from the mouth of a nun

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Recently on the 'Tour Thread' there was a mention of a nun appearing on a BBC series on the 'Whitechapel Murders'.
I hopefully cleared up the confusion of dates etc..
This thread is therefore asking the question.
According to the nun who was interviewed, she as a young novice around 1916, heard in a conversation about the murders a elderly sister state the following.
'If it were not for the Kelly woman, none of the murders would have taken place'
The quotation came from a nun who was present in 1888, in Dorset Street.
Simply what are your views on that?
Was the nun in the series a actress etc?
Was the story invented to enhance the plot of the series?
If such a quotation took place, what did it mean?
I must admit I tend to take the account seriously, believing as I do, in Kelly being the reason for these murders.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

...shouldn't this thread have been opened under a "Kelly" heading, rather than "General Discussion", Rich?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi,
Recently on the 'Tour Thread' there was a mention of a nun appearing on a BBC series on the 'Whitechapel Murders'.
I hopefully cleared up the confusion of dates etc..
This thread is therefore asking the question.
According to the nun who was interviewed, she as a young novice around 1916, heard in a conversation about the murders a elderly sister state the following.
'If it were not for the Kelly woman, none of the murders would have taken place'
The quotation came from a nun who was present in 1888, in Dorset Street.
Simply what are your views on that?
Was the nun in the series a actress etc?
Was the story invented to enhance the plot of the series?
If such a quotation took place, what did it mean?
I must admit I tend to take the account seriously, believing as I do, in Kelly being the reason for these murders.
Regards Richard.

Hi Rich,

I wouldn't take anything seriously at all that comes from such a dubious source as the BBC miniseries, which was total rubbish from beinning to end (and which, I believed introduced both Joseph Gorman Sickert and the Royal Conspiracy for the first time). It's absolutely bogus.
Nor do I believe in any oral hearsay that has no verification in any credible document.

The miniseries was complete nonsense. I've seen some clips from it, and I wasn't impressed. I have seldom seen a worse load of garbage.

And no, I don't believe for one single moment that Mary Kelly was the centre reason of the murders.

All the best

[richardnunweek]

Hello Glenn,
Am I therefore right in assuming that no 'Oral History' is acceptable in your eyes.?
That series if one saw it live[ so to speak] was extremely original TV, and should not be dismissed as rubbish.
I am well aware that the programmes hinted upon 'Someone knows something' and rather dubious Sickert/ Royal family involvements, however the actual interview of the nun, which I must trust the integriety, of the BBC, being authentic is none the less fascinating, for it lays the foundations of a non ludicrous suggestion that the murders may well have started because of Mjk, and climaxed after her death.
The vast majority of 'Casebook' delve into newspaper reports from that period, and reject every account, that their individual beliefs differ from.
That is fair play, however the question remains.
If the BBC actually interviewed a actual witness in the form of a actual nun ,that was present in the very same street as Mjk in 1916, and that very same person relayed verbal heresay from a elderly nun, who was present in that same street in 1888, then my point is We should not take it with a pinch of salt..., and if so 'Why should we'?
Regards Richard.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Richard,

Yes, the BBC series was rubbish and totally ludicrous. Worst of all, it also contained numerous factual errors, which of course have impact on its credibility.

As for the nun, well you probably am well aware of the numerous oral tales that surrounds the Ripper case, born and bred on the streets of East End by locals living in the area.
Just like the nice Irish fellow in the documentary about Stride, who said that the Ripper killed all his victims 'on this street', that 'all you heard was a scream and then he was gone', that he had 'a knife with a hook' and that he 'killed hundreds of people'. Of course, the old gentleman also confirmed that the prince was involved.

That is oral history for you.
Oral history is constantly evolving through generations and from person to person. For all we know, the nun could have heard that story from someone else and the added her own bits to it. That's how oral history works.

You really should try to get more critical, Richard, and not contantly believe everything you hear. Especially when things are said in such a dubious and erronous context as that particular televison show.

All the best

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Richard,
I agree with Glenn over these old wives tales-- or rather "old nun"s tales" in this case.There has been a lot of rubbish talked about all this and maybe the nun hoped to add a bit of spice and mystery to her otherwise quiet life by talking as though she knew something more about Mary Kelly----when she obviously didnt.
Taking these tales with a pinch of salt is always best or the whole exercise soon gets bogged down in a whole load of bonkers stuff.
Best
Norma
Difficult title Richard ----cant very well say she was talking through her ****!

[Sam Flynn]

Difficult title Richard ----cant very well say she was talking through her ****!

