Francis Spurzheim Craig

[J6123]

A complete croc of nonsense and I would be astonished if a body was exhumed over it.

[richardnunweek]

Absolutely if Kelly's identity was discovered, it would be a sensation..
Richard

[gnote]

The motive sounds somewhat similar to the one used by those pointing at Barnett. Difference being Barnett was trying to scare her off the streets. After being frustrated by his plan not working deciding to rid himself of her too while Craig was looking to kill her from the very start. Both men had passionate love/hate for MJK and she was the sole motivating factor why the ripper murders both occurred and ceased.

It sounds quite fantastic and unlikely but if MJK was firmly identified it would be a major new breakthrough regardless of whether the theory which brought upon her exhumation is valid.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
This forthcoming book , is certainly holding a lot of interest.
But in order for it to be accepted, DNA, has to be taken, otherwise, it is no more then a fictional account.
We as Ripperologist's, have to discount many accounts of witnesses, albeit Mrs Longs' statement of a middle aged man over 40, may apply,, and the clerk type appearance seen in Berner street also..but the sailor type seen with Eddowes , not at all, and this is a major suspect in her murder, taking the time scale as vital.
In the case of Kelly we surely can discount accounts of a respectable young man seen with her on the eve of her death, also Blotchy, complete with pot of ale, [ Mary Kelly would hardly sing songs to her ex husband] and not forgetting Hutchinson's Mr A, aged 35[ again Mary hardly likely to say to her ex''Come along you will be comfortable'', and kiss him..
There is one person that may have resembled Francis aged 51, and that was Mrs Maxwell's middle aged man seen talking to Mary around 8.45 am, but this contradicts medical reports.
I am fascinated by the mysterious man Lawrence, who allegedly called on Kelly often, and a neighbour of Kelly's was asked if a summons arrived, take it in,..she believed this man to have been her husband?..its the paper work aspect that arouses my interest, but he was said to have been a Drover, so very mysterious,..and at first glance appears to have nothing to do with this tale..
I wish the book every success, and as I said previous, should be a very good read..and will wet appetites .
Regards Richard.

[Robert]

Hi Wynne

Or rather, presumably, FSC and EWJ.

I suppose it's possible. McLeod would keep quiet, anyway.

[dixon9]

sorry if i broke any rules,i just pasted it off msn..again sorry for any rules break

[Prosector]

I don't know, Sally. If he'd been asking questions about her, tracking her from place to place, then he would have left a witness trail that might have come back to bite him. The thing is, though, that no one who knew Kelly/Davies reported anyone asking after her, as far as I can recall.

I tend to doubt the idea that Craig's constant stalking back in 1885 would have led to Mrs McLeod getting rid of Kelly/Davies for being too much trouble. It's more likely they'd have got rid of Craig. I imagine brothels weren't above using strong-arm tactics.

Kelly/Davies may have been given the push for being drunk and indiscreet.

I think that Craig's constant stalking caused Elizabeth to go underground whether or not Ellen Macleod urged her to leave. I think that Elizabeth used Macleod as a conduit to keep in touch with family and friends by means of letters and that is how she knew where Elizabeth was. Elizabeth would almost certainly have kept letters, and perhaps photographs, to remind her of home but none were found in her room - but there was, it will be remembered a fierce fire in the grate. I think the removal of rings from the other victims may have been a search for Elizabeth's ring, possibly engraved with both their initials, in case she had sold it, pawned it or given it to another unfortunate at any time. A ring like that could have been a vital clue since the joint initials FSC and EWD would not have taken the police long to track down using the registers of marriages.

Wynne

[Prosector]

Hi perhaps you would be kind enough to answer a couple of questions about you research

1. Do you accept that if Mary Kelly can be identified as your distant relative
that will not solve the murders and on its own nor point to her killer ?

2. Is it correct that you suggest your suspect killed the earlier victims in the
Whitechapel as a prelude to killing Kelly?

3. Do you have any prime evidence to link your suspect to the murders and
it would seem at first glance what you seek to rely on is at best weak
circumstantial evidence and that could go out the window if you don't
identify the remains of Kelly as your relative?

4. Do you have anything to show that the suspect was besotted with his long
lost love to search her out all those years later?

Thanking you in anticipation I do have many more but will hold them back

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

I think you need to read the whole book to fully find answers to all those questions. In brief: I accept that identifying MJK does not in itself prove the identity of the killer. However there is very strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that it was her husband. There's not time or space to set it all out here but, for instance, he moved into the East End soon after she did and out again a few months after the last killing, he suddenly went to the High Court in the middle of the Martha Tabram inquest to seek leave to strike out a paragraph in his divorce petition which had lain dormant for two years as he couldn't serve it on her. The paragraph was the one that identified Ellen Macleod and gave the addresses of some of her brothels so I think he did it in order to get her to disclose the whereabouts of Elizabeth. The murders started 10 days later.
I believe that Francis Craig devised the idea of a series of prostitute killings very carefully engineered to appear to be the work of one man in order to disguise his real victim. He went to considerable lengths to make sure she couldn't be identified which he didn't do with the others.
There is no doubt whatever that he was obsessed with his wife. He stalked her from the moment she left him and got other people including friends and private detectives to help him. He didn't return to it years later, it was a constant occupation from the moment she left him. It was the breakthrough when he struck a deal with Ellen Macleod that finally gave him the opportunity (I don't for a moment think that she knew he intended to kill her - only to divorce her).
Finally, yes, if (and it's a big if) the body is exhumed and it turned out not to be my relative then you're right, the theory would collapse completely. The reason that there is doubt about the exhumation is that there is no certainty as to the precise location of the grave. I have Ministry of Justice permission subject to certain conditions but if it proves impossible to pinpoint the grave it would be an impossible undertaking.
But, as I say, there's a lot more evidence in the book than it was possible to put in the articles so the only real answer would be for you to read it in its entirety.

