our killer been local

[curious4]

Stalker

Hello Errata

Yes, doesn't Bob Hinton go down that road? Had me looking under my bed for weeks after I read his book. More in hope than anything I suspect!

Best wishes,
C4

[caz]

Throughout history one of the major causes of overkill whether it be a single murder, a judicial murder, or one in a series of murders has been betrayal...

...What he does to Kelly is essentially a very bloody temper tantrum...

...serial killers clearly do occasionally make it personal. And when they do, you see spectacular and revolting overkill. So you can have a serial killer with some bizarre clinical harvest who suddenly wigs out and essentially puts a girl through a blender because it's personal. He has been betrayed by her.

Hi Errata,

Interesting, because another case of overkill is Tabram's murder. What her killer does to her could arguably be described as a very bloody temper tantrum. But I think in this case he merely takes something she says or does 'personally' and takes it out on her female body, including the targeting of her genital area. I imagine he is probably quite a volatile chap where the ladies are concerned.

So something in the water down Whitechapel way?

Unfortunates betraying their menfolk, right, left and centre?

Or just one serial killer who keeps getting himself into situations with prostitutes (or presumed prostitutes for the squeamish) where he can get all knife happy?

Deeply personal for him - but that doesn't mean he needs to have met a single victim before, although he could have done.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

Hello Richard,

Yes, you could be right or I suppose Mary, like many a woman before and since, knew him to be violent but thought she could handle him.

Best wishes,
C4

Or he was more a stalker type, and she didn't know him except perhaps to nod at him occasionally. Just because he had a relationship with her doesn't mean she had one with him.

[curious4]

Aggressive

Hello Richard,

Yes, you could be right or I suppose Mary, like many a woman before and since, knew him to be violent but thought she could handle him.

Best wishes,
C4

[richardnunweek]

Hi Curious.
I think we can safely say that Mary's Killer behaved in a aggressive manner. but we have no idea if he had behaved aggressive to Mary in her relationship with him previous.
He may well have come across as well I was angry but now I am not , its nice seeing you again .
Indeed he may well have been Hutchinson's A man, Kelly's attitude towards him showed no fear, she obviously was not too worried in taking him back to her room, regardless of who it was..
Regards Richard.

[curious4]

Visitor

Hello Richard,

If whoever this was behaved in such an aggressive manner, and knew Mary, why would she be anywhere near him, let alone invite him into her room? Her door did lock on the inside.

Best wishes,
C4

[richardnunweek]

Hello Tom,
The Fiona in question is Fiona Kendall lane, great grand daughter of McCarthy Kelly's landlord.
I appreciate that many on Casebook refrain from oral history, but the tale of McCarthy sending a man on his way, when they attempted to visit Mary Kelly I find fascinating, for several reasons.
The person concerned obviously made a bit of a commotion , for the landlord to intervene , and clearly came across as a person with a grudge , making it clear that Kelly stole something from him , which he wanted returned.
I also suggest, that if this account holds any credence, it may be significant why the killer chose to kill in Kelly's room, for the only way he would have been able to possibly get back his item would be access to room 13.
McCarthy[ according to family tradition] always maintained he knew who the killer was , and his motive.. which could suggest he believed the stranger may have been responsible.
Regards Richard.

[Tom_Wescott]

If McCarthy's tale was true , then it is clear that the visitor to the court was intent on paying Kelly a visit, and was not content to just wait for her in the street.
Again I make reference to Fiona's tale, and her being adamant, that not only did her great - grandfather believe he knew the identity of her killer, but the motive also, which would leave my speculative mind with the view that he believed the visitor who he sent packing was her killer.

