Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MJK pregnancy

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

    Au contraire. But she wasn't the Miller's Court victim.

    She's in the 1891 census if you know where to look!

    Not sure id go with that theory either , other than the fact most people put it down to her being identified the next morning. Is there something a little more reliable you base this on? .
    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

      Not sure id go with that theory either , other than the fact most people put it down to her being identified the next morning. Is there something a little more reliable you base this on? .
      '

      I'm 100% sure I know the ids of Jack, Astrakhan and Kelly and can demonstrate this in a compelling way. You'll have to wait for the book though for me to substantiate these claims.

      In the meantime here's a list of some of the things that raise my suspicions about the Miller Court event:

      - The sightings of Maxwell and Lewis (whose description seem to match the picture of Kelly in the IPN of the 17th November).
      - The obliteration of the Miller's Court victim's face to allow a substitute to be made.
      - The non-optimal way Kelly was identified. The hands and feet would have been more reliable than the eyes and ears on a obliterated face.
      - The complete non-discovery to date of Kelly that supports the supposition that Kelly's narrative supplied by Barnett at the inquest is false.
      - Barnett's nervousness at the inquest. Could be written off due understandable stress at his loss and not used to appearing at an inquest. Or because he was lying and was afraid of being caught out.
      - The suspiciously world record abridged one-day inquest.
      - Waiting for bloodhounds that were of little use at that particular murder scene. I believe Anderson, Arnold, Phillips and Warren are
      all on record as discounting the usefulness of bloodhounds in the streets of Whitechapel.
      - The sudden inexplicable loss of interest by the press in Kelly's murder.
      - The non-appearance of an highly important witness (Hutchinson) at the inquest.

      Apologies for being off-topic here.

      Martyn

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
        '

        I'm 100% sure I know the ids of Jack, Astrakhan and Kelly and can demonstrate this in a compelling way. You'll have to wait for the book though for me to substantiate these claims.

        In the meantime here's a list of some of the things that raise my suspicions about the Miller Court event:

        - The sightings of Maxwell and Lewis (whose description seem to match the picture of Kelly in the IPN of the 17th November).
        - The obliteration of the Miller's Court victim's face to allow a substitute to be made.
        - The non-optimal way Kelly was identified. The hands and feet would have been more reliable than the eyes and ears on a obliterated face.
        - The complete non-discovery to date of Kelly that supports the supposition that Kelly's narrative supplied by Barnett at the inquest is false.
        - Barnett's nervousness at the inquest. Could be written off due understandable stress at his loss and not used to appearing at an inquest. Or because he was lying and was afraid of being caught out.
        - The suspiciously world record abridged one-day inquest.
        - Waiting for bloodhounds that were of little use at that particular murder scene. I believe Anderson, Arnold, Phillips and Warren are
        all on record as discounting the usefulness of bloodhounds in the streets of Whitechapel.
        - The sudden inexplicable loss of interest by the press in Kelly's murder.
        - The non-appearance of an highly important witness (Hutchinson) at the inquest.

        Apologies for being off-topic here.

        Martyn
        Any rough ideas about when the book will be out Martyn?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
          ... things that raise my suspicions about the Miller Court event:

          - The non-optimal way Kelly was identified. The hands and feet would have been more reliable than the eyes and ears on a obliterated face.
          Pardon me, squire; but, if I may...

          Is it not more likely that 'hair' (the length, colour, hairline and styling all seemingly untouched, to judge by the photo) was meant, rather than 'ear' ("the ... ears being partly removed")...?

          As for the eyes, do we not gather that the actual eyeballs were left intact, making it possible to see their familiar colour?

          I really don't feel it's my job to interfere in someone else's investigation; but I myself would be hard-put to identify my own girlfriend by her hands and feet ... and I think Barnett the Billingsgate porter probably said " 'air", not "ear"...

          M.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
            Is it not more likely that 'hair' (the length, colour, hairline and styling all seemingly untouched, to judge by the photo) was meant, rather than 'ear' ("the ... ears being partly removed")...?M.
            Hi Mark. This does seem more likely to me - that hair rather than ears was meant.

            Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
            As for the eyes, do we not gather that the actual eyeballs were left intact, making it possible to see their familiar colour?
            I wonder about this. Eyes become cloudy within a couple of hours of death and quite opaque after a few more hours. - I'm not sure they would be a good basis for making an identification by the time Barnett got to see the body.



            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

              Pardon me, squire; but, if I may...

              Is it not more likely that 'hair' (the length, colour, hairline and styling all seemingly untouched, to judge by the photo) was meant, rather than 'ear' ("the ... ears being partly removed")...?

              As for the eyes, do we not gather that the actual eyeballs were left intact, making it possible to see their familiar colour?

              I really don't feel it's my job to interfere in someone else's investigation; but I myself would be hard-put to identify my own girlfriend by her hands and feet ... and I think Barnett the Billingsgate porter probably said " 'air", not "ear"...

              M.
              I thought hands and feet, might have more details to allow a safer identification, particularly as they were left less unmutilated than the eye area. I accept this is a case by case situation and Barnett's identification may have been by Kelly's hair not ears.

              Squire Martyn

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
                '

                I'm 100% sure I know the ids of Jack, Astrakhan and Kelly and can demonstrate this in a compelling way. You'll have to wait for the book though for me to substantiate these claims.

                In the meantime here's a list of some of the things that raise my suspicions about the Miller Court event:

                - The sightings of Maxwell and Lewis (whose description seem to match the picture of Kelly in the IPN of the 17th November).
                - The obliteration of the Miller's Court victim's face to allow a substitute to be made.
                - The non-optimal way Kelly was identified. The hands and feet would have been more reliable than the eyes and ears on a obliterated face.
                - The complete non-discovery to date of Kelly that supports the supposition that Kelly's narrative supplied by Barnett at the inquest is false.
                - Barnett's nervousness at the inquest. Could be written off due understandable stress at his loss and not used to appearing at an inquest. Or because he was lying and was afraid of being caught out.
                - The suspiciously world record abridged one-day inquest.
                - Waiting for bloodhounds that were of little use at that particular murder scene. I believe Anderson, Arnold, Phillips and Warren are
                all on record as discounting the usefulness of bloodhounds in the streets of Whitechapel.
                - The sudden inexplicable loss of interest by the press in Kelly's murder.
                - The non-appearance of an highly important witness (Hutchinson) at the inquest.

                Apologies for being off-topic here.

                Martyn
                ''The obliteration of the Miller's Court victim's face to allow a substitute to be made.'' Hi Martyn , this point in perticular makes it sound like kelly might have been the intended victim , are you of that opinion ? , just curious.
                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  ''The obliteration of the Miller's Court victim's face to allow a substitute to be made.'' Hi Martyn , this point in perticular makes it sound like kelly might have been the intended victim , are you of that opinion ? , just curious.
                  FWIW I believe Miller's Court was a misdirection event. The purpose of which was to remove Kelly out of London and that another was killed in her place. The mutilations of Kelly were functional as were the murder themselves. I'm sure Kelly, JTR (Blotchy?) and Astrakhan were all connected. I'm fully in on the conspiracy/cover up angle. What can I say?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

                    FWIW I believe Miller's Court was a misdirection event. The purpose of which was to remove Kelly out of London and that another was killed in her place. The mutilations of Kelly were functional as were the murder themselves. I'm sure Kelly, JTR (Blotchy?) and Astrakhan were all connected. I'm fully in on the conspiracy/cover up angle. What can I say?
                    Well i can hardly wait to hear this one . One more question if i may , Do you think Kelly and Eddowes knew each ''very well '' ?
                    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      Well i can hardly wait to hear this one . One more question if i may , Do you think Kelly and Eddowes knew each ''very well '' ?
                      Hi Fishy1118

                      I have no evidence or any particularly reason to think they even knew each other but I don't rule it out. What's your thoughts behind your question?

                      I focus on just the so-called canonical victims for simplicity and because it makes the most sense to me. I believe there was a scandal associated with Astrakhan that he was possibly being blackmailed for by Kelly and maybe by one or more of the remaining canonicals. Or Astrakhan with Jack were taking revenge for the scandal being exposed?

