Chapman and Kelly's Left Arms

[c.d.]

I don't think it is reasonable to compare Mary's actions previously while living with Barnett who disapproved of her soliciting with what she might have done after he left. We do know that Mary needed money. Now she might not have been responsible enough to go out on a cold, rainy night after a night of drinking in order to get money. However, it is a completely different scenario if the money shows up at her door. It doesn't even have to be a client but rather someone who bought her drinks in the last few days and who she thought might have a little bit of money that he wouldn't mind spending on her in the days ahead. Whoever it was, I believe it was the Ripper and not personal in any way.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

cd: I don't think it is reasonable to compare Mary's actions previously while living with Barnett who disapproved of her soliciting with what she might have done after he left.

Barnett disapproved of Mary selling herself on the streets cd....not an ambiguous statement. So..Just like Mary Ann Cox, Mary would have serviced clients outdoors...when she worked.

cd: We do know that Mary needed money.

For what...and to spend where? Pubs were closed, and again, although you skipped over this part....Mary had a history of doing just what Im suggesting...she had no recent history that includes what youre suggesting. She didnt pay rent regularly.

cd: Now she might not have been responsible enough to go out on a cold, rainy night after a night of drinking in order to get money.

Right...and how do you explain why she doesnt go out on the nights she isnt drunk to catch up on her arrears...???? She wasnt responsible cd....dont ignore the facts.

cd: However, it is a completely different scenario if the money shows up at her door.

You mean like Barnet bringing her money almost every day since he left, I would agree...or are you suggesting clients knocked on her door?

cd: It doesn't even have to be a client but rather someone who bought her drinks in the last few days and who she thought might have a little bit of money that he wouldn't mind spending on her in the days ahead.

You may well be describing Blotchy cd. Someone got her staggering drunk that last night...he seems a likely sponsor.

cd: Whoever it was, I believe it was the Ripper and not personal in any way.

cd, the last line above is an example of why you and I butt heads.....you assume any sort of scenario that seems possible to you....you discard the evidence about what is probable based on her history and the known facts,.....and you conclude somehow that Jack the Ripper killed her but that he didnt know her.

Marys face was slashed, repeatedly. A stereotypical injury inflicted by someone angry with a victim he knows. She was in bed, undressed....facing the wall. On the right hand side of the bed...indicating that she may well have been making room for someone to slide into bed behind her. She was in a love triangle...her own admission. Often a catalyst for violence.

I could write a thousand bits of incremental evidence that would allow someone to make a well reasoned and logical argument against what you suggest...but your obvious preference is for Jack the Ripper to have killed Mary,...so, I wont waste anymore of your time on it.

Suffice to say, there is NOTHING in the evidence that supports Mary was killed by a "client", that Mary was a responsible debtor, and that the man responsible for killing Polly and Annie also killed Mary.

Having an opinion is all well and good....it would be wise to formulate a facts based argument that might support it though.

Cheers cd

[c.d.]

"Having an opinion is all well and good....it would be wise to formulate a facts based argument that might support it though."

Thanks for the advice, Michael. I will try to keep that in mind the next time that I post.

c.d.

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

I was debating the Chapman and Kelly murders with friend recently. My friend was arguing in favor of the theory that Champman was killed by JtR and Kelly was killed by someone who knew her (Barnett, perhaps) due to the extensive mutilation and of her corpse. His feeling being that the mutilation implied rage. My feeling has always been that extent of the mulitilation was due the fact that the killer had the privacy and the time to indulge himself. It's an interesting argument, certainly. In going back and reading Begg, I came across a mention in the Chapman case. Her left arm was "folded over her left breat". Kelly's left arm is photographed in precisely the same pose. Could this have been part of JtR's signature? Interested in your thoughts.

Thats a good point something I did consider myself but then is it what I want to see in it or is it what the killer wants me to see? If MK is one of "J" then having time and secracy would as you yourself mentioned a chance to truly indulge, Something I will take into account but I have not formulated anything about J just yet myself, but a good point none the less as many of the killings do show an element of display about them.

