Why those particular victims?

[Outlaw]

Hi Outlaw,

You would be asking the same question no matter which five women had been murdered.

Regards,

Simon

Actually I wouldn't as there have been more than a few instances throughout history where groups of women have been murdered by so-called 'serial' murderers.

Some of these were the acts of people who were clearly psychopathic or mentally ill, but I strongly believe the Ripper murders were different.

I have my reasons for believing this to be so, which I will be sharing when I finish my own research.

[Outlaw]

I'm curious about the Welsh family who claimed MJK as their own......well after the fact. If she was one of theirs, why did none of them appear at the inquest? Why did no one attend her funeral or claim her body? The story was extensively covered so I'm pretty sure most of Wales knew about it soon after it happened. I'm a bit skeptical.

And isn't butchering 5 women a bit draconian for a 'warning'? Who were they trying to warn? About what? If they had a clandestine motive, surely causing one of the biggest news stories of the latter half of the 19th century is not the way to remain clandestine.

From my own family history I know that when my own family travelled from the rural west of Wales to the coal mines of the South Wales valleys in the 1880s, they used a horse and cart to transport everything, with some of the family members walking alongside or behind the horse and cart.

A journey of around seventy miles took two full days.

To travel from South Wales to an inquest in London would have been very expensive day out for a Welsh family who worked in a manual trade such as iron working or coal mining.

Also, her chosen profession would have been frowned upon in Wales at that time especially if the family were religious.

They may well have disowned her as there were people in my own family tree who, although they were part of a large family, had done things that would be seen as being tame these days, but they were not spoken to ever again by their families.

One was not even been allowed a place in the family burial plot when they passed away, being buried in a single grave on the other side of the local cemetery, in funerals which none of their families attended, including their children.

He had left his wife for another woman.

So it's entirely possible that Mary Kelly's family may have been of the same mind, as they could very easily have been shunned by their communities and workmates in what were very tight-knit communities in Wales at that time.

Who said that the people who were responsible for the Ripper murders wanted to remain clandestine?

I would say that butchering five women and leaving them to be found was as in your face as you could get. A very public statement of intent I should think.

[Penhalion]

I sincerely doubt any of the women's families were thrilled about the sort of life they were leading but they stepped up and did the proper thing at the inquests. Wasn't MJK supposed to have a brother Johnto who was in the army and stationed in London at the time? Surely he could have done something?

Are you still in contact with the Welsh Kelly family? There's been several very detailed threads here looking for background on MJK who is the only victim we don't have a history on. Could you contact them and ask them to confirm their relationship with her so we could have some real information on who she was and what her life was like? That would be a huge contribution to the case!

[JadenCollins]

I agree with you Outlaw, I don't know really know about the four victims, but I think that they were an easy target, but about MJK, he could have murdered her 'cause maybe she knew who he was? It's obvious that they knew each other, I don't even doubt that anymore.

[Outlaw]

I sincerely doubt any of the women's families were thrilled about the sort of life they were leading but they stepped up and did the proper thing at the inquests. Wasn't MJK supposed to have a brother Johnto who was in the army and stationed in London at the time? Surely he could have done something?

Are you still in contact with the Welsh Kelly family? There's been several very detailed threads here looking for background on MJK who is the only victim we don't have a history on. Could you contact them and ask them to confirm their relationship with her so we could have some real information on who she was and what her life was like? That would be a huge contribution to the case!

I can certainly try as I believe that some of them are still in the area, maybe even the same village.

[Outlaw]

I agree with you Outlaw, I don't know really know about the four victims, but I think that they were an easy target, but about MJK, he could have murdered her 'cause maybe she knew who he was? It's obvious that they knew each other, I don't even doubt that anymore.

That way well be the case, and it is also my understanding that the brutal way that MJK was mutilated was to serve as a warning.... Overkill would not cover it.

I can only guess as to whom the warning was meant for. The Irish perhaps, or a person that knew Mary specifically....?

[Michael W Richards]

That way well be the case, and it is also my understanding that the brutal way that MJK was mutilated was to serve as a warning.... Overkill would not cover it.

I can only guess as to whom the warning was meant for. The Irish perhaps, or a person that knew Mary specifically....?

Since we know that the Royal Irish Constabulary and a Member of Parliament visited her room the week following her murder...along with a Senior Post Office official, and since we know that in cases where a victim has had her face mutilated its often due to a pre-existing relationship of some kind between killer and victim, and since we know Marys heart was taken, arguably the organ that symbolically is linked with Emotion more than any other....Id say you have some good avenues to explore Outlaw.

