Mary Jane Kelly (Another) New Theory

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sasha!

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

Well, I personally think, that the C5 had only one thing in common; they were women!

OK, seriously; they all looked different, they character was different, their backround was different, etc.

Then, trying to explain my PS:

My impresson has been, that the biggest attention was paid to the MJK murder by the public. She was, at least compared to the others, still young and attractive. Not innocent, but some people might have thought she "could have been saved" from her life-style. Probably not, but there are always wishful thinkers...

Then; there is a reminiscent of my teenage days of the 1970s. That was the time I read about Jack the Ripper case for the first time. As as comparison to the Yorkshire Ripper. In this case the public really got interested, when Jayne McDonald was murdered. She was a family-girl in a wrong place at a wrong time! And thus the first non-hooker victim...

All the best
Jukk

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Fisherman,

In so many words, you are saying that Hutch was a bullshitter, yes?

Graham

Of course he does, Graham, and so do I.

All the best

[Bob Hinton]

What?

Ben, no I haven't. I thought that was a 'royal conspiracy' book, so I stayed away from it.

Dear Chava,

I can assure you it's not. If you do get a copy and want to send it to me I will be most happy to sign it as "Royal Conspiracy Free"

[Bob Hinton]

Killer the Same.

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.
.

I think you are missing the point here about MO. MO is concerned with the way in which a killer works; it’s the general mix that makes the complete picture. The MO in all these cases, with the exception of Stride is the same.

1. The victims were all women
2. The weapon in all cases was the same.
3. There were no witnesses
4. There were no clues at the scene.
5. The bodies were mutilated – the amount of mutilations is in direct proportion to the time the killer had to perform them unobserved.
6. The victims were all easy prey. Nicholls was drunk, Chapman was not suspicious, Eddowes was ill and Kelly was in all likelihood asleep on her bed.
7. All the killings took place in a very small geographical area – the killer’s hunting ground.
8. There was no sound of struggle.

Now this is the MO, it is what is required to turn a living person into a corpse and in all these cases it is remarkably similar. Trying to say it’s different because some victims where over 40 and one was 26 is missing the point.

[Ben]

Which is where I get back to Bens post, where he says "a claim to have both noticed and committed to memory all that Hutchinson claimed in the time and conditions available belongs in the "isn't possible" category", only to point out that this is wrong.

Oh, for goodness sake.

No, it isn't wrong. It's right, as I've just explained.

Let's try again: I don't really wish to get bogged down in an "impossible versus highly improbable" debate, though. I will cheerfully settle for "in all probability bogus" if it means avoiding unnecessary sparring. Broadly speaking, we seem to be in agreement. You've agreed in one breath to settle for "in all probability bogus", but then you decide to keep on at it anyway.

On the subject of the red hanky being visible from that pocket or not, I will stand by what I have said; of course the hanky could have been visible from such a position.

No, it most emphatically could not. Not under two coats. Not for fleeting second in darkness and miserable weather. Not in addition to all the other clothing and and accessorial detail he claimed to have noticed and committed to memory within that fleeting second in darkness and miserable weather. It could only have been visible from an outer pocket in the Astrakhan overcoat, but who on earth would keep a handkerchief visible there? And even if it was visible, he couldn't notice and memorize it in addition to all the other stuff he claimed to have noticed and memorized in those conditions. Claiming that maybe he was one of those extra-specially amazingly gifted people who have that brilliant capacity is a exceptionally pointless argument. It's like me saying it's "not totally impossible" that a hippo lives somewhere under my house. A productive and laudable thing to argue about? Hardly.

You miss the point again about the ability to discern the colour red in those conditions. It has nothing to do with distance, and everything to do with the fact that the alleged sighting took place in darkness with a negligle amount of arteficial light. It doesn't matter how close you are. It will only show up as a shade, especially if we're dealing with such a small surface area.

So you're settling for an amicable agreement to the effect that it was "in all probability bogus", yes? Good. Onwards...

