New to casebook-My .2

[Riahsha]

This is my first post.
It is not a dissertation nor is it meant in any way to be a substantive solution to the case of "Jack The Ripper".
I'm not an expert, but I have a curious interest in the case. I have some questions and also some observations.
Please forgive any mistakes, but don't hesitate to politely correct me about them.

I can't get behind all of those who think of the Whitechapel Murderer as some "phantom being" getting his kicks doing in prostitutes because I have to say that I believe that to be extremely unlikely.
Plenty of killers over the last century have murdered prostitutes and the homeless. Why? Because they were easy pickings. They are not so fearful of strangers and desperation makes them easy to coerce.
A look into murders in the 19th century you will mostly find domestic cases and the unfortunates.

What made this killer so newsworthy? What if the killings had stopped after Chapman and Nichols even though they were so horribly butchered?
Two similar murders within a span of eight days and then nothing for more than two weeks wouldn't seem to cause undue concern.
You would think with people being investigated and some locked up and no further murders that panic would subside.
Then a creepy letter gets sent.

Before I go on and on about things you already know maybe I should just throw this out there. This is purely hypothetical.
What if the elusive Mary Kelly was the key?
All we know about her is hearsay. There is no definitive way of knowing if the body in that room was her. I'm not saying she's a killer, I'm just saying if for some reason she wanted to disappear she had the perfect opportunity.
Sending letters proclaiming to be the killer of some recently murdered prostitutes and promising more puts the heat back on the murderer of the first two women.
Copycat what you know about the first two murders and add in some disfiguration to set the scene for the coup de grace of completely annihilating identity.
Just a thought.

How did the one single killer idea ever start?

[Barnaby]

Welcome to Casebook!

I suspect that most of us believe a single hand wasn't responsible for all of the Whitechapel murders, and a strong, growing minority (at least I hope it's a minority as I don't subscribe to this view!) believe some of the canonical five killings were unrelated. So, to your point that there may have been copycat(s) you will find much support.

However, your suggestion implies that MJK either herself or with accomplices mutilated both Eddowes and another unfortunate mistakenly identified as MJK. Don't you think that's a little drastic considering it would be fairly easy to simply move to another town and effectively start over in those days. Unless you believe she was trying to deceive royalty or something...

[richardnunweek]

Hello Riahsha,
First of all welcome to Casebook.
Mary Kelly certainly is an enigma, she has so far eluded all researches, most likely because she was not going by her real name, although shortly after the murder her belongings were sent. ''allegedly'' to her brother in the army, which suggests at least the police knew her maiden name, which may not have really been Kelly.
Confused?
That is just the tip of the iceberg in this case.
Personally I believe that the body on the bed , was the person who was known as Mary Jane, common law of Joseph Barnett, and she met her fate between 3-9am on the morning of the 9th Nov.
I would say the only mystery is her true identity.
Her murder could quite possibly be the work of a copycat, although I feel sure that Eddowes was slain by the same hand, if only because of the grotesque facial damage, which could suggest that Nichols and Chapman were the result of another perpetrator [ just maybe].
I do have a strong inkling that Mary Kelly knew her killer, or was put off her guard by circumstances...such as Alcohol, or the time of the event[ie daylight] I Cannot imagine that she would take a risk wandering the streets alone, without a pre-arranged meeting with someone. [at least at the 'time' of night that Hutchinson allegedly saw her].
I hope that you will find Casebook enjoyable, and participate often, and the golden rule is ''Remember all of us are only offering opinions, and if the occasional reply is abrupt, let it fly over your head.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

Simon

Hello Riahsha. Welcome to the boards.

"How did the one single killer idea ever start?"

Ah, you must chat up Simon Wood for the answer to that one.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Richard.

"which could suggest that Nichols and Chapman were the result of another perpetrator"

Aha! Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[Riahsha]

However, your suggestion implies that MJK either herself or with accomplices mutilated both Eddowes and another unfortunate mistakenly identified as MJK. Don't you think that's a little drastic considering it would be fairly easy to simply move to another town and effectively start over in those days. Unless you believe she was trying to deceive royalty or something...