Hi Richard. Are you referring to Fiona Rule? Who was her GGF? And what tale of McCarthy's are you referring to? If this is discussed on a thread somewhere I'd greatly appreciate being pointed in that direction.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

...and we don't know for sure that the heart was missing from the room. It was "absent". That could just mean absent from the body like a lot of other stuff. Bond's report is unclear on that. I think it was gone completely, but it doesn't say that specifically.
Mike

Not really. I know some writers have written that, but they didn't have their thinking cap on. Many parts of the body were separated from the body or taken out of the body and were listed by Dr. Bond. Only the heart was listed as 'absent', meaning they couldn't find it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[richardnunweek]

Hi Caz,
You ask the question,Why not ambush her done a dark alley?
Lets say it is my belief, that he was after something personal to him , that may have been in Kelly's procession.
In order to retrieve, he had to be sure that he was at least once in her room, just killing her in a dark place, [which would have been easier said then done,] would not assure that .
If McCarthy's tale was true , then it is clear that the visitor to the court was intent on paying Kelly a visit, and was not content to just wait for her in the street.
Again I make reference to Fiona's tale, and her being adamant, that not only did her great - grandfather believe he knew the identity of her killer, but the motive also, which would leave my speculative mind with the view that he believed the visitor who he sent packing was her killer.
But its all oral history which is unreliable , but if true, we have at least a suspect, albeit unknown.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

...and we don't know for sure that the heart was missing from the room. It was "absent". That could just mean absent from the body like a lot of other stuff. Bond's report is unclear on that. I think it was gone completely, but it doesn't say that specifically.
Mike

[c.d.]

I have to agree with Michael on this one. I don't see anything significantly different in this killing that can't be explained by more time and an escalation of the killer's sickness. As Michael points out, it wasn't a one-off. As for the face, we have evidence that Kate's face was mutilated as well and there is only so much flesh on a human body. Keep cutting and you will eventually get to the face.

As for the heart, if you look for symbolism you can pretty much find it anywhere. It is just as likely that her killer started to get a little paranoid and decided it was time to leave. He decides he wants a souvenir and grabs from the pile of flesh. It turns out to be her heart.

I just don't see this being personal.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

Throughout history one of the major causes of overkill whether it be a single murder, a judicial murder, or one in a series of murders has been betrayal. Guy who skins his wife and nails her to a wall? Betrayed. Drawing and quartering (which is one of the more unnecessary bits of judicial murder), sentence for betrayal. Guy who rips his mother's vocal chords out and tosses them into a garbage disposal? Betrayed. The whole sadness/anger/righteousness deal. Now, none of these things are appropriate reactions to betrayal, and most of us manage to abstain from such actions. But historically, the words that usually precede the most egregious violence are "How dare you?!"

It's not out of the question for a prostitute killer, one who is "punishing the guilty" so to speak, to know a prostitute personally, to even like her. It's possible he felt he was doing it for her, to save her (sort of a Phantom of the Opera thing). Or he may have seen her as an exception to the rule. Or he may have simply shut out the idea that she was a prostitute (which when she was living with Barnett may have been easy to do). His mission may have had nothing to do with her, and he assumed that she would never act in a way that would get her on his list, or he assumed she would come around and it wouldn't be necessary.

But the women he killed originally he killed clinically. His only show of distress were the mutilations to Eddowes face. Something that tends to point towards a personal relationship, but could also simply mean she looked like someone he didn't want watching him kill. But that's the first crack. What he does to Kelly is essentially a very bloody temper tantrum. He is clearly punishing her. He does thing to her that he doesn't do to other victims, and not just because of time and privacy. With every murder he could have mutilated his victims' breasts. He doesn't. Why does he excise Kelly's? Kelly is the only victim with her external genitalia mutilated. Her face is obliterated. I mean, this is personal. This is betrayal. He takes her heart for god's sakes, which is about as poetically symbolic as it gets. He takes it because she wouldn't give it to him. He takes it because it's what ruined her. She may have never known she betrayed him. It's even possible that she never knew him at all. But he knew her, or he created a fantasy out of her that she betrayed.

The major argument for Kelly being killed by someone else is that her murder is clearly personal. Different motive, different method, different goal. Usually that means a different killer because logic would say that if Jack wanted her the most, he would have gone after her first. Why would a serial killer suddenly take it personally? But Kemper didn't kill his mother and her friend the same way he killed coeds. And after he killed his mother, he was done. And I don't think that's some sort of rule with serial killers, but serial killers clearly do occasionally make it personal. And when they do, you see spectacular and revolting overkill. So you can have a serial killer with some bizarre clinical harvest who suddenly wigs out and essentially puts a girl through a blender because it's personal. He has been betrayed by her.