Best regards,
Ben

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

When was the latest edition of A-Z published?
'Fleming' has no entry at all in my copy.

I believe Mark King initially presented his research in Ripperana nr 13, but i think from some in-depth discussions here on a couple of threads not too long ago that it finally was fairly established - although not with 100% absolute certainty - that Fleming and 'John Evans' were one and the same. At least the indications are very strong that this was the case.

All the best

Hi Glenn,

My edition is 1996 - don't know if this is the latest. I recall someone saying that a new edition is due out some time this year. I hope so - mine's falling apart.

Cheers,

Graham

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Bob,

I actually disagree about there not being any sign of struggle in the Kelly murder.
In fact, the crime scene, the large amount of blood and medical evidence (evidence of possible blood-filled defense marks on one hand) suggests that the killer's approach in Miller's Court was quite different.

To explain away anomalies with the argument that he just had to change because the venue was different is to make things too easy. One also has to take other things into consideration, like the victim's personal circuits etc. and who had a possible motive. I am sure you are aware of that most murders invoving terrible mutilations and dehumanization as extreme as those in the Kelly murder are in fact often personal and domestics, regardless of how many serial killers walking around at the same time.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn,

My edition is 1996 - don't know if this is the latest. I recall someone saying that a new edition is due out some time this year. I hope so - mine's falling apart.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

Mine is a paperback edition from 1994, so that could be why. In mine Fleming has no entry at all.

From what I've heard, there will most likely not be a new edition for quite a long time, because of things happening with Sutton (the publishers who apparently were involved).

All the best

[Observer]

Hi

Kelly a domestic killing? That is a murder carried out by a spouse, boyfriend, friend or family member during a spat, an argument, an altercation.

Ok a domestic, but I'll tell you what I wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of such a person, and I am taking into account that this particular domestic murderer intended to make Kelly's murder look as if Jack the Ripper was responsible.

I'd like anyone who believes Kelly's murder to have been a domestic affair to read carefully the injuries inflicted upon the poor defenceless Kelly. The domestic murder camp would have us believe that these injuries were carried out by an acquintance of Kelly's. If so, the perpetrator was as crazed as Jack the Ripper, certainly as depraved. Breasts cut off, liver removed, placed as if by design between the legs, the abdominal flesh cut off and placed on a table, flesh hacked from the arms and legs, tiny little intricate injuries inflicted, including the eyebrows being removed.

In short, I do not believe an acquintance of Kelly's would have gone to the lenghts he did in order to fit Jack the ripper up for the murder,surely a throat cutting, with some abdominal mutilations would have done the trick?


Read the injuries, isn't this the result of someone who seems to be enjoying himself? An individual who had limited time in his previous murder's yet still managed to carry out extensive mutilations,an individual who this time around had time a plenty to carry out his bloody mutilations.

all the best

Observer

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi

Kelly a domestic killing? That is a murder carried out by a spouse, boyfriend, friend or family member during a spat, an argument, an altercation.

Ok a domestic, but I'll tell you what I wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of such a person, and I am taking into account that this particular domestic murderer intended to make Kelly's murder look as if Jack the Ripper was responsible.

I'd like anyone who believes Kelly's murder to have been a domestic affair to read carefully the injuries inflicted upon the poor defenceless Kelly. The domestic murder camp would have us believe that these injuries were carried out by an acquintance of Kelly's. If so, the perpetrator was as crazed as Jack the Ripper, certainly as depraved. Breasts cut off, liver removed, placed as if by design between the legs, the abdominal flesh cut off and placed on a table, flesh hacked from the arms and legs, tiny little intricate injuries inflicted, including the eyebrows being removed.

In short, I do not believe an acquintance of Kelly's would have gone to the lenghts he did in order to fit Jack the ripper up for the murder,surely a throat cutting, with some abdominal mutilations would have done the trick?

