Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,

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

MrB

Hi Mr B,

Yes it was......as far as this "Jack" goes, I sit on the fence with that murder, but I do see a possible connection of the Eddowes murder with the Kelly murder.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

One may know someone without having ever met them.

Mike

Know of perhaps Mike.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

All of the murders were different.
c.d.

Untrue. The first 2 murders were committed in the same fashion, with the same Victimology and the same post mortem cutting...the victims were acquired using the same ruse, they were killed using the same deep double cut methodology, the only meaningful difference in these murders was the venues and the much more invasive cutting done to Annie. Easily addressed by venue.

Cheers cd

[Michael W Richards]

Lest anyone forget, we have witness testimony that Mary was seeing another Joe at the same time she was seeing Barnett, ...most assume it was Fleming, but that isn't a fact..just a guess. We don't know who that "Joe" was, we don't know if he had love triangle issues with Mary, and we don't know if he might have been dangerous.

I do know that a Joe Issacs moved into accommodations very near Millers Court after Barnett moved out, was acting strangely, and left without notice..and some belongings, on the night Mary died. Based on the landladys concerns and her report, they located him...but didn't hold him for questioning.

Point being, as I said, we don't know who Mary Jane Kelly really may have been, therefore we don't know who she knew, what threat they may have been to her, and what may have prompted the violence.

Assuming it was an assumed serial killer that supposedly just entered the court and Marys room without invitation and killed her is poor sleuthing at best.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

I would see a problem with a confidence trickster, imposter, petty-thief, being a murderer & mutilator.
Criminals tend to stick to what they do best. Isaac's 'profession' was not among those we might categorize as posing a 'physical threat' to his victims.
Trickery, posing & theft falls more into a cowardly activity.

[Harry D]

"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.

Which completely tallies with the disparate set of circumstances. Jack didn't have the time or the privacy to dissect the other victims to his heart's content. Therefore he had to be as efficient as possible with the crude anatomical knowledge he possessed.

[Michael W Richards]

I would see a problem with a confidence trickster, imposter, petty-thief, being a murderer & mutilator.
Criminals tend to stick to what they do best. Isaac's 'profession' was not among those we might categorize as posing a 'physical threat' to his victims.
Trickery, posing & theft falls more into a cowardly activity.

My point was Jon that we know diddly about who Marys other Joe was, and we know diddly about Mary in general, because all she told Barnett has been looked into and it cannot be reconciled with that story. If Mary Jane was an assumed name, then until we decipher who she really was, we know nothing about her history, her friends or her enemies.

One of the Most Probable list of 3 in the Memorandum was also just a thief, so just goes to show that the police didn't exclude him because of that benign profession.

Cheers Jon

[Michael W Richards]

Which completely tallies with the disparate set of circumstances. Jack didn't have the time or the privacy to dissect the other victims to his heart's content. Therefore he had to be as efficient as possible with the crude anatomical knowledge he possessed.

I would say Harry that "Jack", based on the comments made after the examinations made on Polly and Annie had more than a crude knowledge and crude skill....they sought out medical students as possible suspects for those crimes. No-one suggested they do the same for Mary. In fact Bond stated that Marys killer did not even have the skills of a butcher.

To assume that the killer of Annie wasn't completely satisfied with the results of that encounter is pure speculation, as it is for the other murders. Pollys killer may have desired abdominal mutilations leading to extractions, which is the only significant difference between those 2 murders. Liz Strides killer apparently only wanted to kill her, and Marys killer seemingly was exploring the human form, and creating all sorts of superfluous injuries. All done crudely and without any appreciable skill.

That contrast is glaring when considering Canonicals 1,2 vs #5.

Cheers Harry

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael.

One of the Most Probable list of 3 in the Memorandum was also just a thief, so just goes to show that the police didn't exclude him because of that benign profession.

Which probably serves to illustrate my point, because we know Ostrog, the thief, was not Jack the Ripper.

In fact Bond stated that Marys killer did not even have the skills of a butcher.

But Michael, when you read through Bond's summary of the murders he is quite convinced that Polly, Annie, Kate & Mary were all by the same hand, with reservations, only, about Stride.

[The Good Michael]

One of the Most Probable list of 3 in the Memorandum was also just a thief, so just goes to show that the police didn't exclude him because of that benign profession.

Benign? Try again.

Mike

[lynn cates]

others

Hello Jon.

"But Michael, when you read through Bond's summary of the murders he is quite convinced that Polly, Annie, Kate & Mary were all by the same hand, with reservations, only, about Stride."

Indeed. But this is quite a feat since he NEVER saw the others.

Cheers.
LC

[J6123]

Marys killer seemingly was exploring the human form, and creating all sorts of superfluous injuries. All done crudely and without any appreciable skill.

That contrast is glaring when considering Canonicals 1,2 vs #5.

Cheers Harry

Hello Michael,

Where is the 'appreciable skill' in Canonical 1?

Best Regards,

Matt

[John Wheat]

Inebriation

Couldn't various levels of inebriation explain the alleged differences in the skill of the cuts and mutilations in the C5?

[The Good Michael]

Couldn't various levels of inebriation explain the alleged differences in the skill of the cuts and mutilations in the C5?

Absolutely John, as would height, light, mood, struggles, victim's mood, victim's suspicions, victim's inebriation, time, more or less people around, silence, a private room to work in, shoes, different equipment, varying levels of mania, a recent death in the family, a nagging wife, different times of the night, preoccupation with something else besides this....the list goes on. That's why despite all the attempts to break things into neat little components, it all goes back to what the police originally thought.

Mike

[John Wheat]

To Michael

I mention inebriation as I would have thought it would have more of an effect on the cuts and mutilations than many other factors. It would be harder to make clean cuts with an unsteady hand due to inebriation. However I also think that drug use or misuse may have a similar effect.

Cheers John