A bizarre theory of the MJK murder

[APerno]

Greetings

This is probably not a good way to introduce myself to this forum; I usually do not have such bizarre theories regarding the Whitechapel murders, but I have been kicking this around in my head for several months now and have no one to dump it on.

I have always had difficulty with the conventional wisdom regarding the Mary Jane Kelly murder. That the ‘ripper,’ adjusted to the heightened security around Whitechapel by choosing to move indoors, and once indoors was free (to spend time with his victim) to indulge his sick fantasy, taking it to the ultimate extreme. Then, once satisfied, his mind snapped, (or was rounded up on a non-related charge) and the murders ceased.

What has always bother me about this theory is twofold: first, the killer of Polly Nichols and Catherine Eddowes does not, to me, seem to be someone who is capable of interacting with a woman at any level let alone be able to lure one to a secluded location, especially when considering the prevailing temperament surrendering Whitechapel at the time. [I have always felt that the murderer was a disorganized marauder and opportunist.)

Second, if the ‘ripper’ could muster such a capability, to talk a prostitute, under those conditions, into going with him to a secluded location, it seems unlikely that he would choose such a young attractive victim. To me such a misogynist would have a difficult time dealing with any woman at any level, but to find himself in an attractive woman’s own apartment, in her own bed, dressed in seductive attire, seems to me, something impossible for him to endure.

I am a believer that the murderer was a ‘bottom feeder’ who preyed on the weakest victims he could find, and a 26 year old Mary Jane Kelly, laying almost naked, in her own bed, is by no standard a weak woman. I just cannot see the Whitechapel murderer placing himself in that position. (He would have had to stand there and watch her seductively disrobe, something I believe this marauder could not do; it is Mary Jane Kelly’s nudity that makes me question the ‘ripper’s’ presence in her room.) I believe the seduction (luring of the victim) and the encounter in the room are beyond his capability. It is for these reasons I question whether Mary Jane Kelly was a ‘ripper’ victim.

So, with that said, here is my bizarre theory. (Based on the belief that people who try to ‘stage’ a crime scene will overplay their hand.)

Imagine if you will that Mary Jane Kelly’s killer is someone other than the serial killer responsible for the other murders. Whether it be Joseph Barnett, or someone else does not matter, only that it be someone other than a serial killer; someone who has never murdered before.

However it happened, Mary Kelly ended up dead, and her killer realized he was now just steps from the gallows. He has only one way out, he must make this murder look like another ‘ripper’ murder. If he can, he can escape the responsibilities of his actions.

Picture then, a semi-literate man, likely drunk on alcohol trying to stage a ripper murder. Drunk and panicked, he begins to recreate the murder scenes he read about in the penny press, and heard about word to mouth on the streets, exaggerations and all. He begins to mimic each aspect of the murders as he knows them. Inflicting each mutilation on Mary Kelly as a separate act, trying desperately to recreate what he believes the authorities expect to find. As he finishes one atrocity, he steps back and remembers another, and then applies that mutilation as well. He knows he must slit her throat, so he does, he knows he must disembowel her, so he does, he knows he must take a trophy, so he does, he knows he must disfigure her face, and so he does. It is as though every offense suffered by the other victims is now perpetrated on Mary Kelly, (to an extreme) like a check list of the murderer’s atrocities. He leaves behind what amounts to an ‘orgy of evidence’ all pointing to the ‘ripper.’

An amateur desperately trying to save his own life, he commits on Mary Kelly every atrocity he can remember, hoping it all will be accepted as another Ripper murder.

Anthony Perno

[kensei]

Greetings

This is probably not a good way to introduce myself to this forum; I usually do not have such bizarre theories regarding the Whitechapel murders, but I have been kicking this around in my head for several months now and have no one to dump it on.

I have always had difficulty with the conventional wisdom regarding the Mary Jane Kelly murder. That the ‘ripper,’ adjusted to the heightened security around Whitechapel by choosing to move indoors, and once indoors was free (to spend time with his victim) to indulge his sick fantasy, taking it to the ultimate extreme. Then, once satisfied, his mind snapped, (or was rounded up on a non-related charge) and the murders ceased.

