Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Francis Spurzheim Craig

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Well,

    If Dr. Davies' aunty does turn out to have been MJK, that's what it'll prove - nothing more or less than that.

    Demonstrating MJK's identity is a separate issue from establishing the identity of the Ripper and is interesting in itself - isn't it?? From the documents pertaining to Craig's divorce petition, I don't think the identification of EWD with MJK is implausible per se - but we'll see.

    It probably isn't significant to his proposed candidacy as the Ripper that Francis Craig took his own life as he did though - it was a pretty common method at the time.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sally View Post
      Well,

      If Dr. Davies' aunty does turn out to have been MJK, that's what it'll prove - nothing more or less than that.

      Demonstrating MJK's identity is a separate issue from establishing the identity of the Ripper and is interesting in itself - isn't it?? From the documents pertaining to Craig's divorce petition, I don't think the identification of EWD with MJK is implausible per se - but we'll see.

      It probably isn't significant to his proposed candidacy as the Ripper that Francis Craig took his own life as he did though - it was a pretty common method at the time.

      Yes identifying her will be significant.

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

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        And what was the excuse for the suggestion that the killer removed the organs from Eddowes and Chapman?[/B]

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Obviously moonlighted as a mortuary attendant
        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

        Comment


        • #19
          Hi,
          Anyone who had the madness to commit at least five murders, in such a gruesome fashion, would in my opinion be raving mad, and hardly like to live many years without suspicion that madness was present..
          If the body was exhumed , and did prove that the authors relative was the victim known as Mary Kelly, it would be a tremendous breakthrough in the case, we would finally have a name that could be linked, and at the very least a new suspect could be identified that was plausible.
          Regards Richard.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by GUT View Post
            Yes identifying her will be significant.

            But why oh why do these authors so often want o over egg the pudding and yell SOLVED.
            Hmm... to sell books?

            In all seriousness though, don't you think there's probably a desire to 'solve' the case for most who write a book on the subject [and for many who don't get that far...] - it's an enduring mystery after all.

            If it was my aunty - or yours - would we also have that desire to pin down the person who'd killed our relative in such a gruesome fashion?

            I might - I don't know about you.

            But, you know, maybe one day somebody really will be able to join up the dots to make a picture we can all agree on - and if that were to happen, it'd probably be due to 'inside' information, perhaps a family connection just such as this.

            I have my reservations on this occasion because I can already see under-researched elements in the sample chapters of Dr. Davies' book which may, I feel, not bode well.

            I'll wait and see though - it's only fair.

            Will you be buying the book?

            Comment


            • #21
              Hi,
              I have not bought a book on this subject for years, having been interested in it since 1965, and been a member of this site since before the millennium, no book has really caught my attention..
              But in this case , I must admit , it has all the ingredients of being a darn good read, so who knows.?
              Regards Richard

              Comment


              • #22
                For years it's been said that MJK's real identity might one day be revealed by a descendant who realised that a relative had disappeared around the material time and never turned up. This is the scenario claimed by this author so I'll be interested to read what he has to say. After the "Uncle Jack" experience of a few years ago though, I'm not over-optimistic.
                "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sally View Post
                  Hmm... to sell books?

                  In all seriousness though, don't you think there's probably a desire to 'solve' the case for most who write a book on the subject [and for many who don't get that far...] - it's an enduring mystery after all.

                  If it was my aunty - or yours - would we also have that desire to pin down the person who'd killed our relative in such a gruesome fashion?

                  I might - I don't know about you.

                  But, you know, maybe one day somebody really will be able to join up the dots to make a picture we can all agree on - and if that were to happen, it'd probably be due to 'inside' information, perhaps a family connection just such as this.

                  I have my reservations on this occasion because I can already see under-researched elements in the sample chapters of Dr. Davies' book which may, I feel, not bode well.

                  I'll wait and see though - it's only fair.

                  Will you be buying the book?
                  Like you Sally I've read the sample pages on Google books and there are some astonishing leaps of faith made and some sloppy research. However, the divorce petition documents all stand up to scrutiny as does the Weston-Davies family tree. I'm intrigued and would wholly support the exhumation and DNA testing as long as it wasn't a wasted opportunity like the forensic work done on The Shawl!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.
                    Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                    ---------------
                    Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                    ---------------

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Silverpaw View Post
                      Like you Sally I've read the sample pages on Google books and there are some astonishing leaps of faith made and some sloppy research. However, the divorce petition documents all stand up to scrutiny as does the Weston-Davies family tree. I'm intrigued and would wholly support the exhumation and DNA testing as long as it wasn't a wasted opportunity like the forensic work done on The Shawl!
                      Hi Silverpaw

                      I agree - as I say, I think the identity of MJK and that of the killer are two separate issues. There appears to be a substantial amount in the verifiable story of EWD in London which could match information from MJK herself and that we have since learned through research.

                      EWD was clearly a high-end prostitute in the West End by 1884, appears to have had close connections with a wealthy woman in the acting trade [so often euphemistic for other pursuits] whose family had strong connections with France and who was born in France herself; and had a brother called John who was demonstrably living in London in the 1890's and who may well have been there earlier.

                      Compare those facts with what MJK told Barnett and others - The West End job, the trip to France, the French lady in Knightsbridge and the brother called 'Johnto' - it's certainly intriguing, isn't it?

                      I don't know about the identification of Francis Craig as the Ripper though.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        While what a DNA profile could be pretty interesting, perhaps that could at least shed some light on her ancestry, or maybe even a facial reconstruction, while she is up, this is a pretty blatant act of "I got a bookdeal, and I need media-exposure". In a few months, if this goes through, we will probably hear "We could not conclusively prove that I am related to her" (read, "not at all").

                        Anyway, I, like the rest of you, have absolutely no idea what it is supposed to prove. If Mary Kelly is his great-aunt, she was killed by her former husband who also murdered 4 or so other women over several months to cover his tracks? It is like a Ripper MadLibs. Shockingly many Ripper books that claim to solve the case are.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by GUT View Post
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Prosector View Post
                              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

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Prosector View Post
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X