Francis Spurzheim Craig

[c.d.]

"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.

[Michael W Richards]

We know many Ripperologists discount the accepted number of victims, and debate how many killers were resposible for the Whitechapel murders. Perhaps the long-accepted central figure of a single serial murderer dubbed "Jack the Ripper" may simply dissolve away. That may be a milestone in this field.

That would be the single most important advance in this study PCdunn, and open the door for some real exploration beyond the serial killer framework.

Who really were these women, who was in their lives at the time, who might have meant them harm. The absence of connective evidence linking any of the victims to one killer shouldn't lead to a default conclusion that these must then have been "motiveless" crimes, having little or nothing to do with the women as people and everything to do with the killers mental illness.

Cheers

[Robert]

People tend to get maudlin when they're in their cups. If Barnett received the info when either he, or Mary, or both were drunk, then some inaccuracies may have crept in.

[richardnunweek]

Hi ..
Just to correct myself from a recent post..
I was suggesting Maiden name ..not married name[ Davies] and her 51 year old actual husband was not a Davies.
It is apparent that Barnett received a lot of twisted truths during his stay with the woman known as Kelly.
Richard.

[Scott Nelson]

MJK's headstone is roughly located. She was buried in a pauper grave area with others below, next to, and above her. Identification of her remains would be impossible, even taking into account knife marks on bones.

[Archaic]

Close Call

Well, guys...

I was just about to cough up $4.75 Million for the Kosminksi-Eddowes shawl, but now I guess I won't.

Now what to do with all that money burning a hole in my pocket?

Cheers,
Archaic

[Archaic]

Daily Mail Article & Casebook Copyrighted Material Rules

Hi guys, here's The Daily Mail's article on this book:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3182418/Has-Jack-Ripper-finally-unmasked-Author-new-book-claims-serial-killer-s-final-victim-estranged-wife-prostitutes-killed-cover.html

re: QUOTING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL:
Dixon, for you and others who might not realize it, some time back Stephen had to tighten up the rules regarding how much of an article, book, or other copyrighted material we may post on Casebook.

I believe we're limited to 5 sentences, and the author or source has to be named with the quote.

Links to the original website or article are OK; copying & pasting a full article of copyrighted material is not.

Old articles that are no longer under copyright can be pasted or attached in full.

More details are posted in Casebook Announcements or a similar location. If I come across it I'll post the link.

Best regards,
Bunny

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If one eliminates the name she was called in Millers court ..Mary Jane, and if one eliminates the name Kelly, as being the name Barnett called himself in the Court,[ according to McCarthy]
Then we have the name Davies, which Kelly said was her husbands name , that was killed in a pit explosion.
But if that was a fib, we have the possibility that her married name was infact Davies,husband of the 51 year old spurned ex.
The reason she was buried under Mary Jeanette Kelly [ also Davies] maybe was the work of Joseph Barnett, using a mixture of the name he called her, plus the name he was initially called in Millers court, but added the name Davies as respect for her previous life..
Very confusing, but this book has some credibility.
Regards Richard,

[Pcdunn]

Some thoughts

Deleting duplicate post

[Pcdunn]

I have been thinking about this. If the exhumation is allowed and "Mary Kelly" is identified as Elizabeth Weston-Davies, it may be plausible that Francis Craig killed her-- but it could do more than eliminate her murder from the list of those attributed to "Jack the Ripper". There is no particular reason Craig should have deliberately murdered four (or more) other women before his ex-wife. 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.

We know many Ripperologists discount the accepted number of victims, and debate how many killers were resposible for the Whitechapel murders. Perhaps the long-accepted central figure of a single serial murderer dubbed "Jack the Ripper" may simply dissolve away. That may be a milestone in this field.

[Limehouse]

Here is a link to today's article in The Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11771381/Jack-the-Ripper-identity-mystery-solved-in-new-book.html

I may be wrong, but I am sure I read somewhere that the memorial stone on MJK's grave is in the 'approximate' location of her burial and it is not certain that she is in that exact location within the cemetery. If I am right, that would make exhumation a little problematic?

I am really intrigued about the possibility that MJK might finally be identified but I am sceptical about the identity of the murderer and his supposed motive.

Firstly, why would a woman who has found love and security with a respectable man who has a stable job and income secretly resume her old life as a prostitute just months after her wedding?

Secondly, as someone else has pointed out, why risk killing five women, with the possibility of being caught and hanged along the way, if you are just seeking out one woman?

[Silverpaw]

Just a small note of caution. I am a scientist. have put forward a theory. I have not said SOLVED at any time. Like all theories, scientific or otherwise, it is all a matter of probability. 95% probability is usually taken as 'proof' in scientific terms and it is up to others to read all the evidence (and not a single person on this thread seems to have done that yet) and decide for themselves.

Prosector

I'm excited to read it Prosector and have pre-ordered my copy! On the question of DNA testing, IF the body is exhumed will profiling be done alongside testing if there is a familial connection to you? By that I mean, it would be useful to find out height, ethnicity and genetic origin whether she proves to be a relation of yours or not.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just a small note of caution. I am a scientist. have put forward a theory. I have not said SOLVED at any time. Like all theories, scientific or otherwise, it is all a matter of probability. 95% probability is usually taken as 'proof' in scientific terms and it is up to others to read all the evidence (and not a single person on this thread seems to have done that yet) and decide for themselves.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Prosector]

Yes identifying her will be significant.

But why oh why do these authors so often want o over egg the pudding and yell SOLVED.

Just a small note of caution. I am a scientist. have put forward a theory. I have not said SOLVED at any time. Like all theories, scientific or otherwise, it is all a matter of probability. 95% probability is usually taken as 'proof' in scientific terms and it is up to others to read all the evidence (and not a single person on this thread seems to have done that yet) and decide for themselves.

Prosector

[Dane_F]

It's interesting, at least, and should refresh the discussion threads. I think it is a bit far-fetched, but am willing to wait and see how things develop.

Yes, this is where I stand. Everyone seems so hung up on the suspect that they just want to poo-poo the author. Even if he has the suspect entirely wrong proving definitely who MJK actually was would be a HUGE deal for the community and author deserves much credit for that.

Unfortunately he said he will only determine whether to exhume the body AFTER the book comes out because he wants people to try and disprove his evidence on who MJK was before he disturbs graves. I have a feeling he also doesn't want to mess up the sell of any books by having it come out he was wrong before it is released.