She may have been a member of the Sisterhood of St Ventrilocutus of the Holy Ring, which forbade speech by the usual channel. I have heard about them in stories...

[Natalie Severn]

I enjoyed that joke Sam!

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
I would accept Glenns point that mayby I tend to believe a number of witnesses, however when attempting to decifer fact from fiction I look for fragments that have rings of truth.
For Exsample.
Mother and daughters account in Brady street.
Cadouches statement.
'Not tonight. some other night' [Berner street]
She was wearing a bonnet and jacket' [elizabeth prater]
'Oh I have lost my hankerchief' [Gh]
'She was fond of another man called Joe' [ Millers court]
'She had a dream that she was being murdered' [Lottie]
'Like awaken with a nightmare' [Prater]
He asked me to take in a summons [ resident at 25]
And many, many more, which includes the nuns recollections, for if one takes on board that a lot of people from that area originally believed the events at millers court was a murder of jealously, then she [ the sister from 1888] may well have believed that Mary kelly was the cause. and it was this she relayed in conversation in 1916.
Best Regards,
Richard.

[Hellrider]

I personally think the "responsible" Ripperologist ought to distinguish between oral history that is absolute nonsense at first sight (the things stated by that Irish man for example) and oral history that might contain bits of truth (MJK being the trigger for the murders)

[Bob Hinton]

Oral History

The problem with ‘oral history’ is that at it’s best it’s unconfirmed gossip and at it’s worst it’s just gossip. Oral history is useful in acting as a signpost for real research. For example a tale might point the researcher in a direction he/she hadn’t previously thought of, and thus uncover treasure. You cannot though accept any tale as having any sort of evidentiary value if it cannot be backed up by hard fact.

With the Tremble murder (see South Wales Murders) I had formed certain opinions about the case based on the evidence that I had uncovered. When I met the great grandson of the killer I was gratified to discover that his family oral history backed up my version of events perfectly. However if I didn’t have anything else to go on it would have been totally irresponsible of me to proclaim to the world that the oral history was correct.

The problem with oral history is that it relies on people’s memories and they are all too fallible. I believe there is a saying that goes something like:

“The bluntest pencil is worth more than the sharpest mind”

The problem Richard has is in believing that anyone is capable of being simply mistaken, and if you dare to raise such a possibility he immediately jumps down your throat asking for proof that such and such is a liar.

I fear that Richard ought immerse himself in some real research, that is taking on a subject over which he has no previously conceived ideas and simply digging away until he has all the facts AND the sources to back up those facts.

All he is doing at the moment is continually raising obscure points and then expecting everyone to accept them as fact.

What he has to understand is it really doesn’t matter what people believe, what matters is if those beliefs have a basis in fact. I grew up in the fifties, and I know that people at that time believed most sincerely that the Government forbade Princess Margaret to marry Captain Peter Townsend. Consequently most of us honestly believed that she was a tragic figure prevented from being with her one true love by the wicked establishment.

However papers recently released shows this to be totally false, and I for one felt totally betrayed by the truth. The point is before those papers were released you could have found thousands of people who would have sworn their version of events were correct – but their sincerity didn’t make them liars or correct, and it didn’t alter the fact they were wrong!

[truebluedub]

oral history - on the other hand

Oral history does have important uses. Dealing with an event this age (or older) it can show what the social impact was. A good example of this is the famine in Ireland the folk narratives (as opposed to fairy tales) that survive in the Irish Folklore Commission demonstrate its effects on the identity of an area (while not representing real events, or are we to accept that a Monty Pythonesque event of a man being buried while shouting I'm not dead yet, and the undertaker saying the fall will kill you happened). So generalising from that case the oral history of the Whitechapel murders could show that local people see it as an important part of their history.

Another use could be to look at what attitudes shape the narratives for example if there was a folk version of the royal conspiracy theory then that would suggest a resentment of the royal family. I'm not saying that a tradition like that exists just suggesting how oral history could be used.

kind regards
Chris Lowe

[Bob Hinton]

Oral History

Yes I largely agree with you that's why I did say that oral history is useful in pointing the way to the researcher.

For example the recent case involving Douglas Bader. The oral history there was useful in pointing the way to discovering what really happened.

[Bob Hinton]

Message For Richard

Richard,

If you follow this link it will take you to a website which has a number of recordings of true crime stories that appeared on BBC radio. One of them is on Jack the Ripper.

Could this be the radio programme you've been looking for?

http://www.archive.org/details/OTRR_Secrets_Of_Scotland_Yard_Singles