Assumption buster #2 Mary Jane Kelly

[Fleetwood Mac]

FM

When I first started to read seriously about these murders, in the 70s, there was no real discussion of whether there was one killer or not, or how many victims he murdered (five was the assumption).

I welcome the more recent trend of opening up both issues to discussion.

At first I was shocked by AP Wolf's and Peter Turnbull's books, which seemed to shake the whole foundations of the subject. But the I took their point. I began to question (which is always good) and to look at things from a changed perspective.

I now see links that were invisible to me previously, between Nichols, Chapman, (maybe Eddowes) and Mckenzie. I am open minded about whether Stride and Kelly were murdered by the same hand.

So I do now believe that the sole link between these killings is the police view at the time, which has fossilised into the idea of JtR. They were so "overwhelmed" by these killings tht they stopped asking whether they were all by the same hand, and assumed they were. In that, they were aided and abetted by the press, which successively gacve the unidentified killer or killers a persona as Leather Apron and then "Jack the ripper". He thus became iconic. At this distance, I believe we can and should take a long look at that assumption - which is why I welcome this thread.

You are right, of course, to ask what "hard evidence" there could be. But we do have tools of analysis. We can look back with hindsight (not available to the police at the time). We do have a reasonable amount of medical and police information. IMHO, we ought to be able to draw some conclusions, albeit tentative.

Phil H

Well, Phil, you and I certainly disagree here.

By all means, challenge the consensus. As someone who studied history at unversity, I'm not altogether ignorant of the value of a spread of ideas.

As ever, though, there is an obligation to come down on the side of reason; opinions built upon sub-standard foundations are pretty much worthless.

So, it really comes down to this Phil:

1) Give or take the odd dissenter, officials/doctors generally agreed that at least 4/5 of the victims were at the hands of Jack. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much anyone pours over the medical reports and looks for an angle that could be deemed to suggest otherwise. The general consensus among the officials/doctors tells the story.

2) It would be extremely unusual in the event there were two people in the same close-knit community killing people at the same time and in the same manner. The experience of human behaviour tells us this.

Based on the above I believe it is monumentally unreasonable to pick at the bones in order to arrive at an alternative conclusion, while ignoring the bigger picture as laid out in points 1 and 2.

[Wickerman]

2) It would be extremely unusual in the event there were two people in the same close-knit community killing people at the same time and in the same manner. The experience of human behaviour tells us this.

When we consider the range of murders, from Smith in April 1888 through to Coles in Feb. 1891, it might not be so much the question of more than one killer at work, this must surely be the case, but how people choose to divide the victims up, and how we cherry-pick the evidence to suit.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

points

Hello Mac.

"Give or take the odd dissenter, officials/doctors generally agreed that at least 4/5 of the victims were at the hands of Jack."

Of this august group, how many saw at least three bodies? Dr. Phillips did. What did he say? And perhaps it was BECAUSE he had more experience with them that he pronounced them different.

"Therefore, it doesn't matter how much anyone pours over the medical reports and looks for an angle that could be deemed to suggest otherwise. The general consensus among the officials/doctors tells the story."

Numerical consensus, perhaps. But the 4 varied amongst the commentators. Eg, some ruled Stride out; some ruled "MJK" out; Phillips ruled Kate out.

"It would be extremely unusual in the event there were two people in the same close-knit community killing people at the same time and in the same manner."

But were not the WCM extremely unusual? Same manner? Even a cursory glance says otherwise.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello Jon.

"It might not be so much the question of more than one killer at work, this must surely be the case, but how people choose to divide the victims up, and how we cherry-pick the evidence to suit."

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

FM - you wrote:

It would be extremely unusual in the event there were two people in the same close-knit community killing people at the same time and in the same manner. The experience of human behaviour tells us this.

yet in london at around the time of the Whitechapel murders, we had:

* the Thames Torso killer;
* whomever killed Tabram, Mckenzie and maybe Coles - unless you ascribe all those to "Jack";
* a domestic on the night of the Stride/Eddowes killings;
* other murders set out in the recent book by Peter Stubley.

So it is a fact that other murderers were operating and may have been responsible for some of those cases put down to the Ripper in 1888.

I think one cannot rule out that the perceptions of the police in 1888 may have been, in part, influenced by the press creation of an over-arching fiend.

I believe, personally, that Stride and Kelly might both be "domestics" with the latter partially made to look as if by the Ripper.

I also concur with some of the other responses to your post.

Phil H

[Phil H]

how we cherry-pick the evidence to suit

Using well tried and tested methods. As long as some reasoning or logic, and consistent criteria are applied it is not impossible.

