Was It Personal?

[DVV]

Hi Monty,
I'm afraid you are using quibbles more than arguments. Should I reply: "how do you know he did?"
...
Yes, Eddowes wasn't a prostitute with a prostitute's past like Kelly or Stride, but....she was in the condition of many a poor woman, at the time, in that town...
This said, I respect your doubts about Kelly, but on the other hand, if we use the discrepancies between the murders, we have five "canonical" killers, I'm afraid... Somehow, Kelly's murder has much in common with Eddowes', while it is not very similar to Nichols'...
Anyway, there is something "special" about Kelly...who makes me a Flemtchinsonian.
Don't blame me!

Amitiés,
David

[joelhall]

like i said, i dont think it was down to profession. who says they did follow him? he was about to kill them so i doubt if hed care whether they willingly walked a few yards with him or not.

[DVV]

Who says they did not precede him?

[joelhall]

i have some thoughts on the inclusion of kelly...

ive always puzzled over this 'he had more time with kelly' idea. it doesnt make much sense if youre a devotee of the serial killer theory (who are the ones who push this argument).

its said he was a sexual killer, & from the first four of these killings it would appear his thrill came from the urgency, the adrenalin rush, the risk of getting caught, the quick release of ripping fast and pulling out things to take... quick & ferocious was the style we see

...how then does this fit with a killer who spends time removing breasts, skin, the face, piling bits on a table... theres no quick release, no sudden anger & adrenalin, even the door was locked on the way out apparently. he didnt leave his work for all to see. hes spending more time taking off layers than ripping out.

its as if he were some detached student of murder, who after doing his normal routine, just before he leaves, stops, looks back, then says to himself, 'actually, while im here...'

the scene, the cuts, the destruction of the body as opposed to the slash & gash killings preceding it makes its inclusion dubious.

i dont personally feel they were all done by the same hand. but for a devotee of a serial killer to put this with the others appears illogical. indeed why not kill her on the street? or the others inside where he could engage in his type of butchery. kelly wasnt the only girl whod take blokes inside. why would he have taken so many risks beforehand? this is a very odd change of style for a killer like this.

it seems the four others were hasty & angry. the dorset street killing was a different type of anger, if thats even the word. its almost like a deep loathing for the person, something so intense that his aim was to destroy anything about her.

theres also another doubt eating away at me... her clothing. rather thanhis sudden quick attacks, he either waited for kelly to undress, or undressed her himself. neither seems particularly likely in my mind. hed never removed clothing before, hed simply shifted or cut it. it was again about urgency, or a quick release. from witness statements too it would seem he spent time with her while alive. i cannot see that he would have wanted any type of attachment to them as people, but only as objects to satisfy his lust.

just some thoughts of course.

joel

[joelhall]

Who says they did not precede him?

personally i think this is close to the mark, but not in that he approached them as a punter. i believe they were sneak attacks from behind so as to minimise the chances of escape/fighting the assailant off.

[CraveDisorder]

Sorry, i meant Flemming, was a bit tired when posted that!!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Different MO, killed indoors, significantly younger victim, uterus not removed from scene, Id say arguements against Kelly are far from weak.

Monty

THANK YOU, Monty!

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

i think ive mentioned this elsewhere, but ive always thought it more likely they were chosen because they were unaccompanied women out late, the worse for drink, rather than due to their profession.

just my tuppence.

I certainly think that's a possibility.
As Monty says, it isn't really confirmed that Eddowes was a prostitute. However, on the night of her murder she went off to an area which was a well known prostitute hang-out at night (Mitre Square), and judging from the sighting of her together with the man with the red neckerchief (with her hand on his chest) she appears to be inviting him. Since she had no business there but was expected hom by John Kelly (which was in the other direction) it is hard not to think she trie to sell her body that night, maybe to bring home some money.

But you're right that we shouldn't automatically take for granted as a fact that the Ripper was after prostitutes as such.
If the ripper cared about whether they were prostitutes or not - or simply, as you say, attacked women walking the streets at night and who looked vulnerable - is debatable.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

How do we know for sure that Barnett had moved out the week before? By this I mean is this his word or did the police manage to corroborate this? Also have been interested in the suggestions about Hutchinson, what do we know about his relationship with Barnett, did they know each other only through MJK etc? Did they know each other at all? From what I gather I would assume that Barnett would have a dislike of Hutchinson if he was abusive.

