Assumption buster #2 Mary Jane Kelly

[Jon Guy]

Hi Errata

I think one of the more curious aspects of Mary Kelly's murder is that while certainly a progression of violence if compared to the other murders, in a way it's also a regression. One would expect a killer to move from indoors to outdoors as they devolve.

Perhaps, that tells us the killer is a local man. How many of the local men we have come across lived alone and had a room in which they could get the victim in without been seen, murder her and then dispose of the body?

The only victim that was killed indoors was killed in her own place and she had only been living on her own a few days.

The killer would have no car in which to transport the body so killing and leaving them in the secluded corners the victims possibly led him to seems the most practical option, from a homicidal maniac`s point of view.

Edit: Of course, visitors to the area such as Sadler and Grainger, if homicidal, and one of them certainly was, would have the same restraints as the local man.

[Phil H]

Barnaby

Perhaps we are overestimating the need to know the area?

But then there is his willingness to go into the backyard at 29 Hanbury St (which could not be seen from the road); and the escape after Mitre Square that strongly suggest to me he knew the area intimately.

Phil H

[Barnaby]

Maybe.

But personally I see "Jack" (i.e. the killer of Nichols, Chpaman, Eddowes and maybe Mckenzie, as a local man. I don't think he moved. IMHO, he either died or was incarcerated.

Phil H

Hi Phil,

I suspect most of us agree with you. Yet it is curious as to how we have come to this assumption given that London was a diverse and transient place, the murders started and stopped fairly quickly and took place on weekends and holidays. Perhaps we are overestimating the need to know the area?

[Wickerman]

I think one of the more curious aspects of Mary Kelly's murder is that while certainly a progression of violence if compared to the other murders, in a way it's also a regression. One would expect a killer to move from indoors to outdoors as they devolve.........

Which might actually be the case, that he started indoors and moved outdoors. If you recall back in March of 1888 the man who attacked Ada Wilson in her room, not unlike the later descriptions of our suspect (a man of about 30 years of age, 5ft 6ins in height, with a sunburnt face and a fair moustache. He was wearing a dark coat, light trousers and a wideawake hat.), he had to start somewhere, at sometime.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

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

Hi Phil,

I think I still participate on the boards because every so often I see a post that reasonably addresses the true realities of these cases.

Thanks for the recent one above.

Cheers Mate

[Phil H]

I can't imagine the crime that would be worth literally butchering her for.

How about jealosy?

I could make a case (no evidence except circumstantial) for Barnett or Flemming (to name but two) who might have had their own reasons to kill her as what the french know as a "crime of passion". There are elements of her murder that fit such a scenario, at least as I see it, better than her being a victim of "Jack".

Flemming we are told "abused" her - mentally or physically we do not know.

Barnett we know read about the murders and left her, in part, because she would not give up her life on the streets.

Motives?

Phil H

[MsWeatherwax]

[B]

Maybe it was someone who was copying what he had HEARD or READ about the Mitre Square killing - and overdoing it.

I venture this as this IS an assumption busting thread.

Phil H

I'm not going to pretend that this is based on anything other than an annoying niggle in the back of my brain, but I do sometimes wonder if this isn't what happened with MJK.

By the same token, the only reason that I can think of for someone to try to imitate JTR is to cover up some other crime - and the reality of what happened to her was so horrific that I can't imagine the crime that would be worth literally butchering her for.

I'm about 97% convinced that MJK was a Ripper victim, but there's just that little bit of lingering doubt that I can't quite shake.

[lynn cates]

solicitous

Hello Phil. Thanks.

Perhaps some day we shall both grow up to become solicitors or barristers?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

I think one of the more curious aspects of Mary Kelly's murder is that while certainly a progression of violence if compared to the other murders, in a way it's also a regression. One would expect a killer to move from indoors to outdoors as they devolve. But one would also expect that a killer who takes a uterus would start by mutilating the external genitalia, not end there. It's kind of odd.

All of which, Errata, seem to be good arguments for asking whether MJK WAS indeed killed by the same hand that killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

Maybe it was someone who was copying what he had HEARD or READ about the Mitre Square killing - and overdoing it.

I venture this as this IS an assumption busting thread.

