Casebook Forums http://forum.casebook.org This is a discussion forum powered by vBulletin. To find out about vBulletin, go to http://www.vbulletin.com/ . en Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:56:55 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forum.casebook.org/images/misc/rss.jpg Casebook Forums http://forum.casebook.org <![CDATA["The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"]]> http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3419&goto=newpost Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:43:37 GMT I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but forgive me as I'm a little slow on the uptake (as apparently the Met Police were in 1888). I was sitting there reading a Ripper book when the meaning of this phrase finally hit home......


granted, we will never know if this "The Juwes are the men..." graffiti was actually written by the killer or not. but assuming that it WAS written by the killer, I believe the police got the message totally wrong. the graffiti was not anti-semitic and was not meant to draw attention away from Jews. in fact, the point of the graffiti was the exact opposite.

IF (big IF) the writer of the graffiti was indeed the killer, then we could be fairly sure that the man seen by Lawende and company was, in fact, the killer. These 3 men were Jews, in a neighborhood with a lot of Jews. now, up to that point, 2 of the prevailing theories on the killer were that.....


1. the killer was a Jew, possibly a Jewish butcher. and a Jewish butcher named "Leather Apron" had previously been arrested and nearly lynched by an angry mob.

or

2. the women were killed by a gang of ruffians.


now, here with Lawende and Friends, we have a GANG OF JEWS. not only did they fit the description of one of the prevailing theories, they fit BOTH descriptions. even if the killer didn't read the newspapers, he heard talk of the killings and the theories on the streets. he knew that this GANG of Jews (Lawende and friends) would probably be questioned as they were the last to see the woman alive in the streets and would probably still be in the area when at least Stride was found, if not both Stride and Eddowes were found. without doubt, some degree of suspicion would fall upon Lawende, Levy, and Hyrams.

so, "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" is basically the killer's way of saying, "hey cops, the Jewish guys that saw me back there with Eddowes aren't to be blamed for anything. they aren't the killers, I am, and they saw me."

it was not an accusatory finger pointed at an entire race of people and it was not meant to throw the police off the trail. it was actually meant to put the police on the RIGHT trail.

so, again assuming this was written by the killer, who was seen by Lawende and friends, the misspelling "Juwes" and the use of the double negative at the end would indicate that the killer was probably not the most highly educated person, probably low class with SOME education, but not much.

also, it would point away from him being Jewish. what Jewish person would not know how to spell "Jews"? if he were indeed Jewish, then he obviously made the misspelling on purpose.


now, if this were not meant as a message to the police to get their attention away from Lawende, Hyrams, and Levy, then it was apparently a message TO Lawende, Hyrams, and Levy saying "hey, you saw me with the woman and I'm a fellow Jew and we Jews aren't to be blamed for anything when the police come asking questions." this is also plausible.

either way, now that this idea has struck me, I'm more inclined to believe that the graffiti was indeed written by the killer. which makes Warren's erasing it even more unforgivable. how that clown managed to keep his job is beyond me. ]]> General Discussion Pontius2000 http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3419 <![CDATA[why are the "Dear Boss" letter and "Saucy Jack" postcard given any notice at all?]]> http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3418&goto=newpost Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:10:41 GMT Aside from giving the killer the infamous nickname, what's the point? why are these 2 writings even considered in the same light as the "From Hell" letter?


Tom Bulling wrote the "Dear Boss" letter and "Saucy Jack" postcard. there is no doubt whatsoever about that fact. one does not have to be a handwriting expert to see this. In his letter to Williamson on Oct 5, 1888 where he transcribed the "third Dear Boss letter", he did not even attempt to disguise his own handwriting from the "Jack the Ripper" handwriting.

