Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mary Jane Violence

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

  • Mary Jane Violence

    Hi all,
    Just a thought, but something I have wanted to discuss, what was the reason for the level of violence displayed on Mary Kelly?
    If we are to take the C5 as victims of the Whitechapel Killer, and in my opinion Martha Tabram, we see a steady progression of violence as is generally accepted in serial killers. It appears to be typically accepted on these pages that the reason for the evicerasion of Mary Kelly was purely opportunity, the killer had at last a chance to fulfill his lust. What I'd like to debate, if we accept that the killer hated women and wanted to destroy them, the initial chain of victims fit this, but with all respect they were not stereotypical beauties, as such not the kind of women the killer might have envied. But reports from the time suggest that Mary Kelly did not fit this profile, she was young, healthy and attractive. The killer vented an awful rage against all his victims, as if any woman was beyond his social skills, but perhaps in winning the confidence of Mary Kelly he was confronted with someone who represents all he could never have, could this have amplified his rage?
    To summarise, was the violence inflicted upon Mary Kelly purely opportunity or could she have represented more than the other victims what the killer envied or hated?

    For the record, I don't have a particular suspect, theory or conspiracy.

  • #2
    You will hear...because he finally had the time and the privacy, or..because he lost his mind completely by then, or...because his taste for gore had elevated...but the critical part of this equation suggests something far easier to see in the evidence. He knew Mary personally. She knew him. That's categorically a 180 degree departure from stalking women working the streets as a complete stranger to them. Which is what the first 2 murders appear to have been.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Michael, I believe the personal knowledge would definitely be played out in the level of violence displayed. Did he know her? We'll never know. I guess both theory's make sense?

      Comment


      • #4
        Hello A.B.E.,

        Welcome to the boards. I think the problem here is that you are thinking that Mary was some sort of Playboy model. I think her attractiveness was only relative to so many other poor women on the streets. If she really were out of the killer's league wouldn't she be on the arm of some rich sugar daddy instead of living where she was and sharing a room with a fish porter? No disrespect meant to Mary.

        I think the simplest answer is that it was simply a situation where her killer had more time with the victim alone.

        c.d.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
          You will hear...because he finally had the time and the privacy, or..because he lost his mind completely by then, or...because his taste for gore had elevated...but the critical part of this equation suggests something far easier to see in the evidence. He knew Mary personally. She knew him. That's categorically a 180 degree departure from stalking women working the streets as a complete stranger to them. Which is what the first 2 murders appear to have been.
          Hello Michael,

          You appear to be stating an ascertained fact but it is mere speculation. And even if they knew each other, we don't know the nature or extent of that relationship.

          c.d.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi C.D, yeah a point well made. It's generally reported that Michael Barnett had echolalia, an odd condition In such a great catch. I've typically been of the belief that Mary was just another unfortunate. Just thinking that maybe there was more than just opportunity?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by c.d. View Post

              Hello Michael,

              You appear to be stating an ascertained fact but it is mere speculation. And even if they knew each other, we don't know the nature or extent of that relationship.

              c.d.
              We know Mary was in a love triangle that included another man she called "Joe". We know that she was attacked while in bed, while undressed, likely on her side with her back turned to the windows. We know that there were no signs at all that a forced entry occurred. The windows were also found locked, and the door may or may have not had the spring latch off. We know therefore that Mary was in her room, knowing someone was with her, and she got into bed, aligned to the right hand side, and then slipped onto her right side, facing the wall. It was then she was attacked. It seems almost a given that the man was someone she knew well enough to be in her bedroom while she was undressed, and that he was there with her consent, unspoken or otherwise.

              When things seem so clear they are crystal I still am amazed at what people will do to deny the obvious. And as for obvious, its obvious that Mary wasn't entertaining a client, because she had only had the room to herself for a few days, there are no witness reports up until that last night that she was soliciting at all recently, and the only man she is recoded as taking to her room after Barnett left is someone she sang to for over an hour.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • #8
                Michael, would I be right in saying the singing is desputed between two of the inquest statements?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hello Michael,

                  An argument in favor of your theory is fine. Stating it as fact is not.

                  I know the maintenance people in my apartment building by name. But that is all I know about them. I have no idea where they live or if they are married or if they have kids or what their favorite hobbies are. The point being that simply knowing someone does not automatically mean some sort of close or even intimate relationship with them.

                  c.d.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The unimaginable level of violence perpetrated in Room 13 was in order to render the victim unrecognisable, and thus identifiable only by association with the address.

                    The Millers Court victim was not Mary Jane Kelly.

                    If it had been, by now Debra Arif would have located her.
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi Simon,if the killer wanted to render the victim unrecognisable would he have done it at their home address?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        The unimaginable level of violence perpetrated in Room 13 was in order to render the victim unrecognisable, and thus identifiable only by association with the address.

                        The Millers Court victim was not Mary Jane Kelly.

                        If it had been, by now Debra Arif would have located her.
                        Hello Simon,

                        But you are in agreement that a woman was killed in Millers Court who was identified as Mary Jane Kelly are you not? Whether that was in fact her real name is another matter.

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'd have thought it was accepted that the true identity/history of the fifth C5 was never established?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                            The unimaginable level of violence perpetrated in Room 13 was in order to render the victim unrecognisable, and thus identifiable only by association with the address.

                            The Millers Court victim was not Mary Jane Kelly.

                            If it had been, by now Debra Arif would have located her.
                            Prolly 'cause her name was Mary Ann Kelly,a local 29 year old.

                            How's the Prayer Book Rebellion coming along?
                            Does Gawen Carew have big part
                            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              The windows were also found locked
                              Wanna have another go at that
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X