Phil H

[Errata]

I think one of the more curious aspects of Mary Kelly's murder is that while certainly a progression of violence if compared to the other murders, in a way it's also a regression. One would expect a killer to move from indoors to outdoors as they devolve. But one would also expect that a killer who takes a uterus would start by mutilating the external genitalia, not end there. It's kind of odd.

[MsWeatherwax]

But surgical abortion of this nature was actually pretty rare. Women typically employed other ways of attempting to terminate a pregnancy. Not that they were any less potentially lethal, but they didn't die bloody. Even today (and illegal abortions still happen all over) it is impossible to link an abortionist to a corpse if he doesn't leave fingerprints. In fact, if the abortionist were to clean up the corpse back then so that there was no external sign of violent death, likely there would have been no investigation as to cause of death. There would be absolutely nothing to gain by prompting an investigation into a death.

Absolutely agree, Errata. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on this area by any means, but from my wanderings around Old Bailey.org, the majority of illegal abortions on there seem to involve chemical or herbal abortions, with a few using 'an instrument', which I would assume to be the knitting needle.

As you say, there would be nothing to gain from turning a botched procedure into something more likely to raise interest from the authorities.

[Phil H]

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

[Fleetwood Mac]

Meaning....we have zero hard evidence that these killings were linked to a killer.

In the absence of a conviction, I'm not quite sure what you expect in the way of 'hard evidence'.

Murders were, and remain, rare. It is extremely uncommon to have two serial killers operating in the same area, and even less so when displaying the same M.O.

The experience of human behaviour tells us that it was one killer. You're not going to get 'hard evidence' because such a thing would constitute a conviction. So, ultimately, you're left with observation, reason and a pattern of killing in the same manner across at least the so-called C5 and reasonably beyond.

I would add that we know that serial killers are frustrated at times by their targets. There are botched attempts because of the high risk nature of their actions. Reasonably, I'd assume that not everything went to plan for Jack.

[Phil H]

"used his knowledge of Spitalfields"...Not to mention Aldgate.

Perhaps I should include a legalistic clause in all future posts to cover myself:

By Spitalfields are meant also all those areas of East London comprising Whitechapel, Spitalfields, Aldgate and any other areas of the greater London area including Mile End and Bethnal Green that might be included in consideration of the Jack the Ripper case*.

*Use of the phrase Jack the Ripper does not imply the writer's acceptance of a single killer, or any one killer of the victims (whomever the might have been and however many may be included in the total represented) or of any killer at all.

Would that satisfy?

Phil H

[Errata]

I've come across the 'botched abortion' theory before, but it seems like a very extreme solution to me. Likewise, the theories about it being someone else with the facial mutilations being performed to obscure the true identity. To me, whoever performed the atrocity on Mary Kelly was not a 'normal' person - it would take a very cold heart and a deeply sick mind to do that to another human being for any other reason than satisfying some kind of perversion, either mental or sexual.

I just find it very hard to believe that someone could accidentally kill someone in the act of performing an abortion, then decide that the next logical step would be to horrifically mutilate them. That being said, I've never been in danger of penal servitude for killing someone in the act of an illegal abortion.

We actually know what abortionists did when someone died on them, at least we know what they did around 1905. If at all possible, the procedure was done in the patient's home. The reasons were many, but one of them was so that if the patient died, it would be believable when they put a bloodied knitting needle in the corpses hand. It was simple enough, especially since the needle was readily at hand after it in fact had been used to puncture the amniotic sac. And any woman desperate enough to try and get an abortion would resort to doing herself if there was no alternative. Typically cause of death was listed as "fever" or "suicide" depending on how understanding the family chose to be. On occasions where the procedure was done somewhere else, the patient was typically abandoned, unless they died in a place that might incriminate the abortionist, in which case they would be dumped elsewhere.

But surgical abortion of this nature was actually pretty rare. Women typically employed other ways of attempting to terminate a pregnancy. Not that they were any less potentially lethal, but they didn't die bloody. Even today (and illegal abortions still happen all over) it is impossible to link an abortionist to a corpse if he doesn't leave fingerprints. In fact, if the abortionist were to clean up the corpse back then so that there was no external sign of violent death, likely there would have been no investigation as to cause of death. There would be absolutely nothing to gain by prompting an investigation into a death.