He was either the stupidest or most arrogant person in London at that time. so the bigger question is.....why was he not arrested and convicted for this? because his hoax opened the floodgates for hundreds of other hoax letters. ]]> Letters and Communications Pontius2000 http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3418 good books http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3417&goto=newpost Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:31:52 GMT im reading this book called "A Study in Red: The Secret Journal of Jack the Ripper" has anyone else read it??? ]]> General Discussion dragula1 http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3417 Jack the Ripper - The Casebook http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3416&goto=newpost Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:56:20 GMT So I saw the book in the book store, looked interesting with all the pop out copies of the Ripper letters and Police records. Is it any good? So I saw the book in the book store, looked interesting with all the pop out copies of the Ripper letters and Police records. Is it any good? ]]> Non-Fiction DarkTaleProductions http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3416 Anderson at the London Institute, 1904 http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3415&goto=newpost Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:18:12 GMT The Otago Witness (New Zealand), 28 December 1904, reports a recent lecture given by Anderson at the London Institute (no doubt copied from a London... The Otago Witness (New Zealand), 28 December 1904, reports a recent lecture given by Anderson at the London Institute (no doubt copied from a London newspaper, though the source is not stated).

After recounting a typically idiosyncratic proposal for "professional criminals" to be treated as lunatics and detained in asylums at his Majesty's pleasure, the report adds:
"The Whitechapel murderer, known as "Jack the Ripper," was, said Sir Robert, undoubtedly insane, and was ultimately confined within an asylum."
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi...W19041228.2.41

This comes reasonably early in the sequence of Anderson's pronouncements, though he had already referred to the murderer being "safely caged in an asylum" in The Nineteenth Century, in February 1901. The word "ultimately" may be seen as significant, considering that Aaron Kozminski was not committed to Colney Hatch until more than two years after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. ]]> Anderson, Sir Robert Chris http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3415 Football Cheating Row http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3414&goto=newpost Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:43:22 GMT Following the France/Ireland match, a question : can anyone give an example of a footballer overturning a referee's decision by owning up to a foul? Jimmy White once called a foul against himself when he inadvertently brushed a ball. Golfers report themselves for rule breaches. Batsmen have been known to walk. But footballers...? (excluding Corinthian Casuals here). ]]> Pub Talk Robert http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3414 Brady St bloodstains Aug 31st http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3413&goto=newpost Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:21:24 GMT Hello

The following refers to the other incident that night, close to Bucks Row.

East London Advertiser
Saturday, 1 September 1888
In Buck's Row, naturally, the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state than an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.


East London Advertiser
Saturday, 8 September 1888
With the exception of one spot in Brady-street, there were no bloodstains in the vicinity.


Evening Standard (London)
1 September 1888
Buck's row runs through from Thomas street to Brady street, and in the latter street what appeared to be blood stains were early in the morning found at irregular distances on the footpaths on each side of the street. Occasionally a larger splash was visible, and from the way in which the marks were scattered it seems as though the person carrying the mutilated body had hesitated where to deposit his ghastly burden, and had gone from one side of the road to the other, until the obscurity of Buck's row afforded the shelter sought for. The street had been crossed twice within the space of about 120 yards. The point at which the stains were first visible is in front of the gateway to Honey's mews, in Brady street, about 150 yards from the point where Buck's row commences.
Several persons living in Brady street state that early in the morning they heard screams, but this is by no means an uncommon incident in the neighbourhood; and with one exception nobody seems to have paid any particular attention to what was probably the death struggle of an unfortunate woman. The exception was a Mrs. Colville, who lives only a short distance from the foot of Buck's row. According to her statement she was awakened early in the morning by her children, who said some one was trying to get into the house. She listened and heard a woman screaming "Murder! police!" five or six times. The voice faded away as though the was going in the direction of Buck's row, and all was quiet. She only heard the steps of one person.

THE PALL MALL GAZETTE
An Evening Newspaper and Review.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1888.
A general belief prevails that the spot where the body was found was not the scene of the murder, and this belief is supported by the fact that what appeared to be blood-stains have been traced at irregular distances on the footpath in Brady-street, which adjoins Buck's-row.

Evening Standard (London)
1 September 1888
Buck's row runs through from Thomas street to Brady street, and in the latter street what appeared to be blood stains were early in the morning found at irregular distances on the footpaths on each side of the street. Occasionally a larger splash was visible, and from the way in which the marks were scattered it seems as though the person carrying the mutilated body had hesitated where to deposit his ghastly burden, and had gone from one side of the road to the other, until the obscurity of Buck's row afforded the shelter sought for. The street had been crossed twice within the space of about 120 yards. The point at which the stains were first visible is in front of the gateway to Honey's mews, in Brady street, about 150 yards from the point where Buck's row commences.

