Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Francis Craig

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

  • Francis Craig

    Mind the floor.......its wet with my drool. I,ll start things off:

    "How dare he!"

    "Respect the wimmin!"

    "Its all about the money!"

    Hmmmmmmm.........happy times.
    P

  • #2
    Lars, did you write to Jari?

    Comment


    • #3
      Not recently Robert.
      P

      Comment


      • #4
        Bump Up
        I created a Forum for Francis Craig and took Lars' thread and put it in.
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

        Comment


        • #5
          I think I'd be inclined to concentrate on Wynne Weston-Davies claim that Elizabeth Weston Davies was Mary Jane Kelly before I considered whether or not Craig was Jack the Ripper. After all, if she wasn't Kelly then Craig had no reason to kill her or anyone else. And even if she was, I wonder if Craig was bonkers enough to commit the carnage in Room 13. As with all theories that Jack was Barnett or Maybrick or any other cuckold, is it likely they would coldy and methodically done what Jack did to Kelly? I'm not saying that nobody would or could, only asking if it's likely.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi Paul

            I find it incomprehensible how anyone could do such a thing. But someone did, and it does seem to have been coldly done, up to a point - the wounds themselves may have been ferocious, but there are no reports of body parts being flung about, even though he was indoors and there was no need to be tidy. It looks to me just like someone taking a watch apart, keeping all the bits carefully close by under the fond delusion that he would be able to reassemble them.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
              Hi Paul

              I find it incomprehensible how anyone could do such a thing. But someone did, and it does seem to have been coldly done, up to a point - the wounds themselves may have been ferocious, but there are no reports of body parts being flung about, even though he was indoors and there was no need to be tidy. It looks to me just like someone taking a watch apart, keeping all the bits carefully close by under the fond delusion that he would be able to reassemble them.
              Yes, someone did do it, but the question I ask is whether or not it is likely to have been done by somebody who is miffed because his wife's had sex with another man (or in Elizabeth's case a lot of other men). I can imagine someone being so furious that they stab in a frenzy (as someone did with Tabram) or commit all manner of violence. But what the Ripper did was dispassionate and coldly destructive.

              Comment


              • #8
                One of those pieces in the 'Telegraph' said that Craig was mentally ill and a guess was made at a diagnosis.

                I said before I could understand even a deranged stalker who merely imagined MJK had rejected him, destroying her face, and her sex externally and internally, and keeping her heart for a souvenir.

                What I have NEVER understood at any level with MJK is why the killer removed flesh from her thighs. I think he only quit because his knife got dull. The butchery on the right side is a much cleaner job than on the left. Or he sobered up about the time his knife got too dull to do what he wanted. If his knife had stayed sharp and his passion white hot, what would the end result have been? A skeleton? Why? What purpose, even if one is totally insane? It makes more sense that a mad pork butcher was contemplating making sausage IMO.

                The idea that Craig intentionally destroyed her face so nobody would know she was his wife only makes superficial sense. Women talk a lot. Women especially talk to other women. Even with her face destroyed he had no guarantee that Mary had not told her story to a dozen other women in confidence. She could have even told someone, "If anything happens to me, my husband did it...."
                The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                  One of those pieces in the 'Telegraph' said that Craig was mentally ill and a guess was made at a diagnosis.

                  I said before I could understand even a deranged stalker who merely imagined MJK had rejected him, destroying her face, and her sex externally and internally, and keeping her heart for a souvenir.

                  What I have NEVER understood at any level with MJK is why the killer removed flesh from her thighs. I think he only quit because his knife got dull. The butchery on the right side is a much cleaner job than on the left. Or he sobered up about the time his knife got too dull to do what he wanted. If his knife had stayed sharp and his passion white hot, what would the end result have been? A skeleton? Why? What purpose, even if one is totally insane? It makes more sense that a mad pork butcher was contemplating making sausage IMO.

                  The idea that Craig intentionally destroyed her face so nobody would know she was his wife only makes superficial sense. Women talk a lot. Women especially talk to other women. Even with her face destroyed he had no guarantee that Mary had not told her story to a dozen other women in confidence. She could have even told someone, "If anything happens to me, my husband did it...."
                  If there were examples of a man doing what was done in Room 13 because his wife had cheated on him then I'd feel more relaxed about accepting that as a motive, but whilst cuckolded men have committed appalling acts of violence, something as coldly calculated as what the Ripper did seems to me to be the act of someone truly deranged. Craig was mentally ill, apparently suffering from a personality disorder that made social interaction very difficult, but I don't get the impression that he was so deranged.

