Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[MrBarnett]

Michael,

You left out Kate Eddowes in your assessment. Was that deliberate?

MrB

[markmorey5]

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.

There is a difference in the manner of Kelly's murder. With the other victims blood spray was avoided but not with Kelly.

[Natasha]

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

Hi Michael

Bond's report was not exhaustive.

I feel there is more then meets the eye with Kelly's murder. Her brothers were supposed to have lived in London. Why did they not come forward? Why would she lie to such an extent about that, and other trivial stuff?

I also think the killer knew her.

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael

Bond's report was not exhaustive.

Neither was it the official report.

[The Good Michael]

I also think the killer knew her.

One may know someone without having ever met them.

Mike

[ianincleveland]

I still have a nagging suspicion that McCarthy was involved in this.First off he claims Kelly owes him just about 7 weeks rent,now would a slum landlord in Spitalfields allow arrears like that??? He could have been pimping her but then he would take that money off the arrears surely??!

Then when Bowyer looks through the window and runs off to get McCarthy,he claims he has no key to his own flat..........yeah right.

He also doesnt seem to realise that the room can be entered by putting your hand through the broken window,now that could be true,but id say Kelly or perhaps Barnett would have told him theyd lost the key and thats how they got in.Arnold has to tell him to bash the door in (im actually quite suprised the police didnt try the lock through the window)

I think McCarthy and Kelly were having an affair,far deeper than a punter/pimp and prostitute.I also reckon Kelly for whatever reason tried to blackmail him,probably by telling his wife,either that or she knew something else about him he didnt want public.

Could he have lived with what he did? Well theres plenty of unsolved butcherings out there so quite likely some people can

[c.d.]

All of the murders were different. The key question is whether or not those differences are significant. Simply pointing out differences does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there were different killers involved.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Ian,

I think it is reasonable to believe that Kelly was not the first tenant to be behind in her rent given the economic situation of most of Whitechapel's inhabitants. I would venture to guess that it was quite common.

Claiming he has no key is not going to stop the police from entering the room.

Given what had occurred in the room it is not surprising that he was not thinking clearly even if he was aware of gaining access by way of the broken window.

As for a relationship between him and Kelly, while that may be true we have no evidence for it.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

He also doesnt seem to realise that the room can be entered by putting your hand through the broken window,now that could be true,but id say Kelly or perhaps Barnett would have told him theyd lost the key and thats how they got in.Arnold has to tell him to bash the door in (im actually quite suprised the police didnt try the lock through the window)

It only doesn't make sense if Barnett arrived 'before' the door was forced.

As events unfolded it appears likely that Barnett only arrived at Millers Court 'after' the door had been forced.

[Wickerman]

As for a relationship between him and Kelly, while that may be true we have no evidence for it.

Given the close proximity of Kelly's room to McCarthy's back door, and the number of members of the McCarthy household just across the passage, it would be difficult for John M. to carry on a relationship with Kelly while no-one else knew about it.
Not forgetting the other tenants of the court, as would be typical for the period, who tend to know each others business.

[c.d.]

Killing someone to end blackmail is one thing, butchering them and pulling out their intestines is quite another. Unless McCarthy was also the killer of Kate Eddowes, I doubt very much that he is our man.

c.d.

[ianincleveland]

It only doesn't make sense if Barnett arrived 'before' the door was forced.

As events unfolded it appears likely that Barnett only arrived at Millers Court 'after' the door had been forced.

Sorry i may have worded that a bit wrong,i meant Kelly or Barnett would quite likely have told Mccarthy they had lost the key before the murder and the way in was via the broken window and then pulling the catch

[Wickerman]

The key of the murdered woman's door has been found, so that her murderer did not carry it away with him, as was at first supposed.
The Star, 12 Nov. 1888.

[ianincleveland]

The key of the murdered woman's door has been found, so that her murderer did not carry it away with him, as was at first supposed.
The Star, 12 Nov. 1888.

Ive learnt something new there

Thanks

Ian

[Wickerman]

Interestingly, Barnett was not questioned at the inquest on how he entered the room. It was Insp. Abberline who stated that Barnett told him the key was lost.

If you notice the source I quoted was the Star, an evening paper which went to press sometime after 2:00pm on an afternoon.
Going to press so early means the Star reporter did not hear Abberline's testimony. The Star's coverage ended during the testimony of Elizabeth Prater, so a reasonable question must be asked, who or what was their source?

We are only left to wonder, is the Star correct, and Barnett lied or, was Abberline mistaken?