A matrix approach is one that might lend itself to such analysis.

The term "cherry-picking" pre-supposes almost a biased approach. I don't agree that that is unavoidable or necessary.

Phil H

[Fleetwood Mac]

FM - you wrote:

It would be extremely unusual in the event there were two people in the same close-knit community killing people at the same time and in the same manner. The experience of human behaviour tells us this.

yet in london at around the time of the Whitechapel murders, we had:

* the Thames Torso killer;
* whomever killed Tabram, Mckenzie and maybe Coles - unless you ascribe all those to "Jack";
* a domestic on the night of the Stride/Eddowes killings;
* other murders set out in the recent book by Peter Stubley.

Phil H

The above supports my original point.

It is an unreasonable point of view.

The Torso killer was not murdering prositutes in dark corners.

The domestic was over in the West of London, in-doors and clearly a domestic.

Peter Stubley could set out all the murders in the world and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

Someone was slashing prostitutes' throats in dark corners and turning their heads so the blood poured away from him; which clearly was done by design and for a wider purpose. Such murders were extremely uncommon.

Are you really suggesting that it's at least a 50% chance that two people were doing this in a small area? That would be an enormous slice of bad luck for the ladies of Whitechapel.

[lynn cates]

knowledge

Hello Mac.

"The Torso killer was not murdering prositutes in dark corners."

How can we know that? Conversely, aside from Polly and Annie, how do we know the other 3 were soliciting at time of death?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

The thread is about questioning assumptions, FM.

Questioning does not mean that one accepts all the answers that might emerge.

But there WERE other murders in London in 1888. Thus there were other killers around. If we have misidentified MJK or stride as Ripper victims, when they were actually "domestics" we have gone astray.

Could the Torso murderer have been "Jack"? (I seriously doubt it) BUT a torso ends up on "Jack's" patch.

When do we begin "Jack's" reign? If tabram was not a Ripper victim, then an uncaught/unidentified East End murderer was still at liberty. Who is to say he did not strike again?

Similarly with Mckenzie - if "Jack" did not kill her, then there was an incipient murderer about when "Jack" was at work.

IMHO it is worthwhile looking at all these combinations and rearrangements in case any "orthodox" assumption is built of shaky foundations.

Phil H

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Numerical consensus, perhaps. But the 4 varied amongst the commentators. Eg, some ruled Stride out; some ruled "MJK" out; Phillips ruled Kate out.

For the life of me I can`t recall who ruled out "MJK" ?

[Wickerman]

I now see links that were invisible to me previously, between Nichols, Chapman, (maybe Eddowes) and Mckenzie. I am open minded about whether Stride and Kelly were murdered by the same hand.

I'm intrigued why you include McKenzie with Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes. If you've explained why elsewhere, I must have missed it.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"It might not be so much the question of more than one killer at work, this must surely be the case, but how people choose to divide the victims up, and how we cherry-pick the evidence to suit."

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Yes, and that includes both your good self and myself. Though one significant difference between the two of us is that I have no suspect. I do have a Person (or persons) of Interest, but not a suspect.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil H]

It seems to me that the circumstances of Mckenzie's death are VERY similar to those of Nichols - a thoroughfare off the main highway. The murderer was quick - the moment of opportunity a short one - and was probably disturbed in the act (as was possibly the case with Nichols).

The wounds on Mckenzie's body are not dissimilar to those on Nichols', particularly if the tight clothing Mckenzie wore and interruption are taken into account.

I think the reason Mckenzie was so often dismissed as a JtR victim in the past was that the killer was seen as having increasing mutilation in his work, especially from Eddowes to Kelly, and Pipe Clay Alice did not fit that pattern.

Once I began to question whether Kelly was a victim of "Jack", that mounting ferocity no longer was a vital consideration. the possibility emerged, for me, that a "Jack who had killed Nichols and Chapman (maybe Eddowes) only might have been the killer of Mckenzie - the more so if he was weakened, ill or incapacitated in some way. (The idea of a post-Eddowes infection is attractive, but too speculative to rely on, but a mentally impaired "Jack" or a failing "Jack" is not an impossibility).

Hence I now include Mckenzie (though always in parentheses or with a question mark) as a possible JtR victim. Coles, I also consider, but I see the length of time as too long. At the the other end, I am open to an earlier victim than Nichols being found, though not - IMHO - Tabram.

Hope that helps,

Phil H

[lynn cates]

super

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"For the life of me I can`t recall who ruled out "MJK" ?"

Try Superintendent Thomas Arnold.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Whom?

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"I do have a Person (or persons) of Interest, but not a suspect."

Out with it, man.

Cheers.
LC