What has always bother me about this theory is twofold: first, the killer of Polly Nichols and Catherine Eddowes does not, to me, seem to be someone who is capable of interacting with a woman at any level let alone be able to lure one to a secluded location, especially when considering the prevailing temperament surrendering Whitechapel at the time. [I have always felt that the murderer was a disorganized marauder and opportunist.)

Second, if the ‘ripper’ could muster such a capability, to talk a prostitute, under those conditions, into going with him to a secluded location, it seems unlikely that he would choose such a young attractive victim. To me such a misogynist would have a difficult time dealing with any woman at any level, but to find himself in an attractive woman’s own apartment, in her own bed, dressed in seductive attire, seems to me, something impossible for him to endure.

I am a believer that the murderer was a ‘bottom feeder’ who preyed on the weakest victims he could find, and a 26 year old Mary Jane Kelly, laying almost naked, in her own bed, is by no standard a weak woman. I just cannot see the Whitechapel murderer placing himself in that position. (He would have had to stand there and watch her seductively disrobe, something I believe this marauder could not do; it is Mary Jane Kelly’s nudity that makes me question the ‘ripper’s’ presence in her room.) I believe the seduction (luring of the victim) and the encounter in the room are beyond his capability. It is for these reasons I question whether Mary Jane Kelly was a ‘ripper’ victim.

So, with that said, here is my bizarre theory. (Based on the belief that people who try to ‘stage’ a crime scene will overplay their hand.)

Imagine if you will that Mary Jane Kelly’s killer is someone other than the serial killer responsible for the other murders. Whether it be Joseph Barnett, or someone else does not matter, only that it be someone other than a serial killer; someone who has never murdered before.

However it happened, Mary Kelly ended up dead, and her killer realized he was now just steps from the gallows. He has only one way out, he must make this murder look like another ‘ripper’ murder. If he can, he can escape the responsibilities of his actions.

Picture then, a semi-literate man, likely drunk on alcohol trying to stage a ripper murder. Drunk and panicked, he begins to recreate the murder scenes he read about in the penny press, and heard about word to mouth on the streets, exaggerations and all. He begins to mimic each aspect of the murders as he knows them. Inflicting each mutilation on Mary Kelly as a separate act, trying desperately to recreate what he believes the authorities expect to find. As he finishes one atrocity, he steps back and remembers another, and then applies that mutilation as well. He knows he must slit her throat, so he does, he knows he must disembowel her, so he does, he knows he must take a trophy, so he does, he knows he must disfigure her face, and so he does. It is as though every offense suffered by the other victims is now perpetrated on Mary Kelly, (to an extreme) like a check list of the murderer’s atrocities. He leaves behind what amounts to an ‘orgy of evidence’ all pointing to the ‘ripper.’

An amateur desperately trying to save his own life, he commits on Mary Kelly every atrocity he can remember, hoping it all will be accepted as another Ripper murder.

Anthony Perno

Hello Anthony, interesting observations but I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. The Ripper demonstrated more than once that he did have the social skills necessary to lure his victims, we know this from eyewitness observations. It is highly unlikely that the men seen talking with both Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes very shortly before their murders were not their killers. In Chapman's case, a snippet of conversation was heard. He: "Will you?" She: "Yes." And with Eddowes, she was seen smiling and touching the man, not to push him away but as if he'd just said something humorous and she was going, "Oh, you." In short, he was chatting these women up. And with the way in which the intestines were tossed over the shoulders of both Chapman and Eddowes, that points to both those men being the same person. The facial mutilations of Eddowes when none of the faces had been attacked before were a sign of escalation.

And with Mary Kelly- Yes she was more attractive than the others, and you paint a scene of sexual allure in how she would have presented herself to her killer inside her room. But you also point out how her killer was likely drunk. You fail to recognize that Mary was also very drunk that night, as witnesses throughout the night attested. In fact she was staggering drunk, probably badly slurring her speech, etc. This would have detracted badly from her trying to seem sexy. It would have also seriously hindered her ability to defend herself. I think the Ripper always fantasized about doing to his victims what he did to Mary Kelly. It was only with the indoor setting that he finally had the safety and luxury of doing it. Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly were all brutal, grotesque, over the top mutilation murders. Thankfully, there are very few individuals among us at any given time who are capable of inflicting such horrors. How likely is it that there was more than one such monster in a single neighborhood at the same time?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Anthony

Au contraire, it's a great way to introduce yourself!

