2 Killers Or 1 Killer?????

[c.d.]

at the risk of seeing this customer "barge in" after that whenever he feels for it cause he knows her personal adress? then why not going to one of these horrible lodging houses where these practices where tolerated and charge the man for the room instead?

Prostitution does have its drawbacks.

c.d.

[newton1878]

Kelly - killed by someone like Barnett or Flemming who knew her, but was NOT "Jack". I base this on the sheer ferocity of the wounds and ease of access, her state of dress etc. I feel sure she felt "comfortable" with her killer.

Hi Phil,

Weren't the wounds to the other victims "ferocious" as well and couldn't the sheer magnitude of Kelly's wounds simply be attributable to more time in which to inflict them?

c.d.

true but someone look as if they wanted to destroy the body just look at face Barnett only recognised her due to her hair

[newton1878]

but if we take the theory that the others were murdered to cover MJK's murder it would have been more logical for the "cover" victims to come after. plus, the area had such strong climate of violence and prostitution, i don't think any "covering" would have really been necessary, or maybe it goes the other way around, maybe MJK's killer copied the ripper's method to cover is own crime without especially being guilty of the others, rather than killing all the others JUST to cover MJK's murder.

to take advantage so to speak

[newton1878]

But when we say that Kelly "knew" her killer what does that mean? Family member, lover, friend, previous customer or someone she met that day? That's the problem.

c.d.

how many murder victims actually knew their victims quite a high percentage iwould think so at least to be on speaking terms

[Phil H]

I don't think that anyone "broke into" MJK's room - the police couldn't get in once the body had been discovered, so I believe it assumes too much that an unknown person worked out all the details of the broken window, latch and entering. Too complicated. Equally, someone other than Barnett having the key beggars belief (for me), unless it was deliberately given to someone else. [I'm not implying Barnett had it or was the killer by the way!]

For several months she had been living with Barnett and sometimes others stayed in the room. How could any stranger be sure she would be alone or that someone would not return, however late it was? too risky - and there was too much coming and going in the Court for me to believe in "peeping Tom" type attackers.

Because of the nature of the lock, I think MJK let whomever it was into the room, and given her state of undress, the folded clothes etc, I believe it shows she knew her killer. A lover or ex-lover - not a casual customer fits the bill for me.

By comfortable with her killer - I take it to mean that she was used to being naked with that person, and willing to go to sleep with him in her bed. The alternative is someone with power or authority who could compel her to strip for him - McCarthy?

Apart from the late date, the weather and the nature of her calling (a street whore, not a bordello dolly) I doubt she ever got wholly naked with any casual customer. Simply too time consuming, too uncomfortable and cold. Even in middle-class households in that period, I suspect that morals and convention (quite apart from warmth) meant that few couples got naked for sex.

If others do not see the differences between what was done to MJK and the other women (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes) then I am baffled!! I see the destruction of that body as more than about time and opportunity - this was - in my opinion - a result of rage and hate and a desire wholly to destroy.

Interesting discussion though.

Phil

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

I am baffled that anyone would say "well surely someone who rips opens abdomens and removes kidneys and uteri would never do something as horrible as cut off breasts and cut the flesh from a thigh."

Also, Kate Eddowe's face was described as "horribly mutilated." What was done to Mary Kelly seems completely consistent to me.

c.d.

[c.d.]

true but someone look as if they wanted to destroy the body just look at face Barnett only recognised her due to her hair

Hi Newton,

First of all, let me welcome you to the boards.

How do you think Kate Eddowes would have looked had the killer had more time with her say in a closed room for example?

c.d.

[SarahLee]

I'm still new to any serious research, but my current opinion is that if there was more than one killer, I see the possible exception as being Stride not MJK.

To my mind MJK is a natural escalation in violence from Eddowes in a series that has been escalating with each kill - combined with the luxury of having more time available for the mutilations.

I'm inclined to agree that MJK probably felt a degree of comfort with her killer, but that's not necessarily the same as "knowing" him . . . And I certainly can't buy into her being the intended target all along - or theories about her killer being a copycat.

