Jack the Ripper in America

[NancyDrew]

I watched the show on Discovery and I don't think Kelley was Jack the Ripper. I have two theories and I would like to know what everyone else thinks. First of all, I don't think any of the known suspects were the killer. I think the killer was a medical student or doctor who was unmarried. Most male serial killers don't marry because they can't form attachments or relationships. Many of them hate women and were abused by their mom or grandmother.

My other theory is the internal organs were being sold for study or research. The organs have never been found, other than the kidney that was mailed to the police station. None of the victims were sexually assaulted. Back in those days, it was really hard to get cadavers for research. We already know the person who brutalized those women had surgical or anatomical knowledge. I think it was a med student or doctor gone mad. This brings to mind Jill the Ripper, but I don't consider her a suspect because it's traditionally male serial killers who get this brutal. The female serial killers I've read about throughout history have poisoned their victims or manipulated a man into doing their dirty work.

What does everyone else think about these two possible ideas?

[Mrs. E. Nigma]

My other theory is the internal organs were being sold for study or research.

I don't think there's anything to suggest that, in my opinion, and actually if we're to believe if Jack was a doctor or a med student I think that it's even more unlikely that he was selling organs. If, in reality, Jack was harvesting organs to sell them I'd be more inclined to believe that he was poor, because a doctor or med student probably weren't that desperate for money.

Best Wishes,
Erynn

[Into The Abyss]

Nancy, in answer to your two ideas, you might care to get hold of the book by John Douglas (the FBI profiler) & Mark Olshaker, "The Cases That Haunt Us", in which Douglas gives an excellent overview of the JTR case, as well as a detailed profile of the crimes, victims, medical exams, offender traits and characteristics, etc.

He, imho, also provides a succinct consideration of some of the most notorious suspects and pretty much destroys any credibility that the risible "diary" may have possessed (not much to start with, I would hazard)!

Douglas is convinced that JTR's campaign terminated with the bloodbath at Millers Court and states categorically that the Ripper "would not have committed suicide after the last homicide. It would also be surprising for him to suddenly stop on his own without some outside cause". He concludes by stating that our Jack was David Cohen "........or someone very much like him"!

Being an ex-Police officer, with a criminal intelligence background, I have enormous respect for Douglas and his advancement of the science of understanding criminal behaviour in conjunction with profiling, and I would tend to agree with his analysis of the Ripper case.

[CMauthe]

JTR in America documentary replaying tonight

Discovery Channel is replaying the JTR in America documentary tonight at 9:00 PM and 12:00 AM US East Coast Time.

[mklhawley]

The experience Wolf had when approached by the show clearly shows an agenda not of honestly seeking the truth, but of convincing others of what they believe is the truth. Another example of confirmation bias, where one emphasizes evidence to the affirmative and de-emphasized evidence to the contrary. Skepticism is now a mandate.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Dori]

James Kelly suspect Discovery Channel

I have been reading all the interesting posts, I read the book by Douglas and the one by Patricia Cornwell. I have watched or read everything I can get my hands on regarding the ripper murders. I never thought it was Sickert, although she (Cornwell) makes a good case for it. For a time I thought it was Tumbelty after watching a special about him, they say they matched up his handwriting with that of the "Ripper letter" where he details the removal of the kidney, which would be... I think, something only the ripper wold have known at the time. The special which aired the other night was the most convincing so far, I mean the sketch is almost a duplicate of Kelly. I was wondering, does anyone know if they compared the "ripper letter" to a sample of Kelly's handwriting?

[Ryan_Miller]

James Kelly has always been one of my favorite suspects. His life story is extremely interesting and he does happen to possess many of the qualities and aspects of Jack. Watching "Jack the Ripper in America" was enjoyable because I am so used to seeing Royal Family and Sickert conclusions. I do think the detective on the case was a bit odd and it seemed that he really wanted to get some attention, but I still was pleased that Kelly got some of the attention as well.

