Richard Brian Nunweek
Post Number: 28
|Posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 12:49 pm: || |
Your post relays my thoughts.
I feel what you implied is proberly more or less, what happened.
I also had pneumonia in the eighties, which I believed was a bad cold, I was off my beer and cigarettes, so I must have had it bad...
The last sentence is the only flaw which fellow members may mention , for we will be reminded that Kelly was heard singing at 1.am, something a sick person would be unlikely to do, unless of course in a spreeish mood which Kelly undoubtably was.
The fact That Mrs Maxwell looked her fully in the face and remarked on her condition suggests that not only did Kelly say she felt unwell , but also looked unwell.
The point about the milk is also a good point, did anybody at the time mention any milk in the room?.
I believe like you Diana, that kelly was seen by Maxwell,proberly on the both occassions, Kelly returned to her room , lit the fire [ if it was not lit earlier] got into bed, and was visited by her killer shortly after.
Another Flaw, if she was not feeling well why bother fold up her clothes in a neat pile?.
Answer.. she was known as a neat woman , impeccably dressed considering her class , and therefore it would have been in her character to look after the few good clothes she had.
So now we know what happened .. Big Question is however WHO DONE IT?..
Brian W. Schoeneman
Post Number: 26
|Posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 2:07 pm: || |
I think we can safely say that the Ripper was not from an economic class where he could easily ignore money - no matter how much - laying in plain view, or upon a person who wouldn't fight back. And I just don't buy that Jack would have taken the money just for jollies. We know that he took uteri and other viscera, the assumption being they were trophies. This makes sense - uteri make better trophies than coins. Why? Coins are common. Everyone has the chance to get them. Men, women or children. They have intrinsic value - they can be traded for goods and services. Uteri, however, are not. They are unique to women, and to the victims in particular. No two uteri are alike. And they have no intrinsic value, except to the killer (and maybe a doctor or med student). They are a personal reminder of the crimes that no penny or farthing would be. Coins are just not good trophies. So I rule that out. He took the money because it fed his hunger for food. He took the uteri because it fed his hunger for sexual release.
First on the question of the money - You can't have it both ways, buddy. If he is a raving, sadistic insane man, he wouldn't have been able to commit these crimes and not get caught, or be able to throw suspicion off of himself. Keep in mind, he wasn't just fooling the cops. He was fooling the entire population of the largest city in the world. I think if he had the sense of mind to bring a package with him to carry away a uterus in, he would have the sense of mind to check his victims pockets. And I have not, nor will I ever, buy the idea that he was so "disturbed" by the crime scene after the MJK killing that he went off his rocker. You are acting like it's no big deal to cut four women's throats, but mutilating MJK that much - now that's a big deal. C'mon. Men have seen a lot greater carnage than that and not gone crazy...ask anyone who saw a concentration camp in person. There was nothing especially sadistic or gruesome about what he did to MJK that would immediately make him crazy.
Second is about the witness statements - I'm willing to accept some of their statements in general - a witness saw a person that they thought was suspicious here, or they saw a person they recognzied there. That's about as far as I'm willing to believe - or to base my assumptions of the case on. I can believe that Mrs. Maxwell saw someone she thought was MJK that morning. I don't believe she knows the exact time, the exact place, and exactly what she was wearing, or that she had a cold, or that she had two eggs, overeasy with bacon and grits, and a pint of Foster's lager with a little pink umbrella in it for breakfast. I exaggerate, of course, but my point is simple. Witness statements are good to point you in the direction of a hard clue, but they should never be mistaken as being that hard clue. The fact that there aren't many hard clues for us to find is just part of the problem we deal with. If we wanted an easy search for the truth, we'd be UN weapons inspectors.
Richard Brian Nunweek
Post Number: 29
|Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 12:19 pm: || |
I get the impression your five little stars represent five direct hits on my post..
However I am not sunk yet , and If I do I shall go down with the ship.
First of all , you are implying that he proberly would not refuse the money, therefore a member of working class , should be your thoughts.I would also swing to that idea.
I still maintain he was a sadistic, brutal and completely insane maniac, and the fact that he eluded the police and the public was down to old fashioned plain luck, any killer that pulls intestines from the body and cuts and rips the body to pieces is to my mind raving mad..
Your point about concentration camps , and the horror that they portrayed is a fair point,I worked with a guy that visited many camps at the end of the war, and he saw some unbelievable sights , he was however not mad . a very level headed person , the reason for that is he was not the perpetrator of the crimes , there is a difference..
One Question Bob.
Do you agree from all the imformation we have availiable , that Mrs Maxwell proberly saw Mary Kelly, or not?.
Post Number: 8
|Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 6:18 am: || |
Thanks for explaining the little stars! I don't think the rest of your post applies to me, I think you've mixed me up with someone else.
However let me see if I can answer some of your questions. I personally do not think Caroline Maxwell saw MJK that morning. I think that if MJK had been alive and (almost) well someone elsewould have seen her. Now Maurice Lewis says that he saw her that morning but I don't believe he made a statement to the police to that effect, and I don't believe he was called to the inquest to make that assertion. Why not? Had the police investigated his story and found it to be incorrect?
Now other people are said to have seen MJK, but there is no record of just who these people are, or in fact if they exist. The references to these other 'witnesses' comes I believe from the Times dated 10th November. However the same article also states "Kelly had a little boy aged about 6 or 7...." and "....Kelly was seen in a public house known as the Ringers .... about 10'o'clock yesterday morning (the 9th) and that there she met her lover Barnet (sic) and had a glass of beer with him. this statement is also not substaniated"
In other words the Times was acting as a clearing house for gossip about that morning and in fairness to them they did point out that these were simply rumours.