Evening News
London, U.K.
1 September 1888
Buck's-row runs through from Thomas-street to Brady-street, and in the latter street what appeared to be blood stains were, early in the morning, found at irregular distances on the footpaths on either side of the street. Occasionally a larger splash was visible, and from the way in which the marks were scattered it seems as though the person carrying the mutilated body had hesitated where to deposit his ghastly burden, and gone from one side of the road to the other until the obscurity of Buck's-row afforded the shelter sought for. The street had been crossed twice within the space of about 120 yards. The point at which the stains were first visible is in front of the gateway to Honey's-mews, in Brady-street, about 150 yards from the point where Buck's-row commences.
According to her statement she was awakened early in the morning by her children, who said some one was trying to get into the house. She listened, and heard a woman screaming "Murder! Police!" five or six times. The voice faded away, as though the woman was going in the direction of Buck's-row, and all was quiet. She only heard the steps of one person. It is almost needless to point out that a person suffering from such injuries as the deceased had had inflicted upon her would be unable to traverse the distance from Honey's-mews to the gateway in Buck's-row, which is about 120 yards from Brady-street, making a total distance of at least 170 yards.
Therefore the woman must have been carried or dragged there, and here the mystery becomes all the more involved. Even supposing that, with the severe abdominal wounds she had sufficient strength left to call out in the tones which Mrs. Colwell asserts she heard the deceased's throat could not have been cut at the spot where she was found lying dead, as that would have caused a considerably heavier flow of blood than was found there. As a matter of fact but a very small quantity of blood was to be seen at this spot, or found in Buck's-row at all, so the murderer could not have waited here to finish his ghastly task. If he had cut her throat on the onset the deceased could not have uttered a single cry afterwards. Mrs. Colwell's statement, looked at in the light of these circumstances, by no means totally clears up the mystery as to the exact locality which the murderer selected for the accomplishment of his foul deed.

LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER
LARGEST CIRCULATION IN THE WORLD.
LONDON: SUNDAY, SEPT. 2, 1888.

A LITTLE GIRL'S STORY.
Charlotte Colville, who lives about the middle of Brady-street, made the following statement to our representative on Friday night :- I am 11 years of age, and sleep with my mother. Early this (Friday) morning, before it was light, I heard terrible cries of "Murder! Murder! Police! Police! Murder!" They seemed a good way down Brady-street to the right, where the marks of bloody hands are. Then the sounds came up the street towards our house, and I heard a scuffling and a bumping against our shutters. I got out of bed and woke my mother. The woman kept on calling out "Murder! Police!" and the sounds went on in the direction of Buck's-row, where the body was found. I am sure the first sounds seemed to come from where the blood-stains of hands are on the wall.
Mrs. Colville said that her little girl woke her, and she heard the woman's cries, but the rows go on every night, and people are constantly being knocked down and robbed by the fearful gangs about. It would not be safe for anyone to get out of their beds to go and interfere. People have done so, and only been terribly ill-treated.

LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER
LARGEST CIRCULATION IN THE WORLD.
LONDON: SUNDAY, SEPT. 2, 1888.

1 September 1888 The people living in Brady-street were thrown into a state of excitement on the terrible news spreading. Brady-street is a long thoroughfare that runs to the left from the bottom of Buck's-row. Early on Friday morning fresh blood stains were observed for quite a distance along the side walks. There would be drop after drop two or three feet, and sometimes six feet apart for a distance, and then a larger pool or splash. As soon as the murder became known a lively interest was taken in these blood-stains, and they began to be traced. They were soon found to be on both sides of the street, and it was afterwards seen that the bleeding person had travelled or been carried in a zig-zag line. The trail was easily followed down Brady-street for 150 yards to Honey's-mews. In front of the gateway there was a large stain, looking as if the bleeding person had fallen against the wall and lain there. From here to the foot of Buck's-row, in which the body was found, the trail of blood was clearly marked. It was wet on Friday morning, and at noon, although the sun had dried it, and there had been many feet passing over it, it was still plainly discernible. The zig-zag direction it took crossing and re-crossing the street was and is a matter of mystery. In the space of a hundred yards the woman crossed the narrow street twice, and whenever she crossed a larger stain of blood in place of the drops indicated that she had stopped.