I think it really depends on who she would be trying to hide from as to how easy it would be to just move. I said nothing about royalty, I don't get into all that conspiracy stuff. All it takes is someone really determined to find her. Have you heard about all those domestic cases where a woman can't get away from an abusing husband even with officials helping her? What's that saying about "drastic times call for drastic measures"? How do we know with all the misinformation about her that she hadn't already moved to that new town (London) and been found again.

[Riahsha]

Her murder could quite possibly be the work of a copycat, although I feel sure that Eddowes was slain by the same hand, if only because of the grotesque facial damage, which could suggest that Nichols and Chapman were the result of another perpetrator [ just maybe].

I would agree about Eddowes and that was the point I was making when I said... Copycat what you know about the first two murders and add in some disfiguration to set the scene for the coup de grace of completely annihilating identity.

Personally I believe that the body on the bed , was the person who was known as Mary Jane, common law of Joseph Barnett, and she met her fate between 3-9am on the morning of the 9th Nov.

That could very well be. That's why in my original post I stated...I'm not saying she's a killer, I'm just saying if for some reason she wanted to disappear she had the perfect opportunity. It would also be a perfect opportunity for someone who wanted to kill her to do so and not get caught.

[Riahsha]

Thank you for the nice welcome, everyone!

[Limehouse]

Hello Riahsha and welcome to casebook. A good first post.

The problem I have with the idea of copycat killings is the rarity of this type of murder and the kind of mind you need to be able to degrade and dissemble a body in the way that Mary Kelly was killed. This was a killer with a determined agenda. He wished to publically display his handiwork and indulge himself fully whenever possible.

Personally, I do not believe someone who just wanted to disappear could engage in such destruction without the driving force and objectives that caused the murderer to act the way he did.

I believe there was one killer (I do not include the torso murders in this series) who probably killed five or six women (probably starting with Martha Tabram) and who was an opportunist who struck when an opportunity presented itself.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Yeah.

Hello Riahsha and welcome to casebook. A good first post.

The problem I have with the idea of copycat killings is the rarity of this type of murder and the kind of mind you need to be able to degrade and dissemble a body in the way that Mary Kelly was killed. This was a killer with a determined agenda. He wished to publically display his handiwork and indulge himself fully whenever possible.

There is much wisdom in that right there. It may not be the case but much wisdom.

[Riahsha]

Unfortunately, there is a lot of evil in this world. Murder in any form is beyond my comprehension. Sadly, that doesn't make it go away.

[Wickerman]

.... I'm just saying if for some reason she wanted to disappear she had the perfect opportunity.

Welcome.

You are quite right to be cautious about what we have been told about Kelly's life, that said, if she truly had lived in a West-end brothel (The Mrs. Buki story appears to confirm this), then her swift descent to the East-end might suggest an attempt to disappear.

Which then begs the question, is Mary Kelly her real name?
All the landlady's she knew seemed to know her by this name. Plus we are told her father came looking for her one time, if true, then he must have been able to find her by the same name "Mary Kelly". Which then suggests this was her real name.

The biggest caution I have with the suggestion that Mary Kelly was the clue to these murders is, that this smacks of conspiracy - why kill all the rest?

How did the one single killer idea ever start?

The Press.

[Riahsha]

The biggest caution I have with the suggestion that Mary Kelly was the clue to these murders is, that this smacks of conspiracy - why kill all the rest?

The only conspiracy I can see is the plan to kill Eddowes before finishing off the woman in Millers Court. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm saying that Eddowes was targeted for who she was. I think any woman in that place would have been killed at that time.
I think the only connection the first two murders had with the last two are someone taking advantage of an opportunity. That's first degree murder, not conspiracy.

[lynn cates]

not bad

Hello Jon.

"her swift descent to the East-end might suggest an attempt to disappear."

Not bad.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

And it may just represent a swift descent.