Why did Maxwell say she saw MJK? After the Hanratty execution you had a number of people come forward and swear that Hanratty was in Rhyl. These weren't cranks or hardened liars, I am perfectly willing to accept that they believe they were telling the absolute truth, but as recent DNA tests have proved they were wrong!
I think it is a mistake to label JTR as an insane maniac, as this gives the impression of a drooling cackling lunatic racing round the streets waving a butcher knife.
People who commit murders of this nature are often not like that. If you had met Dahmer or Neilson before their trials would you have labelled them insane maniacs? I don't think so.
The difference between 'an insane maniac' and yourself is one of belief. You ( I hope) would not dream of putting a little girl on a large griddle and roasting her alive, and yet that is exactly what an immigrant family did in England a few years ago. Why? Because they came from an African culture that believed the only way to drive out evil spirits was to burn them out. The girl was suffering from a brain tumour. Now in the West we would X Ray the brain, in other words bombard it with lethal radiation, and we might treat the tumour with chemo therapy, burning it out with chemicals or burn it out with radiation at high levels. Now that type of treatment to the African family might appear barbaric. It is a question of belief. The relief column that came upon Ishandwana after the battle found the corpses eviscerated. This was becasue the Zulus believed you had to do that to release the spirit of the person you had killed. (Zulu wars cmg 1879)
Imagine JTR is a person who believes that the only way to save the poor wretches of the street is to save their souls - literally. He kills them in the most painless way he can think of, most medical reports show this to be true, and then opens them up looking for their souls, which he believes to be an actual organ like a liver or a heart.
Such a person would not neccessarily appear to be a dribbling lunatic.
I don't think you are being sunk without trace, I think you raise important, cogent questions and you invite peole to think about them. This is the purpose of the boards, and you fulfill it very well.
all the best
Richard Brian Nunweek
Post Number: 30
|Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:05 am: || |
Yes sorry , the post was directed to Brian, however you have made some valid points..
It is strange that Maurice lewis was not called to the inquest , or made a statement to the police, its almost if the police wanted to play down the rumour that Kelly was killed in the morning, the area seemed to be alive with that thought at the time.
Regarding Mrs Maxwell,its amazing if you read the various newspapers around that time , you tend to get a different picture then you imagined over the years.
I always thought that Maxwell saw her from across the road , but it seems she came out of 26, Dorset Street, and proberly saw her to her right.
As you know I tend to believe her statement, I cannot see how she could have been mistaken, she certainly did not get the date wrong.
The fact that she admitted she did not get a good look at the man Kelly was talking to at 8.45am, is a point in her favour , if she was a attention seeker surely she would describe somebody in detail similar to Hutchinson..
The point about the boy living with Kelly , was actually also confimed by Barnett, infact one report showed her having two children...Strange..
I am convinced the police knew a lot more on this murder then they admitted, the press would not be informed officially of a child[ or children] being involved to protect their intrests.
Regarding a bloodthirsty lunatic roaming the streets , I feel I may have overdone the description, he obviously had enough cunning to make good his escape, I understand your point entirely , when you say other people may have different levels to what they consider barbaric.
Religious mania is what I would consider a good point , and it would not surprise me at all if somewhen in the near future a suspect ,who may have been or still was a cleric, may come to light .Watch this space...
|Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 7:18 am: || |
I'd love to know where the reference is to Kelly having 2 childern.
The therory that she had 1 interests me enough, but 2? I'm all tingly.
The thought of 1 child plays into so many therories, but 2? If a paper reported she had 2 then you could be pretty sure that the woman know as Mary Kelly in Whitechappel had some relationship with some kid or kidss.
Richard Brian Nunweek
Post Number: 34
|Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 11:02 am: || |
The reference of Kelly having two children comes from Colin Wilson / Robin Odell Jack the Ripper 1987 paperback page 176 .
States Mary Kelly age 25 yrs, husband dead , two children, lived at 13, Millers court.
I do not know where the writers got that imformation from, unless printed in error.
I feel that there is a lot of imformation that we do not know about this victim, not to mention her correct name ...
Mary Jane M;carthy.
Mary jane Kelly.
Mary Jane ?
It is simply take your pick, as John Mc;arthy says he knew her as Mary Jane Mc;arthy although sometimes knew she used the name Kelly, mayby the former may be her real name ,
If we knew her proper name , we may get some intresting clues?.
Post Number: 13
|Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 2:15 pm: || |
Death certificate lists her name as "Marie Jeanette Kelly," aka "Davies." Perhaps you should add Marie Jeanette Davies to the list.
Post Number: 12
|Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 5:35 pm: || |
I've started a new thread under victims about the subject of MJK's true identity.
|Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 9:09 pm: || |
Regarding the question of whether it was Mary Jane Kelly who was murdered in Miller"s Court, I recall that R.Michael Gordon on his book on JTR ("Alias JTR")mentioned that MJK was seen drinking with a woman(fellow prostitute?) named Elizabeth Foster after she bid farewell to Barnett. This is said to come from a contemporary newspaper report.
I believe that it was MJK who was killed in Miller's Court.However, if there is any truth to conjecture that a fellow prostitute was murdered
in Kelly's bed Ms. Foster may have been the victim. They were said o have been drinking in Ringers'.
I throw this out there for whatever it is worth,
which is probably nothing.
Use of these
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.