Our representative discovered, however, on making inquiries the same night, that at a house near where the blood spots were a man, early on the morning of the tragedy, had made a murderous assault on his wife and cut her throat. She was carried to the London hospital, and it is very probable some blood dripped from her.

All taken from Casebook "Press Reports" ]]> Mary Ann Nichols Jon Guy http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3413 <![CDATA[Ripper's physical strength]]> http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3412&goto=newpost Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:15:59 GMT What does everyone think of the Ripper's physical strength? Do you think he was a pretty strong individual or just someone of average, ordinary strength. If we accept Martha Tabram as a Ripper victim and then Annie Chapman, both of them were "big" women so if the Ripper was able to overpower them, it could show a display of excessive strength. True, Martha was only repeatedly stabbed as opposed to strangled, but considering he was able to inflict 39 stab wounds without her evading him may show that he was tough one to get away from. However, if Stride was a Ripper victim, she seems to have put up more of a fight and he actually had to throw her to the ground to subdue her. We don't know what happened after Schwartz and Pipe Man walked away. So, it's possible that the reason Stride wasn't mutilated excessively is because she continued to struggle and he had trouble controlling her. Perhaps by the time he was finally able to cut her throat is when the Diemschutz cart was close enough for him to hear it coming and he knew he had to hide quick.

So. does any of this show he was a strong guy, average, or rather a weakling? ]]> General Discussion JTRSickert http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3412 Most ridiculous suspect http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3411&goto=newpost Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:55:34 GMT Since we've all done speculating on who the Ripper may have been, I was just curious to see who everyone believes to be the most ridiculous suspect ever put forward as being Jack the Ripper. I will provide with my top 3 and see if you all agree or disagree and let me know who you think is the most ridiculous.

1. Lewis Carroll

2. Prince Albert Edward Victor (tied with William Gull)

3. "Jill the Ripper" ]]> General Discussion JTRSickert http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3411 General things http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3410&goto=newpost Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:26:51 GMT Hi First proper post. Just some general things to throw into the pot really and I apologise in advance if they have already been covered. I have... Hi

First proper post.

Just some general things to throw into the pot really and I apologise in advance if they have already been covered. I have spent days reading through the boards but that is not to say I have taken it all in or that I have not missed long discussions on these points.

I am taking my time with this to try not to end up posting a garbled bundle of words but if I don't make sense sometimes please bear with me. My thoughts, brain and fingers are sometimes not in synch at all at the moment.

Of all the victims I have always been most interested in MJK, I think she is perhaps the one most people latch onto. There are so many ifs, buts and maybes concerning her, her room, her mutilations, her history etc. So this post is mainly things which I have always been 'struck' by as far as MJK goes.

Her room
I wish I was as bright as some of the people on here and could actually upload diagrams or photos of what I am trying to say/ask but here goes anyway with just words. In the photo of her body on the bed it has always seemed to me that the bed was not against the partition wall because my to my eyes there is an indent (?) of perhaps about 9" which then turns and heads to the external wall (one with door in) by at least 1' 6" and seems to be panelled in sort of Victorian tongue and groove? For some reason I have always had it in my head that her bedhead was at least that distance from the wall and there was some sort of old fashioned wash stand in the space between headboard and external wall. In the photo of the court (external) if you look past the door a bit (though it is dark) it does look like a 'corner'. Am I way off in this, was the room straight walls?

The bolster
I have always thought of this more as a sort of palliase (sp?) a kind of spare mattress/bed for anyone stopping over. She did at one point have Joe and another woman in that room with her.