                      Just questions from me now! What's your take on the murders. Were they random purposeless murders by a madman or by a sane but psychopathic killer or what? Did any victims know each other? Was there a cover up by the "authorities" or should we take what Anderson, MacNaughton etc said at face value? Appreciate your thoughts about JTR and the murders.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

                        Hi Fishy1118

                        I have no evidence or any particularly reason to think they even knew each other but I don't rule it out. What's your thoughts behind your question?

                        I focus on just the so-called canonical victims for simplicity and because it makes the most sense to me. I believe there was a scandal associated with Astrakhan that he was possibly being blackmailed for by Kelly and maybe by one or more of the remaining canonicals. Or Astrakhan with Jack were taking revenge for the scandal being exposed?

                        Just questions from me now! What's your take on the murders. Were they random purposeless murders by a madman or by a sane but psychopathic killer or what? Did any victims know each other? Was there a cover up by the "authorities" or should we take what Anderson, MacNaughton etc said at face value? Appreciate your thoughts about JTR and the murders.
                        Hi Martyn, Well seeings how you asked and you seem interested ill share some of my thoughts , firstly i do still believe in a particular theory thats much frowned upon hear at the mere mention of the people involved with it , Although over the years it has been pointed out on many ocassions the faults with said theory , which i admit there are some things that dont add up, . But there are many other things that just cant be tossed away as, hmmm how shall i put it '' just a made up story and all a pack of lies'' . But enough of that one . Ive since been reading another theory that has captured my interest which revolves around something similar to what you have mention and i thought we might be on the same track . The person who presents this theory has been extremely dilligent in their research, and i find the attention to detail extraodiary when outlining a motive and the person/s responsible for the murder of Eddowes and then Kelly .


                        If youd like to discuss anything about either theory id be happy to do so just .P.M me anytime . Regards Fishy
                        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                          Hi Martyn, Well seeings how you asked and you seem interested ill share some of my thoughts , firstly i do still believe in a particular theory thats much frowned upon hear at the mere mention of the people involved with it , Although over the years it has been pointed out on many ocassions the faults with said theory , which i admit there are some things that dont add up, . But there are many other things that just cant be tossed away as, hmmm how shall i put it '' just a made up story and all a pack of lies'' . But enough of that one . Ive since been reading another theory that has captured my interest which revolves around something similar to what you have mention and i thought we might be on the same track . The person who presents this theory has been extremely dilligent in their research, and i find the attention to detail extraodiary when outlining a motive and the person/s responsible for the murder of Eddowes and then Kelly .


                          If youd like to discuss anything about either theory id be happy to do so just .P.M me anytime . Regards Fishy
                          Hi Fishy, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'll will pm you sometime.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by MayBea View Post
                            For those who think the non-reporting of pregnancy by Bond is proof of Gravida 0, meaning Mary never gave birth, may you take notice that his actual reporting of evidence of Gravida 0 for Rose Mylett was incorrect.



                            http://www.casebook.org/victims/mylett.html
                            This reminds me of a discussion I had years ago with my personal ob-gyn. He said that a professional (such as yes, an ob-gyn!) could generally determine thru examination that a woman has given birth. He said it's virtually impossible to determine whether one is a virgin or not, but it's usually much simpler regarding childbirth. Still, it seems there can sometimes be doubt...
                            "It's either the river or the Ripper for me."~~anonymous 'unfortunate', London 1888

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Mrs. Fiddymont View Post

                              This reminds me of a discussion I had years ago with my personal ob-gyn. He said that a professional (such as yes, an ob-gyn!) could generally determine thru examination that a woman has given birth. He said it's virtually impossible to determine whether one is a virgin or not, but it's usually much simpler regarding childbirth. Still, it seems there can sometimes be doubt...
                              Hi Mrs. Fiddymont

                              one might also mention Dr. Killeen's finding about Martha Tabram:
                              Dr. Keeling stated that he had made the most careful examination, and he could find no trace of the woman having had any children. - The witness Tabram was then recalled, and stated that he had had two children by the deceased, both boys, one was 15 and the other 18 years of age.
                              Ouch, I bet that stung the young doctor!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                                Hi Mrs. Fiddymont

                                one might also mention Dr. Killeen's finding about Martha Tabram:


                                Ouch, I bet that stung the young doctor!
                                LOL, yes, so much for professional opinions!
                                "It's either the river or the Ripper for me."~~anonymous 'unfortunate', London 1888

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X