whether or no the man remained all night he could not say. Soon after ten o'clock in the morning he was playing with others at pitch and toss in M'Carthy's-cour, when he heard a lad call out "Copper," and he and his companions rushed away and entered a beer-house at the corner of Dorset- street, known as Ringer's. He was positive than on going in he saw Mary Jane Kelly drinking with some other people, but is not certain whether there was a man amongst them.
Now even the most cursory examination will show that there are large parts of this statement that don't make any sense.
1. MJK did not live with a man called Dan she lived with a man called Joe.
2. As far as we know Joe Barnett did not sell oranges he was an unemployed fish porter.
3. If MJK was spotted in the Ringers by Lewis at about 1010 how on earth was she found hacked to pieces, a task that would have taken many hours, at 1030?
These anomolies alone tell us that Lewis's statement must be disregarded - there are simply too many factual errors.
Bob
' |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 2:00 pm: | |
Hi Ken,
I do not feel the description of Kelly given by Maxwell matches Kelly at all. Why would Kelly have to fake her own death to leave? at some point people are going to have to take the evidence at face value. The police believed it was Kelly 115 years ago so I see no reason not to believe them now.
Ken your theory is possible all theories are possible because who knows? Alot of people support Joe for the ripper. I think that after 115 years if someone did come up with the right answer, they would have had to use so much speculation that no one would believe them. Lets face it anything short of finding a bloody knife wraped up in a sighned confession along side the heart of Mary Kelly would leave room for doubt. I think that this is the charm of the case, like some great Hurcule Poirot mystery there are so many suspects and so many possibilities but no real answers.
All the best,CB |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 6:05 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I near fell off my chair when I read those words...
To quote:
I've pointed out in the Hutchinson chapter of 'our' book that may never be published
WHAT!!! Why? Problems getting it published, you've had second thoughts on Barnett as the perp? lack of support? or something else, hmmmm.
Your readers/public demand an answer, and I warn you it'd better be a good one young lady ;-)
Or just tell me to mind my own business if it's personal ( I always was a nosey bugger! )
Cheerio,
ian
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 4:08 am: | |
G'day Ian,
I said that we may never get our book published because all of the minor attempts I've made to find an Australian publisher willing to read a sample of our book have failed, and that's a real blow to my self-esteem. I'm exploring our options.
Neither of us have ever written a book before and I'm not really sure of what steps to take next, not even towards self-publishing. I may ask Stephen Ryder to read what we've got so far.
I found a Website that lets you, for a fee, show one chapter of your book online for anyone to read, and then prints each book per order from readers who want to read more.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on June 14, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2549
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
Hi Leanne
I know nothing about publishing, but I imagine it's pretty hard for new authors.
Have you considered asking a "big name" JTR author to pen a foreword? Even if it's only a couple of pages, it's a familiar name for the publisher to stick on the cover.
I should think that using the word "controversial" would help too.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 901
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 9:02 am: | |
Hi,
Leanne is right , however the words patience, determination, and resolve, spring to mind.
I feel that the work is not quite finished in its full capacity, and when it is done so, and both of us feel we have achieved everything we originaly set out to do, then the results of our work will filter out to relevant publishers.
I am sure that some will reject without thought, but we are in the same boat as every newcomer, so perserverence is the key.
The only regret is regardless how much one believes a suspects guilt, and regardless what evidence is pointed in the direction of guilt, none of us can prove anything, which is so frustrating.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 854
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Richard-
As you say...none of us can prove anything......that's the whole horror and frustration of the thing!
Perserverence will always be the key I guess, but are we just digging ourselves deeper and deeper into the same old hole!? Of course it will always be frustrating until someone finds a box of goodies in an attic somewhere that solves the case without a doubt but until that happy day......keep digging 'eh?!