All these things are possible, but it wasn't a one-off. It was a ripper killing. Yet a victim that is obliterated could also be a surrogate. The destruction of the face could be a way of shutting out of his mind the reality that this wasn't her, the one he wanted to do this to. There are too many options available to specify the personalization, if any.

Mike

[Errata]

Throughout history one of the major causes of overkill whether it be a single murder, a judicial murder, or one in a series of murders has been betrayal. Guy who skins his wife and nails her to a wall? Betrayed. Drawing and quartering (which is one of the more unnecessary bits of judicial murder), sentence for betrayal. Guy who rips his mother's vocal chords out and tosses them into a garbage disposal? Betrayed. The whole sadness/anger/righteousness deal. Now, none of these things are appropriate reactions to betrayal, and most of us manage to abstain from such actions. But historically, the words that usually precede the most egregious violence are "How dare you?!"

It's not out of the question for a prostitute killer, one who is "punishing the guilty" so to speak, to know a prostitute personally, to even like her. It's possible he felt he was doing it for her, to save her (sort of a Phantom of the Opera thing). Or he may have seen her as an exception to the rule. Or he may have simply shut out the idea that she was a prostitute (which when she was living with Barnett may have been easy to do). His mission may have had nothing to do with her, and he assumed that she would never act in a way that would get her on his list, or he assumed she would come around and it wouldn't be necessary.

But the women he killed originally he killed clinically. His only show of distress were the mutilations to Eddowes face. Something that tends to point towards a personal relationship, but could also simply mean she looked like someone he didn't want watching him kill. But that's the first crack. What he does to Kelly is essentially a very bloody temper tantrum. He is clearly punishing her. He does thing to her that he doesn't do to other victims, and not just because of time and privacy. With every murder he could have mutilated his victims' breasts. He doesn't. Why does he excise Kelly's? Kelly is the only victim with her external genitalia mutilated. Her face is obliterated. I mean, this is personal. This is betrayal. He takes her heart for god's sakes, which is about as poetically symbolic as it gets. He takes it because she wouldn't give it to him. He takes it because it's what ruined her. She may have never known she betrayed him. It's even possible that she never knew him at all. But he knew her, or he created a fantasy out of her that she betrayed.

The major argument for Kelly being killed by someone else is that her murder is clearly personal. Different motive, different method, different goal. Usually that means a different killer because logic would say that if Jack wanted her the most, he would have gone after her first. Why would a serial killer suddenly take it personally? But Kemper didn't kill his mother and her friend the same way he killed coeds. And after he killed his mother, he was done. And I don't think that's some sort of rule with serial killers, but serial killers clearly do occasionally make it personal. And when they do, you see spectacular and revolting overkill. So you can have a serial killer with some bizarre clinical harvest who suddenly wigs out and essentially puts a girl through a blender because it's personal. He has been betrayed by her.

[caz]

Hi.
For the record I agree with Errata, I strongly believe that Kelly's killer was known to her, and he was someone who was once in her life, and for whatever reason she done a dirty on him.
Either via deserting him, or maybe absconding with property belonging to him.
The latter is not without merit, if one takers the oral account given by Fiona Kendall in regard to McCarthy's account of a man calling at the court demanding Kelly returning property..
We however are left with the argument, but why kill the others?
We are left with two solutions.
Not responsible for the others, but attempted to fool the police in believing it was related via the extreme mutilation.
Or the killer was JTR, and dispatched the others because of oncoming insanity, which took a strong desire to kill women of Kelly's profession.
Mary Kelly may not have been the name he knew her as, and may have only had certain information that she was in the east end, and he could have traced her whereabouts from Eddowes, especially if he also had information that she was living with a man called Kelly[ Which McCarthy initially believed]
And he may have asked Kate if he knew a woman that lived with a Kelly, and she would have replied' 'Me ducks'' , and I believe a young woman named Mary Jane in Dorset street''.
Bingo.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

I just don't see anyone known to Mary Kelly taking the risk of killing her on her own bed and being caught (by his very association with her) and hanged as the ripper.

He'd have been far wiser to ambush her down a dark alley, slit her throat and slash at her abdomen a bit - job done. Nobody from that day to this would have been able to link him with her murder, and few would doubt it was the work of Jack the Stranger.

Love,

Caz
X