Why not McCarthy ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello (again) Colin.

    "No need for a body double, let alone mutilation on the grand scale."

    Double? Who suggested that?
    Hi Lynn,

    There are those, myself not included, who argue that the woman slain was not Mary Kelly.
    And I would suggest that the mutilation was not the victim's idea.

    Cheers.
    LC
    I don't think anyone's going to argue with that one!
    Regards, Bridewell

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy Corduroy
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    3. A killer who disfigures to thwart identification.
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Lynn,
    For what it's worth, my vote goes to your No. 3.
    If the Millers Court victim ultimately proves to have been MJK, I'll eat my very jaunty Panama hat.


    Batman & Robin leap in and change Gene's thread from Suspects/McCarthy to something totally different.

    Roy

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    huh?

    Hello (again) Colin.

    "No need for a body double, let alone mutilation on the grand scale."

    Double? Who suggested that?

    And I would suggest that the mutilation was not the victim's idea.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    bio

    Hello Robert. Wouldn't have her bio handy? (heh-heh)

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    face

    Hello Colin. Most of the "thwarting identification" would involve the face.

    Organs? Perhaps the killer had read the papers?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    OK

    Hello Jon. Thanks, but no need. Except on very special occasions, I exorcise the notion of a sexual serial killer from my mind.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    Hi Colin

    Yes, she could simply have done a bunk, if she was afraid of McCarthy, or let herself be evicted if she wasn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Me Too

    Originally posted by Robert View Post
    I am getting eccentric in my old age. I believe that the woman killed in Mary Kelly's room was.....Mary Kelly!
    Hi Robert,

    So do I. If MJK wanted to escape her situation, she could simply have walked out. No need for a body double, let alone mutilation on the grand scale.

    Regards, Bridewell.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    I am getting eccentric in my old age. I believe that the woman killed in Mary Kelly's room was.....Mary Kelly!

    Leave a comment:


  • Gene Lewis
    replied
    Robert "McCarthy would have been bonkers to kill Kelly in this manner, in one of his own rooms, next door to where he lived." = that's the most important reason why he could be The man...

    Leave a comment:


  • richardnunweek
    replied
    Hi,
    I am surprised that this thread is still competitive , it is almost beyond question that McCarthy was not the killer.
    The reason why he allowed Kelly to run up debt, is likely to be out of compassion, the streets were hardly safe , and we know Mrs McCarthy was anxious, and she would not have wanted her husband to turn Mary out , whilst the killer was at large.
    Rubyretro.
    You must tell my wife that men are more tidier then women..I like that one,
    I dispute that Kelly was slovenly, she appears to have always been neat and tidy., Dew has her always wearing a spotless white apron, she also her fine head of hair to take care of, and the bedroll was ''apparently''rolled up.
    We don't know that her clothes were neatly folded.
    The police at least initially believed, that the killer did not light the fire because of light, believing the act happened in daylight, it was for the burning of clothing.
    I see the killer as in a frenzied mood, that was very anxious to rob Kelly of all her femininity , making it more of a act of jealousy . like the police initially thought.
    Regards Richard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    A killer who disfigures to thwart identification.
    Does not compute in my view. If the motive was to thwart identification why flay the limbs and remove internal organs?

    Regards, Bridewell.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello Jon. Actually, the omission was intentional.
    Cheers.
    LC
    Sorry Lynn, I do apologise.

    Why? I missed the point you were making.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    E & C district

    Hello Sally. Yes. That is the information I have.

    Wouldn't happen to have a list of Sir Ed's girls lying about?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    nah

    Hello Jon. Actually, the omission was intentional.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X