                  However, my point, recommendation if you like, is that any research energy be concentrated on the book's primary claim, namely that EWD was MJK. If she was, Craig's validity as a potential Ripper can be considered. If she wasn't, the whole theory is all but irrelevant. That's my feeling anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Paul View Post
                    Yes, someone did do it, but the question I ask is whether or not it is likely to have been done by somebody who is miffed because his wife's had sex with another man (or in Elizabeth's case a lot of other men). I can imagine someone being so furious that they stab in a frenzy (as someone did with Tabram) or commit all manner of violence. But what the Ripper did was dispassionate and coldly destructive.
                    I think it is possible, Paul.
                    An example would be the mutilation murder in Mansfield in August 1895 that I've mentioned before and I always thought bears a resemblance to the murder of MJK but was a 'one off' jealousy type domestic murder.

                    The mutilations inflicted in this case were also every bit as horrific as the ones inflicted on Mary Kelly. Mary Elizabeth Reynolds had her throat cut, her stomach opened up, her bowels removed and her thighs cut to the knees.
                    Her face was gashed and her breast cut off and thrown in a corner, her body cavity was kept open by a brass stair rod.
                    The perpetrator, a man named Wright, who lodged with the victim also cut the throats of Mary's children, who were in the house.
                    His sole excuse for what he had done was that she had rejected his advances, which I think is a similar motive to the one that must be proposed with Craig; rejection?.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Paul View Post
                      However, my point, recommendation if you like, is that any research energy be concentrated on the book's primary claim, namely that EWD was MJK. If she was, Craig's validity as a potential Ripper can be considered. If she wasn't, the whole theory is all but irrelevant. That's my feeling anyway.
                      Our posts crossed, Paul. I do agree with your last paragraph here.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You are right, Debra.

                        We still have minutiae to work with, most from Barnett.

                        A) MJK was in an infirmary in Cardiff for 8 months. (Why, which one, etc.?)

                        B) A cousin lead her into a bad life in Cardiff.

                        C) Barnett testified under oath she was christened Marie Jeanette Kelly.

                        At the same time the new story erupted I had found a Davies family in Merionethshire with about the right numbers of siblings. A brother was named Henry. Mary Jennet(t) may have been a family name, a tradition carried through females. The mother of this family was named Jennet(t) and possibly Mary also. All the kids were at home in the 1881 census and that might argue against this being MJK's family.

                        I also learned that Janets & Jennet(t)s were frequently registered as Mary Janes. At least one Mary Janet was double entered on a marriage page, under that name and then as Mary Jane.

                        Barnett was so sure when he said she was "christened" under the name he gave. To me that means a lot more than, "It was her name", or "She always told me", etc.

                        Would Elizabeth have needed to invent a story for Barnett that a cousin had led her astray?
                        The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                          You are right, Debra.

                          We still have minutiae to work with, most from Barnett.

                          A) MJK was in an infirmary in Cardiff for 8 months. (Why, which one, etc.?)

                          B) A cousin lead her into a bad life in Cardiff.

                          C) Barnett testified under oath she was christened Marie Jeanette Kelly.

                          At the same time the new story erupted I had found a Davies family in Merionethshire with about the right numbers of siblings. A brother was named Henry. Mary Jennet(t) may have been a family name, a tradition carried through females. The mother of this family was named Jennet(t) and possibly Mary also. All the kids were at home in the 1881 census and that might argue against this being MJK's family.

                          I also learned that Janets & Jennet(t)s were frequently registered as Mary Janes. At least one Mary Janet was double entered on a marriage page, under that name and then as Mary Jane.

                          Barnett was so sure when he said she was "christened" under the name he gave. To me that means a lot more than, "It was her name", or "She always told me", etc.

                          Would Elizabeth have needed to invent a story for Barnett that a cousin had led her astray?
                          Hi Anna
                          It seems like an age ago when we were gently discussing candidates and then EWD burst in on us!
                          What you say about the double marriage entries is very interesting, are you able to post those? I know Scott Nelson has mentioned the surname Jannett/Jennet etc. a few times but I never know whether to take him seriously...or what?!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                            I think it is possible, Paul.
                            An example would be the mutilation murder in Mansfield in August 1895 that I've mentioned before and I always thought bears a resemblance to the murder of MJK but was a 'one off' jealousy type domestic murder.

                            The mutilations inflicted in this case were also every bit as horrific as the ones inflicted on Mary Kelly. Mary Elizabeth Reynolds had her throat cut, her stomach opened up, her bowels removed and her thighs cut to the knees.
                            Her face was gashed and her breast cut off and thrown in a corner, her body cavity was kept open by a brass stair rod.
                            The perpetrator, a man named Wright, who lodged with the victim also cut the throats of Mary's children, who were in the house.
                            His sole excuse for what he had done was that she had rejected his advances, which I think is a similar motive to the one that must be proposed with Craig; rejection?.
                            That's fair enough. A like for like example.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It's much worse.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X