The mutilations
I know it is a touchy subject but if this lady was not the MJK who had been living in the room all those months is it not possible (I am sorry I am off into wild theory time now) if she was not MJK is it not feasible that she was selected to 'double' for MJK (perhaps some other 'unfortunate' it was felt no-one would miss). Enticed to the room somehow (there was talk of another woman going there that night somewhere - 2 men and 2 women one of whom was MJK - my memory is awful), chloroformed (the red hankie), throat slashed and face mutilated to cover any small discrepancies in the likeness to MJK then stripped of remaining garments with bloodstained ones being burnt. They then discover she has much larger/smaller breasts than MJK and/or some birthmark, mole, scar which Barnett (the most likely person to identify the body) will not recognise so the dreadful mutilations are inevitable. They have come this far they have to go the whole way. Initially I think they perhaps hoped it would just be another Whitechapel murder and not necessarily a JTR one. Then they thought to use the JTR murders by distributing body parts etc. Perhaps they only knew of the JTR murder scenes from the newspapers and perhaps got a bit carried away placing bits here and there. I could go on but I'll stop there. E.G. could Blotchy face or Mr A be her MJK's father, brother, secret lover (was the dead woman a secret lover's wife). Were they involved in some plan to 'get her away' from the life she was leading - mess she was in - or to have a 'happy' life together. All a blur, you really wouldn't want to be in my head it is really muddled.

Sightings of MJK
She may have dressed in the dead woman's skirt etc and hung about, feeling very sick but having to see the thing through now, to find out if the body is accepted as being 'her' before meeting up with whoever and leaving Whitechapel.

I think I will stop now, very tiring this is, I am sure you all heave a sigh of relief but thank you for sticking with me this far.

Just one last thing, sorry, does anyone know who decided on the words for the MJK gravestone?

Maggyann :tired: ]]> General Discussion Maggyann http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3410 Believe SOME of what you read... and... http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3409&goto=newpost Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:10:27 GMT I wonder if anyone can shed some light on the following from the Star newspaper, from the Wiki within Casebook. All sentence *emphasis *is of my... I wonder if anyone can shed some light on the following from the Star newspaper, from the Wiki within Casebook.

All sentence emphasis is of my making.

The Star
LONDON. SATURDAY, 10 NOVEMBER, 1888.

After the murder of Mary Kelly,

Mr. John McCarthy, the owner of the house in Miller's-court, has given the following

FACTS AS TO THE MURDERED WOMAN.

"She was about 23 or 24 years of age, and lived with a coal porter named Kelly, passing as his wife. They, however, quarrelled some time back and separated. A woman named Harvey slept with her several nights since Kelly separated from her, but she was not with her last night. The deceased's Christian name was Mary Jane, and since her murder I have discovered that she walked the streets in the neighborhood of Aldgate. Her habits were irregular, and she often came home at night the worse for drink. Her mother lives in Ireland, but in what county I do not know. Deceased used to receive letters from her occasionally." McCarthy adds that when he looked through the window, after Bowyer called him, he saw on the table what seemed to be lumps of flesh. When the police inspector came he sent a telegram to Sir Charles Warren

Then later in a special edition... an article not attributed to McCarthy

THE VICTIM.

The woman murdered in Spitalfields yesterday was born in Limerick, her name being Marie Jeanette Kelly. Her parents removed from Limerick to Carmarthen, and here the deceased married a collier whose name is believed to be Davies. He, however, was killed in a colliery explosion, and the deceased woman then lived an ill life at Cardiff, afterwards removing to London. Her parents are still living in Wales.


then...in the Evening news.. the interview with Caroline Maxwell.




Evening News
London, U.K.
10 November 1888

Mrs. Caroline Mapwell,(sic) of 14 Dorset street, the wife of a night watchman at Commercial Chambers, a common lodging house able to shelter 244 persons, and which is opposite the scene of the murder, said: "I have known the murdered woman well for the past six months. This (Friday) morning, as near as possible about half past eight, I saw Mary Jane (the murdered woman) standing outside the court. I said, "What brings you out so early, Mary Jane," and she answered, "I feel very queer. I cannot sleep. I have the horrors of the drink on me, as I have been drinking this last day or two." I said, "Well, I pity you, " and passed on. I then went to Bishopsgate; and on my return, just after nine o'clock, I saw Mary Jane talking to a man at the end of the street. Who he was I do not know. He was a short, stout man, about fifty years of age. I did not notice what he had on, but I saw that he wore a kind of plaid coat. I then went indoors to go to bed, as I had been on duty all night. Mary Jane (I only know her by that name) was a pleasant little woman, rather stout, fair complexion, and rather pale. I should say her age was be about 23. I had no idea she was an unfortunate, for I never saw her with any one, nor have I ever seen her drunk. She was a very quiet young woman, and had been in the neighbourhood about two years. She spoke with a kind of impediment. She belonged, I think, to Limerick, and had evidently been well connected.