Suzi
It's absurd to divide people into good or bad.People are either charming or tedious. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 412
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Leanne and Richard,
Have a look in the bookstores for the "Writer's Guide". It's a book that lists publishing houses, and gives descriptions about the works they tend to publish, etc. It's a must have for first time writers. There's no point, for example, in sending a JtR book to a publisher who only does poetry, or sci-fi, or to one who does not accept "unsolicited manuscripts". Sometimes, you might have to just send them a letter, outlining what the book is about, and then if they are interested they may ask for a chapter or two.
Anyway, have a look for it. A new one comes out each year, but it more or less stays current for a while. Also, you may have better luck with a UK or US publisher. I think the market for JtR books is larger, and so publishers may be more inclinded to have a look.
Good luck.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 903
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | |
Thanks Guys,
Leanne has itchy feet, I am frustrated, we have produced a book that is ninety per-cent completed, however the hard work now begins, obviously the other Ten Per cent has to be completed, but the finished product has to be accepted by a publisher that accepts true crime, and surely 'Jack' being such a commercial subject, we should stand a chance, it would be a shame if two such devoted people such as Leanne and myself, could not follow on such a dedicated bunch of authors in the past, many of who add regularly to this vital casebook, and i should add that I utmostly respect all of them.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 857
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
Richard and Leanne-
Go for it for Gods's sake!!!!! these things are never easy but if you feel it's worth it the DO IT!!!
Looking forward to reading it!!! eventually!!
Best
Suzi
It's absurd to divide people into good or bad.People are either charming or tedious. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
G'day Suzi,
Don't worry, this book will be published if it's the last thing I do. I'm not even sure if we've written all we can yet. All typesetting is being done, we have a good looking cover designed, an acknowledgements page is in, an Author's Preface is started, and an Index page is started, (minus the page numbers of course).
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on June 14, 2004)
(Message edited by Leanne on June 14, 2004) |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 143
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 1:00 am: | |
Richard and Leanne, I recommend avoiding the major websites where you pay a fee and then they let people order books for you. The one you saw, Leanne, had a chapter online -- was that Xlibris, iUniverse, or some other outfit? Most bookstores know to avoid buying books from those places because they will print pretty much anything and everything. And even though they are different companies, almost all of them just send your book off to one major printing press and fulfillment house to do the actual printing and bookstore orders (assuming you get any since they don't promote you). So you end up just paying to have their name attached, and their name usually ends up dragging you down.
I'd try very hard to find a more mainstream publisher, and then if that doesn't work try the more direct self-publishing route.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
G'day,
Here's that on-line self-publishing Website I found: http://www.selfpublish.com.au/
LEANNE |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 144
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Hrm, never heard of them... their library of titles looks extremely small and all over the place. Mostly questionable science fiction and two autobiographies by the same person (I've never heard of him, how interesting a life could he have had to have two whole books?). I couldn't see what they charge (and don't know the exchange rate anyway), but I'd bet it's excessive for what little you get. I'd pass, personally.
I'd just concentrate on the book right now and shop it around later. If that doesn't work and you need info on self-publishing, feel free to contact me and I can give some specific suggestions. I was in publishing in various capacities about 7 years back and will be getting a refresher from getting Ripper Notes out, so should be able to give better advice then.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 413
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
Leanne,
Dan has some good advice there. The "vanity press publishers" don't promote your book, and don't really care if it does or does not sell or get out to bookstores because they make the bulk of their money from the author, not the buyers of the books. Promoting the books, trying to get them to sell, etc, costs money, and since they will take anything, they get more money from the people trying to publish with very little real work done by themselves.
I would highly recommend concentrating on the book itself, and since it sounds like you're close to finished, start writing "letters of interest" to publishers who have already dealt with JtR books. They may not be entirely open to new authors, but it's worth a shot. In your letter, give a summary of what it is your book is about (and not like David's summary, but one that is a bit more comprehensible and reader friendly - don't try and sell yourself, sell your book and your ideas).