[Dori]

Kelly, James

Yes, and I found the sketch really interesting. The BBC apparently had a show on in 2006 with another computer generated photo of Jack The Ripper which also looked quite a bit like Kelly.

[Flagg]

I'm curious about Kelly's scribble vs the "From Hell" note.

[Mrs. E. Nigma]

I've been trying to find some mention of Kelly in old newspaper articles, and I can't seem to find anything. I've searched the archives of the London Times and a few others and haven't come across anything. Anyone have any idea where else I could look?

[Into The Abyss]

You may not have noticed Mr. Marriott but this thread is about a documentary shown on the Discovery Channel (USA) titled Jack the Ripper in America. As I said, I was offering a few thoughts on that programme, one which I would be surprised if you had actually seen. Had you seen it you may have realized that the first part of the section above which I posted was taken from the TV show. It was their “expert,” ex-policeman Ed Norriss, who stated that “The Ripper’s MO was to strangle his victims…”

Having said that, however, Chapman was definitely strangled, at least into unconsciousness, rather than the wishy washy “perhaps strangled” which you claim. Dr. Phillips stated this outright, as did The Lancet. There are also signs of strangulation apparent on the body of Martha Tabram and it has been pointed out by medical experts like Dr. Francis Camps that strangulation, or the interference with breathing, would explain the lack of outcry, no signs of struggle, lack of arterial spray, the odd lack of blood at the crime scenes and signs of congestion and finger marks on the faces of some of the victims.

Or are you suggesting that because the Ripper, in your layman’s opinion, didn’t strangle his victims therefore Carrie Brown, who was strangled, wasn’t a Ripper victim?



There was a progression of mutilation with each passing victim of the Ripper series so that earlier victims suffered less mutilation than later ones. This, I would have thought, was fairly obvious to even the most casual observer and explains why Chapman’s wounds were greater than Nicholls and Eddowes’ wounds were greater than Chapman’s and why Kelly’s wounds were greater than Eddowes’. The murder of Carrie Brown does not fit with the pattern shown by the Ripper murders. Not in ferocity, as a later victim, not in purpose and not in execution.

Interestingly, Mr. Marriott, you like to include every woman murdered by knife, and every prostitute murdered in any way, as possible Ripper victims. That is up to the 1st of September, 1894, when your particular suspect was arrested. After that date, however, women murdered and mutilated in Ripper fashion are ignored by you. You even state that there were no other Ripper-like murders anywhere, ever again, although there were. This seems to fly in the face of your above quote.



This statement is asinine. If we take this to be true then everyone in the world alive in 1888 becomes a viable suspect in the Ripper murders by the mere fact that we can’t prove they weren’t in London. Evidence that Sickert was in France during the murders? Still a suspect according to Marriott. Evidence that Deeming was in South Africa? Still a suspect. Cream in Joliet Prison? Still a suspect. All one needs is a willingness to do away with the tiresome constraints of evidence or proof. It’s apparently just that simple.

How about this: according to James Kelly himself he was in France in 1891 and didn’t arrive in New York until Spring of 1892, or a year after the murder of Carrie Brown. According to Mr. Marriott that’s not proof that he wasn’t in New York in April, 1891, and that he didn’t murder Carrie Brown. Then again, there is evidence from Carl Feigenbaum’s brother that he didn’t settle in the US until early 1892 as well. Mr. Marriott certainly doesn’t believe that this is evidence that Feigenbaum didn’t also kill Carrie Brown.

Wolf.

The show was on again last night (this time on Quest) and I watched it for the first time.

My analysis, for what it's worth, can be summed up in one word - LAUGHABLE!

An ex-cop/ex-con twisting the "facts" to prove a pre-conceived idea. And where did that sketch of the Ripper come from - looked like Inspector Clouseau to me!

Needless to say I agree with Wolf's analysis (and subsequent rebuttal of Mr Marriott's comments).