[Damaso Marte]

Hi Patrick,yes by choosing Kelly and slaughtering her inside our killer had enough time to indulge all his whims no doubt about that.If Kelly was a victim of jtr then I think this was his riskiest murder yet.By killing Kelly in her room our killer had no means of escape except from the front door his victim been a prostitute would have had random callers at all hours could our killer have had a lookout?Mr Hutchinson possibly?

I am not convinced that being in a locked, private room with the windows covered is somehow riskier than being out on the public streets. There was only one escape route in the Stride and Chapman murders too.

[Damaso Marte]

Marys face was slashed, repeatedly. A stereotypical injury inflicted by someone angry with a victim he knows

This is repeatedly stated in our discussion of the Eddowes and Kelly cases, but I am both unconvinced that this is actually a hard and fast rule in criminology, or that it prevents Kelly's killer from being a stranger.

She was in bed, undressed....facing the wall. On the right hand side of the bed...indicating that she may well have been making room for someone to slide into bed behind her. She was in a love triangle...her own admission. Often a catalyst for violence.

This is both consistent with her being killed by somebody she knows and by her being killed by a client.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

This is repeatedly stated in our discussion of the Eddowes and Kelly cases, but I am both unconvinced that this is actually a hard and fast rule in criminology, or that it prevents Kelly's killer from being a stranger.



This is both consistent with her being killed by somebody she knows and by her being killed by a client.

Quit using reason already. Not helping.

[Bridewell]

People who want to continue to believe Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim may now have to accept a "Maybrick" scenario in that case.

Really? Why is that then?

[Bridewell]

What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that Mary ever took a client to that room,

Mary Ann Cox says she saw Kelly enter the room with Blotchy. George Hutchinson says he saw her enter the room with Astrakhan Man. How much weight you choose to place on that evidence is a matter of individual judgement but this is evidence that she did take clients to her room.

There is, then, evidence (in the form of eye-witness testimony) that Kelly did take clients to her room.

To clarify, I'm not arguing that every client was taken to her room, simply countering the assertion that none of them were.

[Wickerman]

Mary Ann Cox says she saw Kelly enter the room with Blotchy. George Hutchinson says he saw her enter the room with Astrakhan Man. How much weight you choose to place on that evidence is a matter of individual judgement but this is evidence that she did take clients to her room.

There is, then, evidence (in the form of eye-witness testimony) that Kelly did take clients to her room.

To clarify, I'm not arguing that every client was taken to her room, simply countering the assertion that none of them were.

Not forgetting the admission of Mrs Prater:
"It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased."

[c.d.]

Even if we were completely certain that Kelly never took a client to her room prior to her death we would still have to come up with a reason why she could not have done so the night she was killed.

c.d.

[MayBea]

Really? Why is that then?

Because of the requirement to explain the differences in the M.O. as explained by Michael:
-Overkill and non-removal of the uterus.

You could also call it a "Barnett" scenario where he wanted her off the streets, which explains the overkill and M.O. of someone who knew the victim. But I like the idea that there was no attempt to take the uterus because she is, or represents, someone who birthed his offspring, so I call it the Maybrick scenario.
Either way, if you want Mary to be a Ripper victim, there's lots to explain with a requisite scenario.

[GUT]

G'Day Bridewell

There is, then, evidence (in the form of eye-witness testimony) that Kelly did take clients to her room.

To clarify, I'm not arguing that every client was taken to her room, simply countering the assertion that none of them were.

Beat me to t by "that much."

[Jon Guy]

"Having an opinion is all well and good....it would be wise to formulate a facts based argument that might support it though."
c.d.

c.d.

I think that was Michael`s note to himself.

It can`t refer to the relevant points you bring up.

[DRoy]

There is, then, evidence (in the form of eye-witness testimony) that Kelly did take clients to her room.

What evidence? Who is Blotchy and who is A-man? Since we don't know who they are, we can't confidently say they were clients can we?

Cheers
DRoy