Mary Jane Kelly (Another) New Theory

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chava,

GH a figment of Abberline's imagination?

Your theory isn't crazy. In fact you don't know how close you are to the truth.

It's good to see someone thinking outside the box.

Regards,

Simon

[Dan Norder]

As for being influenced, it is interesting to note that the Ontario profiler's INITIAL reaction was 'domestic' when the murder was described to him, but he changed his mind when he was fed with more information about the Ripper murders.

It seems to me that you are just assuming that the more information was about the other Ripper murders and not the Kelly murder itself. Certainly when someone hears that this murder happened indoors, without any other information, one might assume it was a domestic. Most murders are domestic murders, after all. But when that more information does come in -- especially regarding the mutilations, the timing and the geographical location -- the Kelly case is clearly a Ripper murder. Context is everything.

To the best of my knowledge there isn't a single professional who specializes in victimology, signature analysis or criminal profiling who has ever said that Kelly was anything other than a Ripper victim. If one turns up he or she will be in a tiny minority. I know certain Ripper authors suggest that she might not be, but then certain Ripper authors also have suspects in mind that don't work too well when Kelly is included. It seems to me that when you are complaining that this profiler might have been biased when he learned more facts you are completely missing the boat on where the bias really is.

[Dan Norder]

Your theory isn't crazy. In fact you don't know how close you are to the truth.

This suggests that you know the truth, which of course you have no way of knowing. Beyond just that, based upon your earlier writings on the topic and the bizarre conspiracy theory police cover up you presented, I think "crazy" is the probably more apt description for what you have in mind.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dan,

Fat lot you know.

Kind regards,

Simon

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

But when that more information does come in -- especially regarding the mutilations, the timing and the geographical location -- the Kelly case is clearly a Ripper murder. Context is everything..

Yes, context is everything, especially the context of the victim. Just like the context of the press reprots and the general hysteria at the time. Indeed, most people would assume this murder would be a domestic simply because this is what many serious domestics look like. Still you dismiss it just because a serial killer was roaming the streets at the time.

To the best of my knowledge there isn't a single professional who specializes in victimology, signature analysis or criminal profiling who has ever said that Kelly was anything other than a Ripper victim.

Paul Britton, Robert K Ressler, to name a few.

As for your statement that the Ripper researchers who tend to exclude Kelly because they either are suspect-oriented or because of 'romanticising' of Kelly, that is not only erronous but probably some of the worst nonsense I've ever heard.
Firstly, there are a couple of well respected Ripper authors who considers the possibility that Kelly might not be a Ripper victim. Among those Rumbelow is the only one who does so because of a suspect agenda (Donovan).

Nor does any respected Ripper author 'romanticise' Kelly. Fact is, the claim that Kelly are being 'romanticised' is so old and ridiculous that it should belong to history - only newcomers do this today. The fact that you on some occasions has referred to looking into Kelly's personal situation and male aquaintaces (which is perfectly normal victimology procedure) as 'romanticising' is of course something you yourself have to answer for.

I acknowledge that you know a lot about serial killers (probably more than I do) but the fact that you with such enormous certainty state "the Kelly case is clearly a Ripper murder" shows without a doubt that you still have a lot to learn about domestic murders and how to investigate them.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Hi Chava!

Interesting stuff! Your profiler friend seems to follow the same track as I do; the Kelly slaying has an initial air of a domestic slaying about it, but given the context of the other murders, I think that the domestic angle should not be given top priority. If the Kelly case had been an isolated one, I think that more people would have lent an ear to those who favour a domestic scenario, and sure enough the possibility should not be overlooked.

Be that as it may, what I would like to address is a few points from your initial post on the thread where I think you are wrong. There are three cases:

1: “I thought Tabram might well be a victim, but for the purposes of this theory she can't be. The attack is too frenzied and doesn't contain the trademark purposeful slashing in the abdominal area. Those wounds are all stabs, not slashes.”

The wound to the lower abdomen was inch deep and three inches wide, Chava. That is not a stab, it is a cut. Or perhaps even a slash led on by an interest by that certain area.

2: “He kills Stride but doesn't mutilate her because he doesn't get the chance. However, like Chapman, she is partially suffocated into submission before he cuts her throat.”