However, I would add that I still view James Kelly as a viable 'suspect' for the true Ripper murders (as opposed to the wannabe type killings in the States) until such times as there is corroboration that he was not in London during the relevant dates in 1888.

[Ash]

I just thought I would weigh in at this point as I haven't seen this thread before (I don't visit these boards as much as I used to.)

Firstly, people here are referring to this as Ed Norris' theory. Norris was merely a presenter, hired to put forward the case. Norris was a famous name they decided to use for his police history and because of course he had a minor role in the hit TV series The Wire. Norris was not involved in putting together the case itself, this was done by a TV production company called Fulcrum TV.

Fulcrum contacted me because I had written the Casebook entry on James Kelly and had done considerable follow-up work on him. With Jim Tully having died a few years ago, they decided I was currently the man to go to with regard to Kelly.

Over a series of phone calls they consulted me on the case throughout the period when the script for the show was being put together. To the best of my knowledge, Norris was not involved at this point, although they already knew he would be presenting. Every time they came up with something new, they would call me and I would explain to them how this might tie in to the rest of the case. I note in the review posted it mentions how Norris found Thomas Bond's profile of the killer. Actually, it was me who told them of the existence of this document.

Eventually they invited me down to London where I met with them in the Fulcrum offices and we looked over copies of Kelly's Broadmoor files together. At this point, as far as I was concerned, I was going to be an important part of the documentary. It was a good and productive afternoon, and I came away with a copy of Kelly's Broadmoor confession, which I'm glad of as it is the only tangible benefit I obtained from being involved in the programme.

After going home I never heard from them for a month. Eventually, I phoned them to find out what the progress was. I was told briefly that the Discovery Channel had decided to go another way, that filming had already started and I would not be required. I have not seen the show, and have no idea whether I even get a mention in the credits. The whole thing left a sour taste in the mouth, similar to the one Wolf seems to have ended up with.

[The Grave Maurice]

I finally caught this programme tonight. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. A few errors, certainly, but I've seen many worse JtR documentaries. And I've always thought that Kelly should be near the top of any suspect list.

[Barnaby]

I just watched this program and became very interested in James Kelly as a suspect. Of course the show contains inaccuracies and is one-sided. It is a shame that contrary opinions based in fact - such as Wolf's - were excluded. And I am not at all convinced of the American murders or of the age regression photo. It is interesting, however, that the photo that does exist of a young James Kelly very much resembles the composite sketch of the suspect released a number of years ago.

When reading the information on Kelly in the Suspect section on the Casebook, I was struck with how strong of a suspect he is from a psychological point of view. He was lied to about who his mother was (the same happened to Bundy), he had unresolved sexual problems with his wife, he only could be satisified with prostitutes, he acquired an STD and then displaced his guilt on his wife whom he then killed via knife wound to throat, he was a paranoid schizophrenica, he escaped Broadmoor shortly before the murders began, and the police came knocking the day after Mary Kelly was murdered. This is a promising suspect even if all of the American stuff is unsubstantiated and dubious.

As some have commented: the obvious weakness in his candicacy is that he cannot be placed in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. This weakness should be taken seriously. But rather than use this to definitively exclude him as a suspect, it should challenge those that believe him to be Jack to further research his whereabouts during this critical time period. In my opinion, if Kelly could be placed in Whitechapel during the fall of 1888 he would immediately leap to the most probable suspect that has been identified.

[peterJB]

JTR In US

There was a special called "Jack the Ripper in America" on Discovery tonight. They made a very good case that Kelly is the ripper. Did any of you case followers happen to see this special? If so, what do you think?

Yes I watched it last night (friend kept a copy for me)I found it interesting (also posted a question under "Kelly in France") what the cold case detective did was fairly accurate however was unable to put Kelly in the cities mentioned, yes he admitted to being in those cities I would have like to see proof that he was in the cities when the murders occured. Has anybody checked back to see if the name "Miller" is used while Kelly was in London July to December 1888. Where would you start?