Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[lynn cates]

mentally unbalanced

Hello Harry. Thanks.

Of course, it may NOT have been for jollies. Why could not her assailant merely have been mentally unbalanced--to the point of overkill?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

M O

Hello John. Thanks.

Similar MO's? Perhaps that could be spelled out a bit more precisely?

So far as I can see, what ties the C5 together is that:

1. All had cut throats.

2. The assailant was not caught.

Did you mean signature?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello again,

To address a couple of points that were questioned...

1. There is no reason to call Mary Kellys murder a "copy-cat" murder if it was not committed by the same person that killed Polly and Annie. Clearly, there was very little similarity in all categories...half the age, indoors, large amount of superfluous cutting post mortem, organs removed and left at the scene, facial features obliterated, partial acts of removing flesh from bone....etc. Marys murder does not "mirror" any other in the Canon..excluding the use of the knife as the primary weapon.

2. Tracing Mary Jane Kelly, (based on the biographical information provided by Barnett and others), has proven fruitless for researchers and historians since the day she was murdered. Ergo, there is a very real possibility that the person who identified herself as Mary Jane Kelly lied. Or that her real identity was protected after her death...I favour the first option. In either case there is no way of knowing at this time whether someone had the motive or drive to kill the women in room 13.

3. Without knowing who the victim actually was, there is no possible way anyone could know what friends she had or what enemies, and based on the premise that she lied about who she was, there would seem to be reason to question anything she may have told, or perhaps omitted telling, to Barnett.

4. At the time of Mary Kellys murder there were other unsolved murders in the immediate area of women who at least in part, solicited for their living; Ada Wilson, Emma Smith, Martha Tabram and the Torso found Oct 3rd. There has never been any evidence to link any one of these murders to one individual, (as in the case of the alleged ripper kills), which means that there were at least 4 other men capable of killing women in that area. Based on the research of "suspects" in the Ripper cases, we can also see that some men who lived in the immediate area at that time later committed murder. Hence, there were plenty of violent offenders in the overcrowded and poverty stricken area....as is usually the case to this day in similar environments.

4. The facts in the Kelly murder show us that she was half the age of the previous victims, that she was killed while undressed and in her own bed, that she was disassembled by her killer not cut according to any objectives, and that any actions taken on her remains that are similar to any previous murder were discussed in the free press long before this murder happened.

5. The fact that Alice Mackenzie was killed in similar fashion to the earliest Canonical victims, at a time when we are told by the authorities the suspect for the Ripper crimes was incarcerated in the form of being forcibly institutionalized, suggests that at least 1 killer repeated Ripper actions, or that the authorities were wrong about the suspect they held.

The above is about the known facts, without any subjective inferences.
Consider that in many modern murders... some singular events, the body of the deceased is defaced. Some victims are cut up for disposal, some victims are burned, some are defaced beyond recognition. In many of these cases there is no evidence that the killer sought out murders that would lead to these kinds of violent completions, but rather the killers decided to do the acts to inhibit an investigation or "cover their tracks"....on the spot.

In Marys case, a very solid argument exists based on the above, that Mary Kellys killer sought to inhibit a proper investigation into the reason for that murder by replicating acts that the authorities had concluded only the Ripper would do.

If you review the evidence in the first 2 Canonical murders you will note that the killer was thought to have been somewhat skilled and knowledgeable about surgical cutting and anatomy respectively, and that the physicians charged with uncovering a motive based on the injuries believed that the killer did everything he did to access the organ that he took, and very little superfluous cutting was done that did not lead to that goal.

In the case of Mary Kelly, no one assigned the killer skill, or knowledge, and clearly, he did many, many things that did not lead to acquiring the organ he eventually took. In fact, he left the only organ that was taken twice previously, in complete and partial form.

To suggest Mary was likely a Ripper victim is to ignore all the indicators that suggest she was not, and there are many.

Best regards

[Natasha]

Hello again,

To address a couple of points that were questioned...

1. There is no reason to call Mary Kellys murder a "copy-cat" murder if it was not committed by the same person that killed Polly and Annie. Clearly, there was very little similarity in all categories...half the age, indoors, large amount of superfluous cutting post mortem, organs removed and left at the scene, facial features obliterated, partial acts of removing flesh from bone....etc. Marys murder does not "mirror" any other in the Canon..excluding the use of the knife as the primary weapon.