Absolute not, Observer.
It is you who need to read up on things, and I am afraid you may have totally misinterpreted the driving forces that lay behind serious domestic murders.
Fact is , that there exists many examples all over the world (including my home country) of domestic murders that are just as horrific as the Kelly murder, if not worse, perpetrated by seemingly 'normal' spouses, but who for some reason is subjected to a psychotic episode. I myself have seen numerous crime scenes, where the perpetrator has shown to be a known male aquaintance to the victim.
Fact is, that domestic murders at their worst can be among the absolute most terrible ones, because there is a personal element in them, and I think you can get that verified from policemen who have walked into such crime scenes and investigateds uch murders themselves first hand.

For these subjects I often recommend Vernon J. Geberth's crime manual Practical Homicide Investigation, where he describes examples of this, and also points out that the main lement sin such domestic murders are 'dehumanization (destruction of the face), massive overkill and post mortem mutilation.'

There may be other reasons for ruling out the Kelly murder as a domestic, but the seriousness of the mutilations is definitely not it. In fact, those very excessive injuries is exactly what I would expect from a domestic murder involving mutilation.

So if you belong to those who believe that only a mad lust killer can do those kinds of crimes you may have to revise that view a bit.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Fact is , that there exists many examples all over the world (including my home country) of domestic murders that are just as horrific as the Kelly murder, if not worse, perpetrated by seemingly 'normal' spouses, but who for some reason is subjected to a psychotic episode.

But aren't these isolated episodes, Glenn? How many one-off domestic mutilation murders happen in conjunction with a series of such murders? In other words, how many domestic murderers resort to such extreme mutilation when there's another extreme mutilation murderer in town?

[Observer]

OK Glenn, so Kelly's murderer mutilated Kelly from pure spite, he was not emulating Jack the Ripper to escape detection?

Could you provide me with the details of a single domestic murder in which the injuries were as bad or worse than those carried out on Mary Kelly?

all the best

Observer

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

But aren't these isolated episodes, Glenn? How many one-off domestic mutilation murders happen in conjunction with a series of such murders? In other words, how many domestic murderers resort to such extreme mutilation when there's another extreme mutilation murderer in town?

Hi Sam,

I think that's a strange question, because if a number of gruesome murders, widely reported in the papers and affecting people's minds (as we know they did, judging from the 600 rather morbid letters from the general public), happened in the area, wouldn't it actually be MORE likely that domestic murder of such dignity would happen?

Besides, we know that other gruesome murderers, possibly mutiple murderers were at large before, during and after the ripper murders, so it's hardly a problem. On the contrary.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

OK Glenn, so Kelly's murderer mutilated Kelly from pure spite, he was not emulating Jack the Ripper to escape detection?

Could you provide me with the details of a single domestic murder in which the injuries were as bad or worse than those carried out on Mary Kelly?

all the best

Observer

No, Observer, personally I don't think he deliberately tried to copy Jack the Ripper in order to avoid detection (but of course, I wouldn't rule out anything), although he may have been affected by the news of the Ripper murders.

As for other examples, I have done this thousands of time on this website and I am beginning to grow tired of people not reading the thousands threads already existing on the subject. You have of course examples like Buck Ruxton, James Greenacre etc., not to mention Bury etc. and although some of them are not as excessive as the Kelly murder, they are gruesome enough and perfectly viable to illustrate what spouses are capable of - I have posted this now for over two or three years, and to be honest, for anyone who has some knowledge about murders are well aware of that the domestic ones often are the worst ones. It shouldn't really be any news flash.
The worst cases I have come across, however, are national ones performed in Sweden - I have come across them thanks to having some connection with the Swedish police force. And they were certainly not a pleasant sight.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Glenn,

I think that's a strange question, because if a number of gruesome murders, widely reported in the papers and affecting people's minds... happened in the area, wouldn't it actually be MORE likely that domestic murder of such dignity would happen?

I'm not sure it follows that an extreme murderer would "inspire" domestic murderers to behave in an even more extreme fashion than them. For instance, I don't recall reading of English northerners attacking their wives and girlfriends with ball-pein hammers and screwdrivers at the height of the Yorkshire Ripper scare - let alone taking things further with such implements than even Sutcliffe had.