Jack The Ripper: In My Blood

[richardh]

By Norman J. Kirtlan (Author), Dianne Bainbridge (Author)

News Article HERE

No details on Amazon!

Northern Echo Article

[RavenDarkendale]

No offense, but here we go again!

[hkev]

Just been to a talk by Diane Bainbridge, the co-author of this book.
Very interesting story and I love the fact that she said - this is not case closed, I can't prove he is the Ripper but have been unable to prove he isn't - and also that this started as a "family tree" enquiry, not a game of Hunt the Ripper.

The facts themselves are quite intriguing, man lives in Grove St (off Commercial Road) for many years then at the end of 88/beginning of 89 moves to Hartlepool and changes his family name. London is never mentioned in the family, only that he came up from Dover. Fits the profiles nicely, absent father, mother died while giving birth, former family business was butcher.
Just the kind of non-descript man I think Jack was.

Of course no actual evidence, no blood stained knife or diary, but the actual facts present a more plausible suspect than most I have read about !

[Amanda Sumner]

Was there a sudden increase in numbers of women killed by knife in Hartlepool?
A serial killer does not normally stop unless he's stopped.

I think it's far more likely that the killer committed suicide or was put away somewhere....

[hkev]

There were some murders mentioned up here (I live in Hartlepool, hence my interest) but I'll have to read the book for more information on which ones.

Also to really put the conspiracy theorists on edge, the family moved to Henry St in Hartlepool which made them neighbours of the Graham family (as in William Graham and the infamous diary !)

[Amanda Sumner]

[QUOTE=hkev;284913

Also to really put the conspiracy theorists on edge, the family moved to Henry St in Hartlepool which made them neighbours of the Graham family (as in William Graham and the infamous diary !)[/QUOTE]


Now THAT is really interesting....

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
So now we know what happened on the morning of the 9th, Mary walked out, saw William in Dorset street, got some milk of him..He thought she looks promising, when she ventured out again, he saw his chance..chatted her up, and they both ventured back to her room casually..and that explains it all...
Regards Richard.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all. There were some significant errors made by the researchers of this book that were recently discovered (by Debra Arif predominantly) and communicated to the authors. But the theory they propose is essentially null and void.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

If he left London for fear of retribution, Hartlepool had an even worse reputation for tough justice:

In former times, mid war an' strife,
The French invasion threatened life,
An' all was armed to the knife,
The Fishermen hung the Monkey O!
The Fishermen wi' courage high,
Seized on the Monkey for a spy,
"Hang him" says yen, says another,"He'll die!"
They did, and they hung the Monkey O!
They tortor'd the Monkey till loud he did squeak
Says yen, "That's French," says another "it's Greek"
For the Fishermen had got drunky, O!
"He's all ower hair!" sum chap did cry,
E'en up te summic cute an' sly
Wiv a cod's head then they closed an eye,
Afore they hung the Monkey O!

[Debra A]

Just been to a talk by Diane Bainbridge, the co-author of this book.
Very interesting story and I love the fact that she said - this is not case closed, I can't prove he is the Ripper but have been unable to prove he isn't - and also that this started as a "family tree" enquiry, not a game of Hunt the Ripper.

The facts themselves are quite intriguing, man lives in Grove St (off Commercial Road) for many years then at the end of 88/beginning of 89 moves to Hartlepool and changes his family name. London is never mentioned in the family, only that he came up from Dover. Fits the profiles nicely, absent father, mother died while giving birth, former family business was butcher.
Just the kind of non-descript man I think Jack was.

Of course no actual evidence, no blood stained knife or diary, but the actual facts present a more plausible suspect than most I have read about !

That's interesting that Dianne Bainbridge is still trying to say that her ancestor lived on Grove St, Commercial Rd, when one of the discrepancies I discovered in the records was that the family had always lived at Grove St Marylebone. Add that to the fact that there was no absent father- he was always a Grove St Marylebone too and other significant genealogical mistakes made by Dianne that were all pointed out politely to her and the 'case' collapses. I wonder why Dianne is persisting in this if she set out all along to disprove her ancestor could have been the Ripper as she claims?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
In all seriousness . although the new suspect appears to be a non starter, the profession of a milkman has possibilities ..Maurice Lewis ..report of Kelly returning to her room with milk. can not be disproved, if she obtained it from a milkman attempting to gain her trust, and not from premises.
Maurice Lewis states , she left her room ,and returned to her room with milk shortly after., No one says they sold her any , but that does not mean that she didn't get some.
Regards Richard.

[GUT]

G'Day Richard

But wouldn't the police have checked f she did buy milk and where?

[richardnunweek]

Hi GUT
But they did, with a negative response, but my point is maybe the milkman in the street , either sold her some , or gave her some, in which case that would explain how. she was seen with Milk..and apparently not purchased some from premises.
That is of course if you believe M.Lewis, and Mrs M, and she was alive daytime.
Regards Richard,

[GUT]

G'Day Richard

But they did, with a negative response, but my point is maybe the milkman in the street

I must have missed that, can you tell me where the negative response is cited.

Thanks

[Amanda Sumner]

That's interesting that Dianne Bainbridge is still trying to say that her ancestor lived on Grove St, Commercial Rd, when one of the discrepancies I discovered in the records was that the family had always lived at Grove St Marylebone. Add that to the fact that there was no absent father- he was always a Grove St Marylebone too and other significant genealogical mistakes made by Dianne that were all pointed out politely to her and the 'case' collapses. I wonder why Dianne is persisting in this if she set out all along to disprove her ancestor could have been the Ripper as she claims?

Seems daft to me if her claims can be so easily disproved.
She obviously wants to make money out of it. Maybe her initial family research led to some genuine mistakes and assumptions that she now can't bear to let go of her theories.
She would make more money if she wrote a book of fiction about the Ripper, everyone enjoys a good yarn on the subject.