2. Tracing Mary Jane Kelly, (based on the biographical information provided by Barnett and others), has proven fruitless for researchers and historians since the day she was murdered. Ergo, there is a very real possibility that the person who identified herself as Mary Jane Kelly lied. Or that her real identity was protected after her death...I favour the first option. In either case there is no way of knowing at this time whether someone had the motive or drive to kill the women in room 13.

3. Without knowing who the victim actually was, there is no possible way anyone could know what friends she had or what enemies, and based on the premise that she lied about who she was, there would seem to be reason to question anything she may have told, or perhaps omitted telling, to Barnett.

4. At the time of Mary Kellys murder there were other unsolved murders in the immediate area of women who at least in part, solicited for their living; Ada Wilson, Emma Smith, Martha Tabram and the Torso found Oct 3rd. There has never been any evidence to link any one of these murders to one individual, (as in the case of the alleged ripper kills), which means that there were at least 4 other men capable of killing women in that area. Based on the research of "suspects" in the Ripper cases, we can also see that some men who lived in the immediate area at that time later committed murder. Hence, there were plenty of violent offenders in the overcrowded and poverty stricken area....as is usually the case to this day in similar environments.

4. The facts in the Kelly murder show us that she was half the age of the previous victims, that she was killed while undressed and in her own bed, that she was disassembled by her killer not cut according to any objectives, and that any actions taken on her remains that are similar to any previous murder were discussed in the free press long before this murder happened.

5. The fact that Alice Mackenzie was killed in similar fashion to the earliest Canonical victims, at a time when we are told by the authorities the suspect for the Ripper crimes was incarcerated in the form of being forcibly institutionalized, suggests that at least 1 killer repeated Ripper actions, or that the authorities were wrong about the suspect they held.

The above is about the known facts, without any subjective inferences.
Consider that in many modern murders... some singular events, the body of the deceased is defaced. Some victims are cut up for disposal, some victims are burned, some are defaced beyond recognition. In many of these cases there is no evidence that the killer sought out murders that would lead to these kinds of violent completions, but rather the killers decided to do the acts to inhibit an investigation or "cover their tracks"....on the spot.

In Marys case, a very solid argument exists based on the above, that Mary Kellys killer sought to inhibit a proper investigation into the reason for that murder by replicating acts that the authorities had concluded only the Ripper would do.

If you review the evidence in the first 2 Canonical murders you will note that the killer was thought to have been somewhat skilled and knowledgeable about surgical cutting and anatomy respectively, and that the physicians charged with uncovering a motive based on the injuries believed that the killer did everything he did to access the organ that he took, and very little superfluous cutting was done that did not lead to that goal.

In the case of Mary Kelly, no one assigned the killer skill, or knowledge, and clearly, he did many, many things that did not lead to acquiring the organ he eventually took. In fact, he left the only organ that was taken twice previously, in complete and partial form.

To suggest Mary was likely a Ripper victim is to ignore all the indicators that suggest she was not, and there are many.

Best regards

Hi Michael

I think based on the factors you outlined it is possible that Kelly may have been a separate murder all together.

I think her face may have been obliterated to obscure her identity though. A few possible reasons:

1. She was related to someone of importance. Could explain why no family came forward, she may have been an illegitimate child of someone. They may have even had her murdered. It is very interesting how there was no mention of her mother.

2. She was having an affair with someone who saw her as a threat, maybe she threatened to blackmail this person. If this is the case, that could explain the level of injury inflicted on her face. She may have been seen by someone whilst she was with this man, and for this man to avoid being connected to this murder, he obscured her identity. Barnett said she was scared of a man.

3. It was a random attack. I don't think that is the case to be honest, judging by the level of injury. Unnecessary cuts to the arms, legs & her face being obscured, why the overkill if it was random?

4. She had upset someone, a scorned lover could have been responsible. Her heart was removed but a report in The times, 12th November 1888 stated:

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case.


From this we can assume that the heart remained at the scene. It could still be possible that it was a crime of passion though.

5. It could have been a revenge murder, she may have testified against someone. She may have even committed a crime against someone.

[John Wheat]

Hello John. Thanks.