But where are the signs of suffocation? No such evidence was ever reported.

3: “Hutchinson describes Mr Astrakhan as giving Kelly 'a red handkerchief'. We spent a lot of time talking about this, because there's no way he'd know the colour of that handkerchief from where he was standing.”

Correct! But you are forgetting what happened minutes before it: Astrakhan man and Kelly passed Hutch at very close range, and Hutch described how he stooped down to get a look at Astrakhan mans face. They would have been only a few feet from each other, and at that moment Hutch may well have spotted the handkerchief, if it was sported from the vest pocket of Astrakhan man, for instance. There is no reason to believe that Hutch identified the colour from a distance – when Astrakhan man pulled it out, Hutch may very well have been familiar with its colour already.

The best, Chava!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

They would have been only a few feet from each other, and at that moment Hutch may well have spotted the handkerchief, if it was sported from the vest pocket of Astrakhan man, for instance.

And if he did spot it, he certainly couldn't have spotted all the other stuff he alleged in the time and conditions available, which comprised a fleeting second in darkness and bad weather. Adding a red hanky to all the accessorial and clothing detail he claimed to have noticed and committed to memory when he first encountered "Mr. Astrakhan" only makes the whole caboodle even more obviously impossible, irrespective of distance. His vest pocket (if such a garment and the wearer ever existed) would have been concealed under two coats, and completely concealed from view.

I'm sure we've already had this discussion.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

We have, Ben, and I have the same feeling about Hutch as you do: his testimony is a very strange one, and I have lots of trouble believing it.

That aside, I will not reject it totally: The human brain has the capacity to take in lots more than the bits Hutch picked up. Thing is, only the fewest people have that capacity, although I think we are in general born with the material to reach there.
Some such "masters of memory" have trained their way to their capacity, others, like autistic people, can have it with no training.

Logic and statistics all speak your language in this case, though - Hutchs testimony is way to good to be true. What I pointed to in my answer to Chava had nothing to do with that bit, though. I just wanted to show that IF Hutch came clean at the time, there could have been a reasonable explanation to how he could point out the colour of that hanky.

By the bye; Hutch said that Astrakhan was wearing a "light waistcoat, thick gold chain with a red stone seal", meaning that he saw that under the two coats you speak of, and also meaning that he was able to distinguish the colour red in the light offered - if he spoke the truth, that is.

It all gets kind of academic sometimes, does it not...?

The best, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

It all gets kind of academic sometimes, does it not...?

Absolutely, Fisherman. Although one has to wonder just how much this Astrakhan character's chest protruded if his waiscoat and "red stone seal" were visible in the dark under two dark overcoats!

The human brain has the capacity to take in lots more than the bits Hutch picked up

True, just not at the same time.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

Since we have 4 women over forty without a room and on the streets the night they are killed, and one approx 26 year old, with a room, and a last accreditted sighting of her entering her room while still it was still Nov the 8th, I could care less what profilers think. If the obvious differences in just those two elements cannot be seen by them, then the mutilation fest might well seem like a uterus extraction in a Hanbury Street backyard.

To say Kellys death is like all the others is complete nonsense, whomever says it.

Its either the Ripper as he is losing his mind and crime scene composure, after entering her room without resistance heard by anyone in the courtyard, and then deciding that the only extracted organ taken from two prior "Rippers" victims is no longer wanted, .....or it wasnt the Ripper.

The venue, the victim, the resulting injuries, and the unexplained access to Marys room are but a few of the long list of differences.

Thank god profilers dont tell certain people to jump off a cliff,....seems some people listen to them more than simple common sense,... perhaps due to their own shortage of that commodity.

Cheers all.

[perrymason]

To address the incoming arrows as they "blot out the sun"...

If Elizabeth Stride were more correctly categorized as a possible victim, in the way Martha is, then there is a distinctive pattern that is broken with Mary Kelly. If Liz Stride is out, and the others are not, then from Polly, to Annie, to Kate you have exactly what many crime "detectives" or profilers will espouse as a "pattern". Abdominal mutilations post mortem, similar victim profile, similar locations, similar MO, similar sequence...increasingly darker locations as a side note, inferring some confidence in working in such conditions, and casting some suspcion on his need for light by burning clothing,.... increasingly invasive and vicious, and the last two have the same organ taken, one in partial form, along with other abdominal organs or viscera.

