A bizarre theory of the MJK murder

[APerno]

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.

Another good point, only Barnett really needs to cover-up his actions, anyone else have walked away without care.

Anthony

[Cogidubnus]

A considered response...which I for one can respect...

Every good wish

Dave

[FrankO]

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.

Hi Kensei,

As Chris George suggests, what we know of the Ripper murders demonstrates that the Ripper was capable of behaving in such a way that he didn’t raise too much suspicion, if any. He was in control of himself. Based on what we know, to say that he did have the social skills to lure his victims or chat them up, goes too far, I'd say. We have to remember these women didn’t need any chatting up to begin with. They were in search of money, so the sight of money and a perhaps few words would have been enough for them to go with any man, as long as he didn’t behave too suspiciously. From the few words heard by Elisabeth Long and the gesture witnessed by Joseph Lawende it doesn't follow that the Ripper was luring his victims or chatting them up.

All the best,
Frank

[Errata]

I would submit that there is nothing really new in the world, so two guys with similar fantasies about mutilating women would not at all be surprising. It's never the desire that's unusual, it's the willingness to act on the desire. And there is nothing to say that there wasn't some guy out there getting excited reading the articles on the Ripper, and decides to give it a go. But I think the murder of Kelly looks intensely personal. And different. In fact I think the only thing that links Mary Kelly to other Ripper victims is that it seems incredibly unlikely that there would be two guys out there mutilating and eviscerating women at the same time. Which is a fair point, I'm not going to lie. But if there were two murders a couple of months apart just like this in New York City today, it would actually be a hard sell to get experts to agree they were committed by the same person. It is true that serial killers can devolve. They get sloppy and frantic, and kill as often as humanly possible. If Jack devolved, that might explain the change in intent of the mutilations, but there should have been murders closer and closer together until nothing of the original fantasy remained. Which didn't happen.

[Wickerman]

...Barnett would have the motive, because he would be the obvious suspect were the Kelly murder not ascribed to the Ripper.

Hi Colin.

Given that many of the murders concerning one male and one female that the police dealt with were domestic, the 'spouse' (or live-in lover) was the natural first choice.

Also, given the police knew this, and that Barnett's alibi that he was playing whist with a group of men would have been thoroughly checked out?

Regards, Jon S.

[c.d.]

Hello Anthony,

Welcome to the boards. Theory and speculation are what keeps us tuned in so keep 'em coming.

As has been pointed out, the Ripper didn't need the looks of Brad Pitt or the wit of Oscar Wilde. He only needed money. And even if he was incredibly awkward with women, I suspect there were a few instances where the women approached him.

c.d.

[APerno]

Hello Anthony,

Welcome to the boards. Theory and speculation are what keeps us tuned in so keep 'em coming.

As has been pointed out, the Ripper didn't need the looks of Brad Pitt or the wit of Oscar Wilde. He only needed money. And even if he was incredibly awkward with women, I suspect there were a few instances where the women approached him.

c.d.

Hi back CD - thanks for the welcome, this has been quite a treat for me, last time I tried writing on a message board it was with Vietnam Vets. That was not a nice experience. Talk about your 'political correctness' - lol It is nice to see people be able to disagree without needing to sink to personal attacks.

Anthony

[Michael W Richards]

Hi back CD - thanks for the welcome, this has been quite a treat for me, last time I tried writing on a message board it was with Vietnam Vets. That was not a nice experience. Talk about your 'political correctness' - lol It is nice to see people be able to disagree without needing to sink to personal attacks.

Anthony

Hi Anthony,

I dont want to burst your innocence bubble, but in time you may see the same kind of argumentative behaviours. Give it time.

If Mary Kelly was not killed by the person known as Jack the Ripper, something I personally believe, then we have 2 choices....Marys killer was at least equally disturbed as the man who killed some of the prior women that Fall, or the crime scene was manipulated to appear as if it was the same man.

Many claim that the nature of the Ripper crimes was unique, even though we have someone making Torso's before and during the Ripper crimes, and we have this murder, which if not by this Jack fellow everyone writes about, then we have at least 3 disturbed men. Not unusual considering we are talking about the most depraved and meanest area of England, perhaps anywhere, at that time. Mary seems to me to resemble the efforts of that Torso killer...right arm almost completely removed, head almost severed, thighs stripped of flesh, and denuding of the leg to expose the knee joint.

Circumstantially Marys murder is the only one within the supposed series that screams out a personal connection between killer and prey....the location, Marys demeanor in death, the facial destruction, the lack of any struggle noises...etc. Which, circumstantially again, would rule out a man predisposed to killing for the sake of killing

I believe based on the circumstances whomever killed Mary sought to conceal the true motive for her death, and their connection to her, by a pseudo "Ripper kills strangers" replication. The killer made a crime scene look horrible, the scene did not appear as such merely by coincidence. A breast was placed under her head, other organs placed between her legs, and her left arm was deliberately placed back over her emptied midsection.