The letter should not be too long, two pages at most I would think. But it should open with the idea that 1) JtR interest is currently high, with the recent movie followed shortly after by Cornwell's book. 2) JtR also has a fairly long track record in terms of reader interest. 3) Although most books tend to conclude with the idea that the solution they offer is the "only one", you are maintaining caution on that front while still focusing on one particular suspect (Joe Barnett). 4) What you present is the evidence against this person, who was the lover of the last generally accepted Ripper victim (the publishers won't know anything about the case - they sell the books, but don't read them necessarily).
And so on. Basically, the letter should read fairly professionally (be very careful about grammer, spelling, and the overall flow from one topic to the next). Spell out, without too much detail, what it is about your book that is different from those already available, and therefore of interest to the reading public.
Then, send out copies of this letter to various publishers. I'm not sure if it's ethical to send letters to more than one publisher at a time to see who is interested though? I don't think you're supposed to send a manuscript to multiple publishers. You're supposed to send to one, if they reject, then to another, and so on. Someone who has actually tried and succeeded publishing a book would know what the rules are. I know when I send my research in for consideration in a journal, I can only submit to one journal at a time.
Anyway, good luck and keep at it. Really though, don't go for the "give us money and we'll put it on the web" type thing.
- Jeff |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 861
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 4:48 pm: | |
Leanne=
Sounds like some good advice here!!!
g
Go for it ! We've all got views and it's great to read others.....where would these boards be without them!!! Whats the cover like then??
Suzi
It's absurd to divide people into good or bad.People are either charming or tedious. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Thanks for taking the time too respond to my post. My post was a little over the top so thanks for not leaving me hanging by ignoring it. I think I like Columbo better. He seeme to fit my style best.
I think it is fair speculation that Joe and Mary argued. I dont think Men and women have changed that much over the last 115 years. I do feel Joe burnt the cloths out of spite because he saw Harvey drop the cloths off. I bet we diagree when Joe would have burnt the the cloths but that is what makes discussing the case interesting.
Good luck with your book. I am wishing you all the best, CB |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hi Leanne/Richard,
I'm glad to hear that the "may not be published" isn't because you've found a new suspect after all this time.
The one constant in this group is that one day you guys will publish your work and we'll all be convinced of the case against Joe.
Where there's a will there's a way and Brian has the right approach, it's only to be expected to get knocked back initially but you _must_ persist.
Since there are/were some authors on the board maybe they can give suggestions/advice nearer the time when you're ready to publish, I suspect it's a niche market and difficult to gain entry but keep trying.
Don't be backward at coming forward, if there are problems and you need advice, open a new thread in pub talk or general sections and post lots to it as I and possibly others tend to look at the "Most popular forum today".
Err I'm not sure whether the moderators will allow this post through as it's got _absolutely_ nothing to do with "Why I don't think Joe was the Ripper" and actually suggests a sneaky method to draw attention to your thread...
Anyway I'll withdraw gracefully and let the debate on Joe continue...
Best wishes.
Cheerio,
ian
PS Leanne I saw your Druit cartoon with the blood oozing out of the cricket ball in the creativity section, youze good gal, you ought to choose a few more suspects to caricature; not that I can think of any apart from the obvious one or something based on kosminski eating out of the gutter.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 6:17 pm: | |
G'day People,
What we've got so far in our book I am going to send off to Bob Hinton to review. He's been in a similar boat to us and hopefully will be able to point us in the right direction.
He wont be asked to support our choice of suspect, but hopefully he will see that we have researched well and deserve at least to be heard.
Ian: I have started a cartoon of Joseph Barnett. I can get an idea of what he looked like from the courtroom sketch and know what a costermongers fruit-barrow looks like, but I can't for the life of me think of a funny enough caption.
Kosmonski eating out of a gutter could be made into a funny one. I'll keep that in mind!
LEANNE |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 899
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 6:29 pm: | |
Looking forward to these Leanne!