then, same newspaper, same day
JOSEPH BARNET'S STATEMENT

Joseph Barnet, an Irishman, at present residing in a common lodging house in New street, Bishopsgate, stated that he had occupied his present lodgings since Tuesday week. Previous to that he had lived in Miller's court, Dorset street, for eight or nine months with the murdered woman, Mary Jane Kelly. They were very happy and comfortable until another woman came to sleep in their room, to which he strongly objected. Finally, after the woman had been there two or three nights, he quarrelled with Kelly, and left her. The next day, however, he returned, and have her money. He called several other days, and gave her money when he had it. On Thursday night he visited her between half past seven and eight, and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. He was indoors when he heard that a woman had been murdered in Dorset street, but voluntarily went to the police, who after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct, and therefore released him. Barnet believed Kelly was an Irishwoman.


Now... I KNOW that we must be very wary of newspaper reports. I know. But can I ask you all to for a short while, believe the following from the FIRST statement by McCarthy...

She was about 23 or 24 years of age, and lived with a coal porter named Kelly, passing as his wife......The deceased's Christian name was Mary Jane....I have discovered that she walked the streets in the neighborhood of Aldgate......Her mother lives in Ireland, but in what county I do not know. Deceased used to receive letters from her occasionally."


Right. That tells me this. KELLY was NOT her last name. It is an assumed name. She wasn't about 25, she was 23 or 24. Her mother lived in Ireland, (father not mentioned) NOT in Wales. She used to GET LETTERS from her mother. Err, surely if you put those two things together, the letters were from Ireland? Or is that presumption crazy?

Now believe Mrs Maxwells statement....

"I have known the murdered woman well for the past six months....Mary Jane (I only know her by that name) was a pleasant little woman, rather stout, fair complexion, and rather pale. I should say her age was be about 23....She spoke with a kind of impediment. She belonged, I think, to Limerick, and had evidently been well connected.

That tells me she was 23, known for 6 months, and that her name was Mary Jane. Spoke with a kind of impediment? What kind of impediment? That tells me that this woman was recognisable by her infliction.

Now believe Joseph Barnets statement...

.....he had lived in Miller's court, Dorset street, for eight or nine months with the murdered woman, Mary Jane Kelly.....Barnet believed Kelly was an Irishwoman.

Compare that with the lines from Casebook...

Joseph met Mary Jane Kelly on April 8th, 1887, and the two decided soon after to room together at various locations for the next year and a half. By the time of the Ripper murders, they were living in 13 Miller's Court, Dorset Street.

Now, in the press statement, Barnet said he LIVED with her for 8 or 9 months and only BELIEVED her to be Irish? Umm, After 8 or 9 months living together, you KNOW if someone is Irish or not. It would be a fact. Not a belief.
That to me, is a very strange comment. Put that together with the Casebook comment, having known her since April 1887 (17 months)....and the statement is VERY odd...he KNOWS that he is a very, very close source of info for the police and the press. So why just say he believed her to be Irish? Perhaps I am Nit-picking... but what if I'm not?...

These things tell me a possibility.

Mary Jane (BLANK), came from Limerick, her mother lived in Ireland. She was 23, spoke with a speech impediment, was known in the area, "worked Aldgate" (shades of Catharine Eddowes, Mitre Square, calling herself Mary Jane Kelly?) and, and it is a possibility, that Eddowes KNEW Mary Jane. Did they "work" the same patch?

I KNOW this is speculation. I know there are hundreds of newspaper reports with different details. But what if these details are true?