Wynne

[Robert]

I don't know, Sally. If he'd been asking questions about her, tracking her from place to place, then he would have left a witness trail that might have come back to bite him. The thing is, though, that no one who knew Kelly/Davies reported anyone asking after her, as far as I can recall.

I tend to doubt the idea that Craig's constant stalking back in 1885 would have led to Mrs McLeod getting rid of Kelly/Davies for being too much trouble. It's more likely they'd have got rid of Craig. I imagine brothels weren't above using strong-arm tactics.

Kelly/Davies may have been given the push for being drunk and indiscreet.

[Sally]

On the other hand, Kelly was killed shortly after Barnett had left her - now there could be many reasons for that [assuming a causal connection to begin with of course] but it may be that her killer knew her - perhaps saw a chance because she was alone?

How that was realistically Craig I don't know, unless he was her undercover stalker?

I think the premise that Kelly's killer murdered four women in order to 'hide' his real intention is problematic. If she was living under an assumed identity, far from the people and places that she'd once known, the chances that she could be connected to anybody from her previous life would have been slim at the time. A vengeful killer from her previous life would have had no need to kill others to mask his true intention - and it would have been enormously risky to do so.

[Robert]

I tend to agree, Harry.

However, I gather that Dr Davies has actually given examples of men who 'hid' their real targets among other murders, committed to camouflage the 'real' murder - though I don't know whether said examples are of the mutilation variety.

But there is something that bothers me here : how would Craig know when to start the other murders? For instance, if he killed Nichols at a point in time when he still hadn't located Mary, then how long was he supposed to go on with these risky murders? Months? Years? How would he know just when he would find Mary?

On the other hand, if he had already found Mary when he decided to kill Nichols, then how would he know that Mary wouldn't disappear again - after all, it had taken much time and trouble (and possibly financial expense) for him to finally track her down. Yet he waits 70 days before finally exacting revenge.

[RockySullivan]

It's hysterical how the circle a random guy and say this could be him! How did they get the permission to exhume? That's what I don't understand

[Harry D]

Francis Spurzheim Craig as a suspect just seems like a variant of the Joseph Barnett theory. We have a man in love with Kelly who has an ulterior motive for murdering the other prostitutes, ostensibly Barnett wanted to scare MJK off the game but when this failed he murdered her, whereas Craig wanted to deflect any suspicion onto a serial killer before he killed her. Unfortunately, such theories aren't realistic. If a man goes out onto the street, targetting women, and ripping out their guts, it's because he's living out a disturbed fantasy through these murders. That doesn't mean that Barnett or Craig couldn't have murdered Kelly, but either they weren't the Ripper, or their motives need reexamining.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I agree, it has often been suggested that Kelly was the work of another man, and quite possibly if one takes the lull in Activities from Sept 30th, it could well be the killer of the previous women was unrelated,
If Craig was a reporter, and attended inquests, he would have been well aware of the mutilations contributed to the others, and a copy cat scenario may well be the case.
Sometimes it is not necessary to fit the puzzle precisely, and the answer may be. to have a cut of point from the double event, and have a different approach.
As I mentioned [ not very well] from a previous post..a lot can be explained,
The Millers court victim, was only known in the court as Mary Jane, even ''Ginger''. and ''Fair Emma'', also ''Black Mary''., the name Kelly came about[ according to her landlord] by living with a man called Kelly[ who was a alias of Barnett] and posing as his wife ,and became known as Mary Jane Kelly.
It is therefore conceivable that her real maiden name was Davies, and she told Barnett, that this was the name of her dead miner husband.
I wonder if anyone has attempted to check the Scots Guards records for a Henry Davies?.
I have a suspicion , that the authorities knew shortly after the murder, her true identity, this has to be, otherwise how could Mrs McCarthy parcel up belongings , and sent them to her army brother, if Kelly was a alias,?.
Very confusing.
Regards Richard.

[Pcdunn]

Let me clarify

"However, if he covered the inquests of the other murders, he might have certainly known at least as much as the average Londoner, to expect his work would be attributed to the mysterious killer.

Hello Pcdunn,

There is a major flaw in that strategy in that the police did not know who the Ripper was so they would have no way of knowing that it was not Craig. The same applies to Barnett. In order for that ruse to work, the police would already have had to identify the Ripper by name.

c.d.

Hello, C.D.

I agree that it is very far-fetched to believe Francis Craig would kill multiple victims before killing his former wife.

MJK's death seems to have impressed some experts as being different from the others, and as being by someone she knew. The supposition this was Francis Craig would work here. Maybe it was only a fluke that the police ascribed her death to Jack the Ripper, a fluke that worked in Craig's favor. Unless they knew her real name, there was nothing to tie her to Craig-- although, as you say, he couldn't be sure they would not find out and trace him, so maybe that is why he supposedly committed suicide.

I'm not sure yet, just throwing out ideas. I doubt there is any chance he actually killed all of the C5, nor is there any reason he should be thought to have done so. Identifying MJK and her killer would be impressive enough.
Think I need to read the book before commenting further.