It certainly wasnt there when he was cutting her up.

My best regards

[FrankO]

Hi Micheal,

Mary seems to me to resemble the efforts of that Torso killer...right arm almost completely removed, head almost severed, thighs stripped of flesh, and denuding of the leg to expose the knee joint.

First of all, the right arm wasn’t almost completely removed. Like the left arm, it had ‘just’ sustained extensive and jagged wounds. Secondly, compared to both series (Torso & Ripper) I’d say MJK’s murder still resembled the work of the Ripper a lot more than that of the Torso killer(s).

Circumstantially Marys murder is the only one within the supposed series that screams out a personal connection between killer and prey....the location, Marys demeanor in death, the facial destruction, the lack of any struggle noises...etc. Which, circumstantially again, would rule out a man predisposed to killing for the sake of killing

I wouldn't say that her demeanor in death, or the lack of any struggle noises suggest that MJK's murder was personal. After all, lack of any sign of a struggle is actually a hallmark of the Ripper murders and at least Chapman and Eddowes were found in very similar positions as Kelly.

A breast was placed under her head, other organs placed between her legs, and her left arm was deliberately placed back over her emptied midsection.

It certainly wasnt there when he was cutting her up.

I don't know why the fact that a breast was placed under her head or that her liver was placed between her feet should tell us that it wasn't the work of the Ripper, and the placement of the left arm is no different than what the Ripper did to Chapman’s left arm.

All the best,
Frank

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Frank,

In response;

Frank: Hi Micheal,

First of all, the right arm wasn’t almost completely removed. Like the left arm, it had ‘just’ sustained extensive and jagged wounds. Secondly, compared to both series (Torso & Ripper) I’d say MJK’s murder still resembled the work of the Ripper a lot more than that of the Torso killer(s).

I would check up on the issue of her right arm Frank. It was almost completely removed, it was out of the socket and held by sinew.

Frank:
I wouldn't say that her demeanor in death, or the lack of any struggle noises suggest that MJK's murder was personal.

I mentioned more relevant factors Frank, the location and her demeanor in death refers to her manner of dress.


Frank:

I don't know why the fact that a breast was placed under her head or that her liver was placed between her feet should tell us that it wasn't the work of the Ripper, and the placement of the left arm is no different than what the Ripper did to Chapman’s left arm.

Then maybe you have an explanation for his excising and leaving the only organ that was taken from both Annie and Kate, in varied states.

We have a crime scene that appears to be Ripperish, by a man who clearly didnt operate the way the Ripper had until that point, so...you either have a changed motivation within the killer...hardly feasible,... or you have a killer with different goals.

Cheers Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Michael,

I would check up on the issue of her right arm Frank. It was almost completely removed, it was out of the socket and held by sinew.

Could you direct me to the source? Dr. Bond's post-mortem report doesn't give this information.

I mentioned more relevant factors Frank, the location and her demeanor in death refers to her manner of dress.

As I wrote, I agree that the location and fact that she was nearly naked may suggest a personal link to her killer.

Then maybe you have an explanation for his excising and leaving the only organ that was taken from both Annie and Kate, in varied states.

Do you have an explanation for his excising and taking away the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes? Or for taking away a kidney and part of a belly wall? He clearly cut out MJK's uterus, but maybe he felt like taking the heart instead, now that he could. Who knows?

We have a crime scene that appears to be Ripperish, by a man who clearly didnt operate the way the Ripper had until that point, so...you either have a changed motivation within the killer...hardly feasible,... or you have a killer with different goals.

That he didn't operate as before (and I'm talking about MO here) has nothing to do with motive, just with the circumstances being different in MJK's case.

The fact that he did more than he did to Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes may perfectly well be explained by the fact that he worked indoors.

Excusez l'example, but compare him to an adolescent bloke who wants to have sex with his girlfriend. What would he go for when he only had limited time (he brought her home on a Saturday night and had to 'fumble' outdoors) or when he had lots of time (when her parents would be away for the night and he could as he pleased)?

Maybe he had enough after he stole this woman's heart?

Cheers,
Frank

[lynn cates]

time

Hello Frank.

"What would he go for when he only had limited time"

I've never been able to understand the "limited time" in the other cases. Why could "he" not have killed "MJK" when he wished, and hence lots of time? Or why not more indoors--if he so chose?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Or why not more indoors--if he so chose?

Limited opportunity perhaps?

Regards, Bridewell

[lynn cates]

expand

Hello Colin. Thanks.

OK. Can you expand a bit?

Cheers.
LC

[FrankO]

I've never been able to understand the "limited time" in the other cases. Why could "he" not have killed "MJK" when he wished, and hence lots of time? Or why not more indoors--if he so chose?

Hi Lynn,

I’m afraid I don’t quite understand you there, so could you please rephrase?

Cheers,
Frank