Best Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2585
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 8:11 pm: | |
Leanne, oh well, just off the top of my head :
BARNETT : Oi'll just tell Abberline she slipped on a banana skin.
KOSMINSKI : What a way to earn a crust.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 869
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
Leanne-
Should be interesting looking forward to your Joe drawing!
BARNETT-Oi'll just o'range an alibi....anyone fancy a game of whist chaps?'
KOSMINSKI-The last thing to say is that it'll probably be his 'Swan...son (g)
Suzi |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 901
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 1:31 pm: | |
Just the research you have both done on the way London/Spitalfields workers did their jobs would be of interest as well as your commitment and enthusiasm.It sounds as if you are describing events as they happen,embedding them in the context of the lives people led,how it was all organised,the detail that gives life to it all and fleshes out Whitechapel in 1888-I can see it in numbers of your posts in a far more real way than any of the films I have so far seen.Maybe thats what you could do,turn it into a documentary-type video with dramatic insets and copperplate-handwritten extracts describing the work patterns,the various methods of timekeeping-use of bells-church clocks etc.A prison scene -typical day type of thing would be interesting and the GLC Records on these places are brilliantly preserved.I think such a CD with authentic background information and some reconsructions of the crime scenes would sell as well as any book.
Anyway,just a few thoughts
Keep going we"re all batting for you Leanne and Richard
Best Natalie |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 870
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
Nats
Are we??.......The more I look into Joe the more I start to say..hang on there's some problems here.. Ok he lived with Mary and probably knew her as well as anyone....but...I honestly think that he didn't have the wit or wherewithal to have 'done for her' The thing that sticks in my mind is that whoever killed MJK had to be rid of the face...the face had to go and be destroyed beyond recognition...hair and ears notwithstanding!
Best
Suzi |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 904
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 4:33 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,I didnt mean by that that we all accept Joe as the ripper.You ought to know by now that I for one am very dubious about his candidacy at present,but who knows ? that may change when I read the book!No all I mean is that the above posts are mainly fom well-wishers who would like to see a successful outcome to all Leanne"s and Richard"s hard efforts.
Best Natalie |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 873
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 7:12 pm: | |
Nats- Ok We're all really looking forward to Richard and Leanne's book...will be interested to see what other people think and read their comments!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 45
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 5:51 pm: | |
Maurice Lewis, a tailor, living in Dorset-street, stated that he had known the deceased woman for the last five years. Her name was Mary Jane Kelly. She was short, stout, and dark; and stood about five feet three inches.
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/illustrated_police_news/il881117.html
A little short for our Mary isn't she?
Nina  |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3069
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 6:20 pm: | |
Hi Nina
I'm not a fan of the Barnett theory, but just on this point : wouldn't a tailor, of all people, be good at judging someone's height?
Robert |
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 46
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 7:41 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I always thought that Kelly was 5'7" and had a fair complexion not a dark one.
Nina
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3071
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Hi Nina
I wish I knew what she looked like, where she was from, who killed her....She's as slippery as an eel. It's almost as if she was a sprite, not a person.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Mary,Mary??
Distinctly contrary!
,Fair,.......Black,........Dark..
Lawks...!!!!
Tall....,short......,stout...
plain......,tidy?,.........kick like a carthorse?
Who knows?
Quite a girl our 'Mary'eh ???
Not a poem Robert!!(sadly!)
Just a few thoughts!
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1077
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Judging by her corpse albeit a lack of flesh, she does not look of plump appearence, i personally fail to see how a woman on bad times in the 1880s in whitechapel would be carrying overweight.
I would say she was around 5ft 2inches tall and of only medium build. to suggest she was five feet seven is unlikely that would have been an ecceptional height for a woman of that period, with the nutrition available then.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1320
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
Richard-
As you say... judging from the picture of the cadaver on the bed, assuming this to be Mary then ..yes I would say she was not overweight (or obese as is fashionable to say these days!)As to height! Hmmmm it all of course depends on the length of that bed as it seems the only 'yard stick' so to speak we have to go on..
