A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[curious]

If, as I have long suspected, the Kelly murder was premeditated (and not committed by Blotchy), the killer wouldn't simply have bumbled into the room trusting that Kelly was alone and asleep. He would have first listened at and then looked through the window to ensure that the coast was clear. From there it would have been a simple matter to disengage the bolt and let himself into the room. Assuming that this was what happened, it would appear likely that the killer had a history of burglary and similar such offences.

That makes sense. But what about the extreme damage inflicted on the body? Do you envision any background in that?

It's difficult for me to think that was done by an ordinary person without any background in ?? I don't know, murder or butchery, or something similar.

Thanks,

cricket

[Wickerman]

Hi Richard,

Quite. Hutchinson is accorded the status of a proven liar on the back of no proof whatsoever. He may have been lying - but he may not.

Indeed, and castles of sand have been built on this flawed state of affairs.

For me, on the balance of probabilities, Kelly knew her killer.

What 'we' tend to forget Colin is, that Kelly knew far more people than we know of. The list of suspects could number in the tens or dozens, none of whom are known to us.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

Premeditated?

On balance, it does seem likely that Kelly's murder was premeditated - but even that covers a broad remit. 'Premeditated' might mean, for example, that the killer had planned to kill Kelly long in advance. Perhaps he visited Kelly and took the key with that in mind.

If that were the case, he'd have presumably known her well enough (or Barnett well enough) to visit their home.

On the other hand, 'premeditated' might mean that the killer had seen Kelly - knew her by sight, perhaps - and had observed her movements - i.e. he knew where she lived. Presumably in either case, he knew that she was alone - that alone seems to imply a degree of familiarity with Kelly's circumstances.

So, if we entertain the idea that Kelly's murder was premeditated - where does that leave us? If Kelly's murderer was the same man responsible for the othe murders in Whitechapel at that time, what sort of killer are we looking at?

[Abby Normal]

On balance, it does seem likely that Kelly's murder was premeditated - but even that covers a broad remit. 'Premeditated' might mean, for example, that the killer had planned to kill Kelly long in advance. Perhaps he visited Kelly and took the key with that in mind.

If that were the case, he'd have presumably known her well enough (or Barnett well enough) to visit their home.

On the other hand, 'premeditated' might mean that the killer had seen Kelly - knew her by sight, perhaps - and had observed her movements - i.e. he knew where she lived. Presumably in either case, he knew that she was alone - that alone seems to imply a degree of familiarity with Kelly's circumstances.

So, if we entertain the idea that Kelly's murder was premeditated - where does that leave us? If Kelly's murderer was the same man responsible for the othe murders in Whitechapel at that time, what sort of killer are we looking at?

Hi Sally
I would say a streetsmart, perceptive, intelligent, local anyman serial killer who made a fairly decent living and who was evolving in the extremes, method and control of his sick, sociopathic obsession.
And who knew Mary Kelly.

[Wickerman]

Hi Sally
I would say a streetsmart, perceptive, intelligent, local anyman serial killer who made a fairly decent living and who was evolving in the extremes, method and control of his sick, sociopathic obsession.
And who knew Mary Kelly.

....and one wonders how many of that type were in Kelly's small social circle

[GregBaron]

Opportunist or Stalker?

So, if we entertain the idea that Kelly's murder was premeditated - where does that leave us? If Kelly's murderer was the same man responsible for the othe murders in Whitechapel at that time, what sort of killer are we looking at?

This is interesting Sally and it appears the murderer of MJK could have been a stalker. You might also argue that there could be an element of premeditation in the offing of Eddowes.

Chapman and Nichols however appear to be crimes of opportunity. Also Stride.

This perplexes and tends to lead us into Lynn Cates multi-perp territory...

Confusion reigns...


Greg

[Wickerman]

This perplexes and tends to lead us into Lynn Cates multi-perp territory...

Confusion reigns...


Greg

Is that a roundabout way of saying Lynn's theory is very confused?

[Sally]

Jon -

Kelly knew far more people than we know of. The list of suspects could number in the tens or dozens, none of whom are known to us.

But then -

....and one wonders how many of that type were in Kelly's small social circle

So, a small social circle or a large one?

[Sally]

Hi Sally
I would say a streetsmart, perceptive, intelligent, local anyman serial killer who made a fairly decent living and who was evolving in the extremes, method and control of his sick, sociopathic obsession.
And who knew Mary Kelly.

Hi Abby -

I broadly agree. I'm curious as to why you think he'd have made a decent living? Do you think he might have been the elusive 'well-dressed man' reported in the press at that time?

[GregBaron]

Not I....

Is that a roundabout way of saying Lynn's theory is very confused?

Good one Wickerman.

I would make no such inference...


Greg

[Sally]

This is interesting Sally and it appears the murderer of MJK could have been a stalker. You might also argue that there could be an element of premeditation in the offing of Eddowes.

Chapman and Nichols however appear to be crimes of opportunity. Also Stride.

This perplexes and tends to lead us into Lynn Cates multi-perp territory...

Confusion reigns...


Greg

Hi Greg -

Hmm, yes, I see what you mean!