Cheers

[Outlaw]

Thank you Michael, it's a work in progress

[No Luck Yet]

That way well be the case, and it is also my understanding that the brutal way that MJK was mutilated was to serve as a warning.... Overkill would not cover it.

I can only guess as to whom the warning was meant for. The Irish perhaps, or a person that knew Mary specifically....?

Begging your pardon, but I can't help but wonder how you come to that conclusion.

Are we to believe that the previous murders were not brutal enough for a warning? Exactly how much brutality is required? If they weren't, why did he bother? What took him so long to ramp up his work? Why muddy the waters by letting himself be written off as just killing any old hooker? Wouldn't that help people overlook his message? If they were, then why is Miss Kelly alone considered a carefully chosen messager?

Then, too, what warning is the killer trying to convey? I've heard it said before the Ripper murders were an intent to terrorize prostitutes out of their profession, but why on earth is the killer trying to warn the Irish? Is Stride's murder a warning to the Swedish? With all due respect, I don't understand how anyone of Irish extraction is supposed to hear about the murders and think, "Gee, it must be because she's Irish. I'd better watch out!" Wouldn't we have to expect some kind of direct communication - "The Irish are the men that...", etc - if that was his intent?

(Actually, it should say "Eyrishe." Then we can claim that the killer was an obsessive Charlotte Bronte fan...)

I hope you'll elaborate on your theory. Perhaps some of these gaps could be filled by explanation?

[c.d.]

I still don't get the rationale for concluding that the face slashing in some way indicated a personal connection between Mary and her killer. The face is part of the body is it not? It is not like he had to go to great lengths to cut her face. If you have a killer that likes to cut a woman is it really so shocking that he cut her face? There is only so much flesh on a human body. I think we are much better off seeing it in light of George Mallory's famous quote..."because it's there." No other explanation no matter how tantalizing is needed.

c.d.

[RockySullivan]

I still don't get the rationale for concluding that the face slashing in some way indicated a personal connection between Mary and her killer. The face is part of the body is it not? It is not like he had to go to great lengths to cut her face. If you have a killer that likes to cut a woman is it really so shocking that he cut her face? There is only so much flesh on a human body. I think we are much better off seeing it in light of George Mallory's famous quote..."because it's there." No other explanation no matter how tantalizing is needed.

c.d.

I don't think it's the face slashing alone that indicates Kelly knew her killer. It's more the circumstances of the murder and the likely hood that mary was in her room with killer in her bed. It seems she trusted the killer. Also the extensive violence and because the killer took Mary's heart with him are better indications he knew her then just the face slashing alone.

[c.d.]

Hello Rocky,

It seems to me that you could also reach a similar conclusion with regard to Kate. That is that her killer new her as well. Extensive mutilations including her face.

As for the significance of Mary's heart being taken, it simply could be that he had already acquired other organs and wanted to add something he did not have to his collection. It could also be that he fled in a hurry and simply grabbed something as a souvenir. The heart as a symbol of love is one thing, but as Sam Flynn put it, an actual slimy, bloody, smelly heart is quite another. I think way too much is being read into the whole heart thing.

c.d.

[RockySullivan]

Hello Rocky,

It seems to me that you could also reach a similar conclusion with regard to Kate. That is that her killer new her as well. Extensive mutilations including her face.

As for the significance of Mary's heart being taken, it simply could be that he had already acquired other organs and wanted to add something he did not have to his collection. It could also be that he fled in a hurry and simply grabbed something as a souvenir. The heart as a symbol of love is one thing, but as Sam Flynn put it, an actual slimy, bloody, smelly heart is quite another. I think way too much is being read into the whole heart thing.

c.d.

True true....still I think circumstances of the murder are most significant . That Kelly was in bed when she was killed and the fact that the door was locked from outside meant the killer had the key. Hadn't Mary lost her key and was opening the door thru the window? If so how did the killer have a key?

[c.d.]

How do we know that her killer had a key? I think it much more likely that Mary let him in.

c.d.

[RockySullivan]

How do we know that her killer had a key? I think it much more likely that Mary let him in.

c.d.

Because the door was locked from the outside. Mary could have let him in...but he locked the door behind him when he left. And from what I remember...Mary hadn't had a key for a while because she was using the broken window to open the door, experts: is this correct? That mary didnt have a key?..And yet the killer must have had a key to lock the door from the outside