1,2,3,...then Mary. A whole new deal.

New location: Indoors
New Victim Profile: Young, has own room, is by medical evidence gathered fed and by witness testimony drunk.
New "Wounds": Stripping thighs, one completely, completely devastating facial features, the removal and placement of abdominal organs under extremities, and breasts so treated,... the removal and abondonment at the site of a uterus, the removal and absconding with a heart,..... the posing of the victim, being moved to the middle of the bed, a knee raised, her hand in an empty chest cavity.
New Crime Scene Feature: Killer prohibits access to the room without using force, a room key, or the latch method. Never has restricted access to any victim. Killer had to gain access to room without causing a great deal of noise or scuffle before even reaching the victim. Victim has defense wounds.

Im fairly certain that with the proper staging, the Torso's would have been linked with him as well based on the Kelly inclusion. Because really....its all in the "presentation", isnt it?

A brief summary of why I said why I said.

Best regards all.

[Sasha]

“Hutchinson describes Mr Astrakhan as giving Kelly 'a red handkerchief'. We spent a lot of time talking about this, because there's no way he'd know the colour of that handkerchief from where he was standing.”

Hmmm, that gives me an idea. Was JTR color blind? If so, he wouldn't see red as red. Anyway, I think the handkerchief is just another red herring!

I personally have entertained the idea that the first four canons were just a prelude to the real deal but I think it would be difficult for someone so obsessed with Mary to practice on such poor substitutes. Surely there were street girls closer to Mary's age and presence who were just as drunk and vulnerable as the older women who comprised the canon four? EG all of Ted Bundy's "girls" were of a certain type. No, I think Perry's arguments are more convincing. Different MO, different place, different killer.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sasha!

There are serial killers, who like certain a certain type of woman, yes!

But then, for example; the Yorkshire Ripper thought, that "anything goes!"

All the best
Jukka

(PS. One thing always puzzling me, is; many times the public starts to pay attention to cases like these, when "an innocent" or "almost innocent" victim appears!)

[Sasha]

Hello Sasha!

There are serial killers, who like certain a certain type of woman, yes!

But then, for example; the Yorkshire Ripper thought, that "anything goes!"

All the best
Jukka

(PS. One thing always puzzling me, is; many times the public starts to pay attention to cases like these, when "an innocent" or "almost innocent" victim appears!)

Yes Jukka. For some serial killers, anything with a pulse will do. But when you have a series of four who are more or less the same and then a break in the series, questions should be asked. But I take your point! Trying to understand or predict the behaviour of a psychopath is fraught with difficulties!

Not sure what you mean by your PS exactly. Not sure the relative "innocence" of the victims is an issue but hey I concede the point that if Jack started carving up duchesses and princesses, he'd certainly get more attention from the public, or at least the press! I, personally, don't like to go there. Discussing the "innocence" of a victim gets one into all sorts of trouble eg she was out at night, drunk, probably deserved it. I don't believe that is a reason or justification for a crime. Just an opinion!

Regards
Sasha

[Graham]

I think the possibility of MJK's being murdered by someone she knew is very high, but not a copper-bottomed certainty. Don't think it was Joe Barnett, largely because of his actions following the murder - he stayed in the area. Again, not that that exonnerates him, of course, but I think any self-respecting murderer would scarper. Or maybe he thought he was being clever by staying put? Dunno. Anyway, the police didn't think he did it. Fleming? I don't think enough is known about this man with regards his alleged relationship with MJK to suggest he killed her.

One thing I've always thought about Hutchinson, is that his description of Astrakhan Man is very like the typical Victorian music-hall villain of the day. Had GH added that AM also twirled his moustache while leering suggestively at MJK, it wouldn't have surprised me. I never have figured out why GH gave such a detailed and very unlikely description of the man he saw with Kelly, until I realised that it might just be possible that he was deliberately throwing the police off the scent. If this has been suggested before, I apologise. But again, why should he do so? There's no evidence to suggest that GH was doing anything other than hanging around Dorset Street, with nothing to do and no money for drink. He was apparently well-grilled by the police, who let him go and evidently didn't interview him again.

Anyway, just a thought.

Graham