Carrying out the earlier murders simply as a means to cover up her killing seems too elaborate a ploy to me - far too risky and most likely completely unnecessary.

A copycat killing doesn't sit right either.
Generally copycats share similar fantasies to those who they are copying and the chances of two men in the same area at around the same time fantasising about mutilating women in a similar way plus actually being able to follow through with it seems too much of a coincidence.
Neither does a copycat crime to disguise a murder for different motives and "frame" JTR work for me. I find it hard to envisage somebody lacking Jack's fantasies having the stomach for what went on in that room. I would have expected a less vicious, more half-hearted attempt from somebody who clearly would have been sickened by what he was doing.

[Sister Hyde]

how many murder victims actually knew their victims quite a high percentage iwould think so at least to be on speaking terms

yeah, but still cd is right there, someone she knew could have been anyone (maybe not family), but friend, ex lover or previous customer seems likely

[c.d.]

Hi Sarah,

Welcome to the boards. That was a very well thought out post.

c.d.

P.S. Guess you know that in the U.S. Sarah Lee is a popular line of baked goods.

[SarahLee]

Hi Sarah,

Welcome to the boards. That was a very well thought out post.

c.d.

P.S. Guess you know that in the U.S. Sarah Lee is a popular line of baked goods.

Hi c.d.

Thank you for the welcome
Yes I did know that, but I reckon there still aren't as many Sarah Lee's as Mary Jane's

I'm still feeling my way around at the moment, but I'm glad that my opinions don't seem too off the wall yet!!! I'm determined to make my own mind up based on facts wherever possible rather than be swayed by other people's views.

[Abby Normal]

my belief is that Mary Kelly is the key to this case. I believe that she was the main target all along due to the violence inflicted upon her and that the murderer was known to her.I say two killers possibly because the killer of Mary kelly used the other womens murders as cover or if there is one killer maybe killed the other women to hide the real intended target.The fact that the other women were all older and killed outside with great risk to the murderer,while kelly was younger and killed inside.I cant understand why more people have not looked at Joseph Barnett more closely along with George Hutchison both whom knew the victim.Barnett himself had qurarrels with Kelly did not like her being a prostitute and lost his job at the time of the killings.

I agree with you that the key is Mary Kelly. That is because I beleive given the circumstances of her murder that she knew her killer. That being said I think there is 1 killer for all (tabrams-kelly) the difference being that he did not know the previous victims but knew MK.

[GregBaron]

Only one madman.........

I agree with Sarah Lee here. I simply can’t believe that more than one mad eviscerator was at large at the same time in Whitechapel on that awful autumn. There is no need for a copycat to execute such overkill and certainly a jilted lover might murder in rage but to imply that they could sit and mutilate her to that level of depravity begs credulity. Whoever did MJK was a seriously ill psychotic and as bad a guys as Fleming or Barnett or whomever may have been – to imply them capable of this is a monstrous charge indeed. No, I’m firmly in the camp of those that think this is Eddowes without a time limit. This is the work of an extremely sick and perverted individual…


Greg

[Abby Normal]

But when we say that Kelly "knew" her killer what does that mean? Family member, lover, friend, previous customer or someone she met that day? That's the problem.

c.d.

Hi cd
She knew him and he knew her, well enough to know her living arrangements. It could have been any of the above-I don't see a problem. It was the killer who probably did not know the previous victims but got lucky in that he knew MK and knew her living arragments ie: she had her own place, knew where it was, knew she was now single etc. Possibly even knew about the broken window. for example: barnett, hutch, Bowyer, Flemming, previous customer, accquaintance from someone she knew in the court.
I am still on the fence about whether she let him in or he snuck in when she was passed out. Leaning towards snuck in.

[c.d.]

Keep in mind that any serial killer that "quits" for whatever reason is always going to have a last victim so I am not sure that that automatically casts a special status upon them and makes them significant for some reason.

c.d.