Lets say that the bed was around 5'8" ish long,we dont know whether there was a foot board but may assume there may have been..with the legs drawn up as they were I should say that 'Mary's' height may have been around5'4"-5"
Just a thought(s)
Cheers
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3074
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Re the weight thing, Tabram had a double chin - probably due to booze. Eddowes was painfully thin, yet was a boozer too. I suppose it's down to personal metabolism.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1321
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:49 pm: | |
And so say all of us....
(Double chins or not!!! depends on the angle of the camera I say!!!!)
Oh and metabolism of course!!!
Cheers
Chin Chin!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1322
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
ANYWAY!
Having got that....(not the chins!!) off of my chest!!!... What about the length of bed thing as relevant to the height of 'Marys' body then!???? ..Off to bed now to assume the position(oh eh) and do some measuring!!!! Come on! I cant be alone in this daftness!!!!
Oh well....the long winter nights will just fly by!
Cheers
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3075
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 6:21 pm: | |
Suzi, I can't understand why Bond didn't measure her height during the PM. I don't think there's much chance of finding out her height now, short of digging her up.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1451
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 9:14 pm: | |
G'day,
Elizabeth Prater stated to the 'Star' on the 10th of November that 'she was tall and pretty and fair as a lily'.
Elizabeth Prater told the press on the 12th that Kelly was about 5ft 7ins tall, and stout, with blue eyes and 'a fine head of hair which reached nearly to her waist.'
LEANNE
Q: What's the difference between roast beef and pea soup?
A: Anyone can roast beef!
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 51
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 9:57 pm: | |
Suzi,
Did you check out the bed thing? Hope your 5'7".
Robert,
Perhaps her height is in Dr. Phillips PM report, he was the first to examine her. Where is it? Will we ever know?
Leanne,
I find it odd that the description Maurice Lewis gave dosn't fit any of the other descriptions we have of Kelly.
Nina |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1454
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 10:51 pm: | |
G'day Nina,
Well, Maurice Lewis was a tailor living on Dorset Street who told the press that he had known Mary Kelly for about five years. He also stated that he saw her hours after her estimated time-of-death. It all looks to me like mistaken identity on his part, or maybe he just wanted to pump-up business!
I just discovered a mistake I gave in my last post before this one, I should have said that 'ELIZABETH PHEONIX' told the press on the 12th.... Those descriptions were given by two different people.
Elizabeth Prater lived in the room immediately above Mary Kelly. I have no idea who Elizabeth Pheonix was. Can anybody help?
LEANNE
Q: Why are men like public toilets?
A: They are either vacant, engaged or full of....!
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 53
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 11:17 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Elizabeth Phoenix was the sister-in-law of the man who owned the house at Breezer's-Hill where Mary had stayed.
Nina |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3078
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 4:16 am: | |
Hi all
Re the whole business of Kelly's height, colour of hair, appearance etc :
Surely the police would have been very anxious to trace Kelly's relatives, if only to ascertain whether she'd said anything in her letters to them which might help their inquiries. One way to do that would have been to publish an authentic police description of her in the newspapers, particularly in the London, Welsh, and Irish ones.
We now have access to a trememdous number of newspapers, yet (as far as I know) there is not one authentic police description of Kelly. If that's true, maybe it suggests that Kelly's family did in fact come forward, and either couldn't help, or made it clear that they didn't wish to get further involved.
Maybe some file containing their names will turn up one day.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1327
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
Robert-
Yes it is odd that re the Police lack of description...mind you I guess all they had to go on was the mess on the bed and the neighbours descriptions!!! Then as now the press interview all sorts of people in the locale and each one comes up with a different 'description' of the 'victim'aaaaaaaah me!
We live in hope 'eh?
Cheers
Suzi |