I follow your logic entirely and don't altogether disagree with it...thereagain that's no great endorsement! I think a number of people share at least some of your misgivings...

All the best

Dave

PS Welcome to the boards. Hope you enjoy yourself here.

[lynn cates]

copycat

Hello Anthony. Welcome to the boards.

There is much of good sense in your theorising.

One small problem is this. If it were a genuine copycat crime and he were following reports, then one wonders which report he were copying when he removed her breasts and denuded the thighs?

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Welcome to the boards, Anthony.

What, no Juwes?

[APerno]

Thank you for the welcome.

Kensei, LC, Dave, and Robert,

Thank you for the welcome.

First off let me say that I am just speculating; I am not all that committed to (my own) the theory.

As of late I have been thinking much about which murders fit and which don’t, and it has been from this mental play that I started trying to place the murderer inside Mary Kelly’s room.

It is possible that my refusal to accept the murderer’s ability to confront Mary Kelly in her room comes from a prejudice I hold regarding this type of serial killer. I am being stubborn and just don’t want to believe that he was someone capable of ‘chatting up’ his victims; I suppose, I prefer this murderer be of low intelligence, a marauder; I want to believe that he didn’t verbally engage any of his victims, but instead, attacked them the moment he crossed their path.

Kensei, in regards to Annie Chapman being chatted up by the murderer, I realize you are absolutely correct, conventional wisdom has it that Chapman led her attacker into the backyard at Hanbury Street. That’s why, right before I wrote my note I happened to be re-reading Begg’s, JTR The Facts, trying again to impose my (prejudicial) marauder theory onto Annie Chapman’s attack.

So here that goes: I was wondering if the murderer might not have been the individual seen with Chapman by Elizabeth Long, and could have followed Chapman into the backyard afterwards, speculating that Chapman was seeking privacy, with the intent on relieving herself. Begg confirms that neither the front nor rear door was capable of being locked and it is not unreasonable to believe that Annie Chapman would know that there was a privy in the yard.

There is contradiction between Albert Cadosch and Elizabeth Long’s testimony regarding the time of the murder, 5:15 and post 5:30 respectively and that casts some doubt on Elizabeth Long’s identification as well.

But again, let me state that I realize I may very well be imposing my marauder theory onto the facts; a failing I sometimes slip into.

Lynn, in regards to the killer’s attack on MJK’s thighs and breasts, I agree the attack on the thighs and breasts have no origin in the press but it is also difficult to conclude what exaggerations might have floated about word-to-mouth on the streets. Also I did not mean to imply a copycat killer in the traditional sense. What I mean by traditional sense is that a true copycat killer is one who is excited by the killings and seeks to replicate the murders by his own hand. I was suggesting that the killing was unintended, and the mutilations occurred as a poor attempt to cover-up the killing, not a sick desire to copy them.

But again let me end by restating that I realize I may very well be pushing round facts into oval holes, (this is only my latest theory, I have a score of them [smile]) and that I really do appreciate your responses. I have longed for someone to talk the murders with.

Anthony

“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; truth isn't.” Mark Twain

P.S. Robert, LOL, yes no Juwes! I never was big on the conspiracy theories but I do appreciate Knight for his popularization of the murders, without him, publishers and Hollywood would have spent considerable less money on the murders these past four decades.

[Cogidubnus]

bottom feeder

Hi Anthony

I can see you're going to be a real hit on here, (at least I think that's what I meant!)...seriously, I think you're a breath of fresh air...I love that Annie Chapman thought...it fits so well...but what, though, became of the original punter...did he just leave?

First off let me say that I am just speculating; I am not all that committed to (my own) the theory.

I, for one, don't have any problem with that...the more original thoughts thrown up, the better...just so long as they're reasoned rather than random...

Lynn's point regarding MJKs breast and thighs is a very interesting one too...so are we speculating here that rather than an escalation, Kelly represents a separate track (which throws, in turn, separate emphases on Eddowes and Stride)?

All the best

Dave

[Edward]

How would the Killer know?