It means that Mary Jane Kelly WASN'T her name. It was her known name. Her age is 23 NOT 25. She was recognisable from a speech impediment. People would know who Mary Jane was because of that in the pubs. As soon as she opens her mouth to talk, she is different, and stands out. And Eddowes using an assumed name of Mary Jane Kelly in the same area Kelly "worked" her trade, is, to me, a bell ringer for her knowing Mary.
And Barnet not KNOWING with certainty that "Kelly" was Irish, is very very odd.

best wishes

Phil ]]> General Discussion Phil Carter http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3409 Hello http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3408&goto=newpost Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:06:18 GMT ...that is a quiet little shy hello by the way...

I may only recently have actually 'joined' but I have spent many evenings reading through the boards and find it all fascinating. You are all so interesting and I have really enjoyed the debates and the information you are all so willing to share. Everyone has an opinion and it's great to see them discussed.

I have recently been ill (still am really - not working for 3 months now) I had some mini strokes and high blood pressure, stress, depression and anxiety so have been taking things easy (supposedly). Old age does not come alone does it? I needed something to fill my days and for some reason picked up on my old interest in JTR from many years ago. It has been a wonderful aid to me in being busy and enthusiastic about something outside of my self and this board has been a large part of that.

So I thought it was time to actually say hi and maybe start to post here and there. I have, as I say read so much on here but I do have questions and thoughts and ideas so I hope when I do post you will all be gentle with me if I go over anything already on here or say something totally stupid.

Even this post has been worked on for ages in notepad to get spelling correct and make sense as I sometimes find myself typing total gibberish though that is improving now I am a few weeks down the line from being really confused.

Maggyann :hiya: ]]> Pub Talk Maggyann http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3408 L. Forbes Winslow http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3407&goto=newpost Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:26:17 GMT In his book, Recollections of Forty Years (1910), Forbes Winslow quoted a letter he had received from a woman in Melbourne giving a long and involved... In his book, Recollections of Forty Years (1910), Forbes Winslow quoted a letter he had received from a woman in Melbourne giving a long and involved story about a friend of hers who had sailed from London to Melbourne in 1889, and had left for South Africa about six years previously. She claimed this man was the Ripper, and Forbes Winslow said of her letter that it "seems in every way to corroborate my views on the matter", concluding that he believed that "Jack the Ripper is the man in South Africa".

What Forbes Winslow didn't mention is the story that appeared in the press soon after the letter was publicised. The Press Association report, dated from Melbourne 25 July 1910, was printed by several Australian and New Zealand newspapers, of which the Colonist, 26 July, was one:

Attachment 7152
Attached Images
 
]]> Notable Persons Chris http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3407 Ripperologist 108 http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3406&goto=newpost Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:50:41 GMT An anonymous reviewer, writing about M. J. Trow's recent book, says that there has been some "overblown argument on internet sites" about whether Mann would have been free to leave the workhouse, and then makes the following comment:
"Although a pauper inmate of the workhouse, it would appear that Mann was employee, the workhouse as mortuary keeper, a function he had performed for some years. It is to be assumed that he received bed If that was the case then presumably he would have enjoyed greater liberty than the otherwise largely transient population of such places."

Apart from the fact that the writer seems to be unaware that it was laid down by statute that paupers were not allowed to go out of the workhouse without the permission of the master, I find it very difficult to work out what those two (or is it three?) sentences are meant to convey. Can anyone help? ]]> Ripperologist Chris http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3406 1905 Sunday Chronicle report http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3405&goto=newpost Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:21:26 GMT Here's an interesting article from the Nelson Evening Mail (New Zealand), 4 January 1906, quoting a claim from the Sunday Chronicle (presumably from late in 1905) by a "well-known Scotland Yard detective" that the police had identified the killer as a respectable family man "engaged in a large way of business in the City of London" who had come close to being arrested but instead was confined to an asylum with the consent of his family and the knowledge of the police. It ends with the approved formula: "Since that man's removal there has not been another such crime in London ..."

Attachment 7151
Attached Images
 
]]> Other Suspect Discussion Chris http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3405