Barnett had moved out one week prior to the murder after a row.
This was most likely also confirmed by people like Maria Harvey and Julia Venturney who both stayed there occasionally. The police would have no problem confirming this. Besides, it would have been rather stupid of Barnett to make that up, since him moving out actually puts him in a suspicious situation and provides him with a motive. He would certainly not have done himself any favours.

As for Hucthinson, we must remeber that the police didn't know about him until after the inquest, so it's possible - from a theoretical point of view - that Barnett may have known him (especially since Banett's brother Daniel, like Hutchinson, also stayed at the Victoria Home) but never found it significant to mention him in this context if he didn't know that Kelly knew him. Quite possible the police may have further interviewed Barnett about Hutchinson after Hucthinson came forward to get a confirmation of this, and that that report hasn't survived.

What will always remain a mystery to me, though, is why yhe coroner never asked Barnett to elaborate on Fleming since Barnett himself admitted in a very short pasage during the inquest that he knew about Fleming's visits and that Mary kelly was fond of him. Since this provides both Barnett and Fleming with a motive, it is questionable to say the least that the coroner or attending police personnell never followed this up.

All the best

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Glenn!

I hope your last comment doesn't add fuel to the conspiracy theories!

Strange indeed. Maybe they were thinking; "Well, since Barnett had already left Mary Kelly..."

All the best
Jukka

[Monty]

Quibbles?

Hi Monty,
I'm afraid you are using quibbles more than arguments. Should I reply: "how do you know he did?"
...
Yes, Eddowes wasn't a prostitute with a prostitute's past like Kelly or Stride, but....she was in the condition of many a poor woman, at the time, in that town...
This said, I respect your doubts about Kelly, but on the other hand, if we use the discrepancies between the murders, we have five "canonical" killers, I'm afraid... Somehow, Kelly's murder has much in common with Eddowes', while it is not very similar to Nichols'...
Anyway, there is something "special" about Kelly...who makes me a Flemtchinsonian.
Don't blame me!

Amitiés,
David

Hey David,

Kelly is outside the age range of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and, for what its worth, McKenzie. The only exception would be Coles who is a disputed victim, as are Tabram and McKenzie.

Kellys killer used a different method of attack to the ones he used on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

Kelly was murdered indoors

Kellys uterus, though removed for the body, was not taken away.

These are facts, not quibbles, that reasonably support the idea Kelly was killed by a different hand.

Does that mean Kelly should be dimissed outright? Of course not, you state those reasons above. Im just trying to operate an open mind.

Monty

[joelhall]

add to this the time scale. all the other killings were concentrated over about a month. this is not only different it happens in november. i believe the killings stopped in september. obviously the only link is that it was a horrific murder of a woman in the east end.

i wonder how many include the torso as a victim?

plus, if this was a serial killer who changed his pattern, why did he stop rather than carry on his new found routine, or revert back to his usual pattern?

it really seems odder to include this than to exclude it.

[DVV]

These are facts, not quibbles, that reasonably support the idea Kelly was killed by a different hand.

Does that mean Kelly should be dimissed outright? Of course not, you state those reasons above. Im just trying to operate an open mind.
Monty

Hi Monty,
understood, and I willingly take "quibbles" back!
I admit I will never understand why some people want to see serial killers as characters from the "invention of Morel", doomed to mechanically repeat the same deeds. I, however, easily understand your "open mind" on Kelly's case, feeling myself something special there (: Flemtchinson's candidacy).

Amitiés,
David

[Jon Guy]

Good points. I have pointed out more than once, that there are many similarities between the wounds inflicted on Kelly and those inflicted on earlier victims, especially Eddowes and Chapman.

Thanks for the link, Rob.

Excellent examples

[Monty]

David,

Absolutely, its unwise to stick to a rigid view. Take the Zodiac. Different to Jack but his MO and signature was altered between murders.

That said, our boy had a pattern and I suspect would only change if it had to.
Not sure if he did have to in this case.
Monty