It does look somewhat perplexing. However, I think that a degree of premeditation can work with some opportunism. Both appear to be present here, but I'm not sure that need imply more than one perpetrator.

In the case of Nichols and Chapman - let's say the killer had never met either woman before and seized the chance to kill them as it arose, his victims having led him to the spot. Even so, I imagine he had almost certainly envisioned killing fantasy victims, and having run the scenarios through in his mind a few times, had planned what he would do when that opportunity arose.

In the case of Stride - yes, that does seem to have been on the spur of the moment, and is difficult for several reasons. I find it hard to put it down to coincindence, considering that Eddowes was killed nearby only minutes later.

If Eddowes were premeditated, it seems difficult to see how Stride fits in, assuming a single killer - unless he intended to kill two women that night.

[GregBaron]

Pick out and follow...

Hi Greg -

Hmm, yes, I see what you mean!

It does look somewhat perplexing. However, I think that a degree of premeditation can work with some opportunism. Both appear to be present here, but I'm not sure that need imply more than one perpetrator.

In the case of Nichols and Chapman - let's say the killer had never met either woman before and seized the chance to kill them as it arose, his victims having led him to the spot. Even so, I imagine he had almost certainly envisioned killing fantasy victims, and having run the scenarios through in his mind a few times, had planned what he would do when that opportunity arose.

In the case of Stride - yes, that does seem to have been on the spur of the moment, and is difficult for several reasons. I find it hard to put it down to coincindence, considering that Eddowes was killed nearby only minutes later.

If Eddowes were premeditated, it seems difficult to see how Stride fits in, assuming a single killer - unless he intended to kill two women that night.

Indeed Sally, I can't disagree with you. A single perp may have been developing his strategy where the thrill of the hunt became ascendant...

One can see evolutions and de-evolutions among modern examples.

If we expand outside the canon, it seems opportunism and stalking can both be asserted.

As usual, we can't really get anywhere with these speculations....interesting to discuss however...



Greg

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Folks,

As an aside, Ive been tracking what some of the thoughts are and I find myself wondering why anyone would hang on to the idea that Mary was the fifth victim of a single killer. Granted weve all been told that enough over the years, but as we can see in just Marys case, there is substantial evidence that her killer did not do things like Jack the Ripper did. Different age group, different circumstances of encounter, likely known by the deceased, lots of superfluous cutting and spiteful slashing, in a private room on the deceased's bed...

What I intended to address in this thread was how this killer gained access to Mary Kelly, which really boils down to either with her consent, or without it.

If you use the acceptable evidence, that is evidence that is provided at the Inquest and with the approval of the coroner, we have Marys arrival with company, no seen departure of either...and a room dark and quiet by 1:30am, we have a cry out at approx 3:45 sounding like it came from the courtyard heard by 2 witnesses in different locations, we have the room evidence... which shows us a partially clad Mary being attacked while in bed on the far right hand side, likely lying on her right side, facing the partition wall. We have 2 locked windows and a locked door. We have boots by the fireplace, clothes on the chair nearby.

Thats really all we can say with any degree of certainty, and of course, like much of these cases, it does rely on our having chosen witnesses we believe we can trust to frame the scene.

Forget the cuts later on, or the madness exhibited....if we can determine that Mary had allowed her killer to enter her room without resistance based on what we already know, then we can deal with some other issues like are the wounds some kind of mimicry.

The importance of this question is paramount...because if its probable that based on the method of acquisition this murder was not committed by the man known as Jack the Ripper we will know that more than one man in London was capable of committing acts such as these at that time.

Its not enough to just group only the mutilated victims, or suppose that the killer changes his spots spontaneously, ....its why the mutilations, or lack of them, occur. The motive behind the cuts.

In the case of Polly and Annie there is little doubt about the motives....the killer caught strangers in the dark and killed them so he could mutilate their abdomens. And, most probably, acquire some innards.

In my opinion thats the litmus test as far as motivations go for Jack the Ripper, and to me, I dont see any killings after those first 2 that appear clearly to have been committed for those same motives. And I see one murder that almost certainly could not have been the work of someone with those goals...without any mutilations you probably dont have a serial mutilator.

So why does the man who kills the first 2 not kill the next 3...does he kill again the following year with Alice...where does he go? Lynn has framed a good case for an institution, something I could easily buy into, but it may not be that cut and dried.

Thats why these discussions are meaningful....the exchange of ideas.

Cheers all

[Bridewell]

Planning

This is interesting Sally and it appears the murderer of MJK could have been a stalker. You might also argue that there could be an element of premeditation in the offing of Eddowes.

Chapman and Nichols however appear to be crimes of opportunity. Also Stride.

This perplexes and tends to lead us into Lynn Cates multi-perp territory...

Confusion reigns...

Greg

Hi Greg,

Either that or we have a killer who recognised the risks associated with opportunistic kills and introduced an element of planning thereafter.

[Wickerman]

Jon -



But then -



So, a small social circle or a large one?

Not everyone she knew was her friend, as the evidence suggests

(but well spotted anyway - one to you)