Similar MO's? Perhaps that could be spelled out a bit more precisely?

So far as I can see, what ties the C5 together is that:

1. All had cut throats.

2. The assailant was not caught.

Did you mean signature?

To Lynn

Perhaps Signature would have been more appropriate. That considered exactly where is the evidence that there were multiple violent killers in London in 1888 with similar signatures?

Cheers John

[lynn cates]

question

Hello John. Thanks.

I would have asked a slightly different question. I would have asked IS the signature the same? Now the signature seems to involve strangulation, facial bruising and parallel cuts to the neck. The first two evinced ALL these characteristics. But all the rest lacked them.

What series? What signature?

Cheers.
LC

[John Wheat]

To Lynn

Perhaps I should ask questions in a more strait forward manner. I am wondering why yourself and others believe there were multiple violent killers in London in 1888? My intention is not to discredit others or start an argument I am merely wondering what evidence there is to suggest there were multiple violent killers in London in 1888?

Cheers John

[lynn cates]

disparities

Hello John. Thanks.

Well, I'd begin with the stark disparities AFTER the first two. If the first two had differed--as in so many series--one would think little of it. But that is NOT what happened.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

Hello Harry. Thanks.

Of course, it may NOT have been for jollies. Why could not her assailant merely have been mentally unbalanced--to the point of overkill?

Hello Lynn,

Possibly, but I'd argue that the vast majority of serial killers derive satisfaction on some psychological level from the act of murder.

[lynn cates]

assumption

Hello Harry. Thanks.

I daresay. But why are we assuming that a serial killer is involved here?

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

Hello Harry. Thanks.

I daresay. But why are we assuming that a serial killer is involved here?

Do you think whoever butchered MJK hadn't killed before?

[lynn cates]

no reason

Hello Harry. Thanks.

I have NO reason to believe he did.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

I think based on the factors you outlined it is possible that Kelly may have been a separate murder all together.

I think her face may have been obliterated to obscure her identity though. A few possible reasons:

1. She was related to someone of importance. Could explain why no family came forward, she may have been an illegitimate child of someone. They may have even had her murdered. It is very interesting how there was no mention of her mother.

2. She was having an affair with someone who saw her as a threat, maybe she threatened to blackmail this person. If this is the case, that could explain the level of injury inflicted on her face. She may have been seen by someone whilst she was with this man, and for this man to avoid being connected to this murder, he obscured her identity. Barnett said she was scared of a man.

3. It was a random attack. I don't think that is the case to be honest, judging by the level of injury. Unnecessary cuts to the arms, legs & her face being obscured, why the overkill if it was random?

4. She had upset someone, a scorned lover could have been responsible. Her heart was removed but a report in The times, 12th November 1888 stated:

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case.


From this we can assume that the heart remained at the scene. It could still be possible that it was a crime of passion though.

5. It could have been a revenge murder, she may have testified against someone. She may have even committed a crime against someone.

Hi Natasha,

In the case of the heart Natasha we can state with some certainty that it was removed from the scene. From the official Post Mortem by Dr Bond the following quote is taken; "The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent."

I believe that its important to look into some of the issues you've cited but I am not sure how any breakthrough might take place, it would seem if Mary Jane Kelly was a creation either by herself or others, there has been no evidence found to support the idea in all this time. That's not saying its incorrect, its a theory. Like one that claims Jack the Ripper killed her........and since that's unproven as well, without any evidence to validate it, I would assume that the real story here is still unwritten.

I think the obliteration of the face and the removal of the heart are indicators her killer knew her personally....and if that is the case that would be another departure from the assumptions about the previous Canonicals.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Do you think whoever butchered MJK hadn't killed before?

He may well have Harry, but the manner of her departure and the subsequent injuries show no indication that her dispatch was caused by someone who knew how to kill, or anything about anatomy.

Something that the killer of Annie and Polly most certainly showed. Not only were they killed efficiently, but the killer was felt to have knowledge about how to execute organ excisions.

"Butchered" may be applicable in those first 2 cases, in Marys case it was more like de-engineered, like someone would do in order to learn anatomy.

Cheers Harry

[GUT]

To be frank I can not see how anyone could possibly comment on the skill of MJK's killer shown in killing her.

In the disection that followed yes, but not in the act of murder.

Just my 2p.