So here that goes: I was wondering if the murderer might not have been the individual seen with Chapman by Elizabeth Long, and could have followed Chapman into the backyard afterwards, speculating that Chapman was seeking privacy, with the intent on relieving herself. Begg confirms that neither the front nor rear door was capable of being locked and it is not unreasonable to believe that Annie Chapman would know that there was a privy in the yard.

I would like to add my welcome to the boards!

How would the killer be sure that Chapman was going into the back yard? She could have been going to a room inside Number 29.

Edward

[Damaso Marte]

Of course many serial killers, even horrible ones, turn out to seem perfectly normal in social circumstances. I don't think there's a good reason to assume that JTR must have been socially inept or overtly frightening.

Wouldn't you expect more evidence of a struggle in most of the killings, for example?

And if he were picking random women off the street, why were all 5 victims prostitutes?

[lynn cates]

time consuming

Hello Anthony. Thanks.

"I agree the attack on the thighs and breasts have no origin in the press but it is also difficult to conclude what exaggerations might have floated about word-to-mouth on the streets. Also I did not mean to imply a copycat killer in the traditional sense. What I mean by traditional sense is that a true copycat killer is one who is excited by the killings and seeks to replicate the murders by his own hand. I was suggesting that the killing was unintended, and the mutilations occurred as a poor attempt to cover-up the killing, not a sick desire to copy them."

In which case, not bad. Still, the thigh business must have been time consuming.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Hi Anthony

Keep doing what you do. These boards contain speculation, but there's nothing wrong with that. I sometimes call speculation "thought experiments." So feel free.

By the Juwes, I meant that if he was trying to make the murder appear to be a Ripper killing, he might have tried to write a message at or near the scene.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Anthony

Welcome to the boards. Your theory is not as bizarre as you apparently think and in fact has been proposed before for a killer who wanted the crime to look like the Ripper murders that he had read about, as you well describe. It's not a theory that I subscribe to -- but it's nonetheless a possible alternative scenario to the Ripper having done the Miller's Court murder. I also agree that the idea of the killer's mind "giving away" is simplistic if not unrealistic, a fantasy on the part of Sir Melville Macnaghten and others who believe that. I do differ with you though on the idea that the Ripper was a "bottom feeder" with no social skills. The fact that he could talk quietly to Eddowes as Lawende and his friends passed by and could function quietly in Mitre Square and similarly in Buck's Row and the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, might argue that he was a man who knew how to handle himself with a woman and to guide the situation to his advantage.

Best regards

Chris

[richardnunweek]

Hi Anthony.
First of all welcome to Casebook.
I agree that the murder of Chapman has some hallmarks of a stalker attack, it is not inconceivable that the killer noticed Annie , and Mrs Long's man soliciting in Hanbury street, and observed them enter the passage, and having seen the client exit alone, decided to walk into number 29, upon reaching the backyard observing Chapman composing herself against the fence after her ordeal.
I have speculated many times over the years, and one could pick out the ''watcher'' theory on all of the victims including Tabram.
Regards Richard.

[Bridewell]

Only Barnett would Have the Need

Imagine if you will that Mary Jane Kelly’s killer is someone other than the serial killer responsible for the other murders. Whether it be Joseph Barnett, or someone else does not matter, only that it be someone other than a serial killer; someone who has never murdered before.

However it happened, Mary Kelly ended up dead, and her killer realized he was now just steps from the gallows. He has only one way out, he must make this murder look like another ‘ripper’ murder. If he can, he can escape the responsibilities of his actions.

Hi Aperno,

I add my own welcome to those of the others. I think, in the scenario you present, it does matter whether it's Joseph Barnett or someone else. Barnett would have the motive, because he would be the obvious suspect were the Kelly murder not ascribed to the Ripper. Any other killer, unless for some reason he thinks he will be identified, has no reason to make the killing look like a Ripper murder. In fact there is an obvious danger in so doing because, if he is identified as her killer he will himself be identified as the man responsible for the previous murders. For these reasons - for me - Kelly's murderer was either the Ripper or Barnett.

Regards, Bridewell.

[APerno]

By the Juwes, I meant that if he was trying to make the murder appear to be a Ripper killing, he might have tried to write a message at or near the scene.

You are correct, my theory needs a teasing message to be written as well, and there was none. If he was to do all the others things I suggested, he certainly would have offered some sort of message. That makes good sense. Good point.

Anthony