Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Francis Spurzheim Craig

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

  • #31
    Here is a link to today's article in The Daily Telegraph:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-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?

    Comment


    • #32
      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.
      Pat D.
      ---------------
      Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
      ---------------

      Comment


      • #33
        Some thoughts

        Deleting duplicate post
        Last edited by Pcdunn; 08-01-2015, 11:48 AM. Reason: Deleting duplicate post
        Pat D.
        ---------------
        Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
        ---------------

        Comment


        • #34
          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,

          Comment


          • #35
            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/arti...led-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

            Comment


            • #36
              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

              Comment


              • #37
                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.

                Comment


                • #38
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
                      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
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        "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.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Let me clarify

                          Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                          "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.
                          Pat D.
                          ---------------
                          Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                          ---------------

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X