Francis Spurzheim Craig

[GUT]

thanks GUT for reply

No worries.

Just had a quick gander, for those born between about 1840 and 1900 the average age gap at time of marriage was between 9 and 10 years with the range being between her being 14 years older than him and him being 21 years older than her. [Now that's just in my tree others may be different].

[Barnaby]

I'm actually surprised that Kelly's remains haven't already been exhumed for a reality show/documentary, etc. It would make for great TV.

I have a question about DNA. Suppose the body could clearly be identified as the Miller's Court victim and DNA from her could be extracted. Nothing else is known to identify her. Could scientists sample people from the population until they got similar profiles and work backward from there to figure out her family and thus ID her?

[dixon9]

thanks GUT for reply

[Hatchett]

Hi Proscetor,

I welcome your research and you sharing that with us. I also welcome that you are prepared to discuss it with us on these boards. It is very good of you.

I dont think you have to worry too much about the witnesses who said that they saw someone with the victims shortly before they were killed.

After that they never amounted to anything.

I am not too sure (until I read your book) that your suspect killed all of the victims. But if it cam be proved who Mary Kelly really was that will certainly be a giant leap, and also it could be that your suspect killed Kelly, but didnt kill the others.

Best wishes.

[Prosector]

MJK's age aside, I wonder how Francis Craig fits with the various witness sightings of men with the victims shortly before their death etc. that were reported at the time?

At 51, Craig is somewhat older than any estimates given in witness sightings. Will his age be a sticking point when considering the possibility that he was the Ripper?

I agree but both Francis and his father were fitness fanatics. Pictures of E T (his father) look at least 20 years younger than his actual age. If I am correct and the Pictorial News picture is of him he looks in his mid thirties rather than 51 (but I admit this is something of a long shot).

Wynne

[GUT]

if Craig was her ex husband,that was also some age gap.Was that the norm in those times?

Actually 20 years was not uncommon.

I have it a few times in my Family Tree. my Great Great Grandmotger was born in 88 and in 1902 married a man 17 or 18 years her senior. There are others I will have to look up.

[Sleuth1888]

I'm more interested in whether Craig can be linked to the Kelly murder scene more than anything. This theory about Craig is all supposition up until MJK's remains are exhumed and even then slight caution is advised.

Although I have to admit I'm glad to see a theory emerge that could have some interesting outcomes.

[Abby Normal]

Elizabeth was born on 24th July 1856. I have her birth certificate. She was married to Craig on 24th December 1884 when she gave her age as 26 (should have been 28) and her name as Elizabeth Weston Jones, Widow. There's absolutely no doubt that they are the same person as is made clear in Craig's Divorce Petition two years later.

As far as cover serial killings are concerned the classic case is that of Ronald O'Bryan, the 'Trick or Treat' killer who attempted to murder a group of children to conceal the fact that the intended victim was his 8 year old son but there are also other examples. Clearly you have to be a psychopath to do it but I have tried to show evidence that Craig was just that.

Wynne

Hi prosector
Fascinating stuff. Even if your theory as to the killer isn't right, at the very least we may finally found out who Mary Kelly is (once the DNA is conducted) correct?

[Silverpaw]

Well you know, Richard, EWD had a brother who was demonstrably in London by 1891, living in the very same district that EWD had been working in early 1885 - and he may well have been there earlier still - perhaps Prosector might know more about that?

From what we can currently see of EWD's story; it's evident that there are a number of details which appear to match the stories told by MJK - and some of those are quite specific. I think that either we're looking at a series of random coincidences that we will come to view as remarkable; or EWD and MJK were one and the same.

Perhaps we should remember that we used to consider the whole of MJK's back story as potential invention - and it was only through the efforts of researchers of the case that we eventually learned that individuals from MJK's story such as Mrs. Buki, Elizabeth Phoenix and Morganstone were real people.

I don't see, in theory, why other elements of MJK's accounts of herself shouldn't also be essentially true.

Agreed Sally. This is why I was enquiring on another thread about the chances of Fiona Kendall-Lane being amenable to discussing her family stories in connection with WWD's theory; particularly her recollection of what happened to MJK's belongings and how her ancestors were certain that Mary Jane Kelly was her true identity. It would be a fascinating debate were it ever to take place!

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally.
And the elusive Joe Fleming...the fact is with any theory, you can jingle with facts, and fit them in.
My old 39 theory was , I could juggle numbers to fit a distinct pattern..
I agree I do not believe that a Mary Kelly existed in the form of the Millers court victim, but I am sure that the authorities knew her real identity, and I would be surprised if that was EWD.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Well you know, Richard, EWD had a brother who was demonstrably in London by 1891, living in the very same district that EWD had been working in early 1885 - and he may well have been there earlier still - perhaps Prosector might know more about that?

From what we can currently see of EWD's story; it's evident that there are a number of details which appear to match the stories told by MJK - and some of those are quite specific. I think that either we're looking at a series of random coincidences that we will come to view as remarkable; or EWD and MJK were one and the same.

Perhaps we should remember that we used to consider the whole of MJK's back story as potential invention - and it was only through the efforts of researchers of the case that we eventually learned that individuals from MJK's story such as Mrs. Buki, Elizabeth Phoenix and Morganstone were real people.

I don't see, in theory, why other elements of MJK's accounts of herself shouldn't also be essentially true.

[RockySullivan]

Wheres the strong circumstantial evidence you boast of? A reporter went to talk To a brothel owner? Huh? Now that RE has brought the DNA angle to the mainstream it's going to be a rush of any and every different kind of theory that involves DNA. I dont believe for a second your going to get MK exhumed but if you are...why in the hell are they not exhuming her to looked by the most brilliant high tech scientists in the world? Instead there exhuming her so this guy can prove he's full of ****?

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

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If we stick to what we know[ if it is accurate]..we have the son of John McCarthy, telling his family that his mother parcelled up belongings of the dead woman, and sent them to her army brother, who allegedly was reluctant to involve himself , because of prospects in his career,
We then have to ask ourselves...How did Mrs McCarthy . or the authorities, know who to send the clothes to?.
If they knew the real name of the victim, then Francis Craig's attempt to conceal did not work..
If they sent them to a soldier called Kelly, then surely some conformation , and certainty, would have been obtained prior.
These points have to be discussed, its no good going all out on a new theory , without addressing relevant points...
Regards Richard.

[Chris2307uk]

I'm interested in this work have pre-ordered the book hoping to find answers to some questions that I have such as how exhuming the body (if it can be found) can show that this guy is JTR.....

I'm always interested in new theories and look forwardto reading this book

All the best

Chris

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally..
Mrs Longs sighting.Yes
Cleric type in Berner street,Yes
Mrs Maxwell's sighting at 845.am.Yes
But the most crucial alleged sighting, witnessed at church passage...NO
Young respectable man seen with Kelly on the eve of her death..NO,
Hutchinson's man. NO.
Blotchy face..NO.
It is possible, but a man of 51 in 1888, was considered elderly,,My grandmother born 1880, used to say, a woman of 40 in her day, was considered past it..
Regards Richard.