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

[Sam Flynn]

Don't be naive, Sam. You know as well as I do Dan's position on the Kelly murder, as I am sure you know mine.

Be that as it may, Glenn, Dan's quite legitimate point was not about the correctness of the conclusion or otherwise. It was about how information is presented.

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.

Precisely. "Information decreases uncertainty", as we used to say.

I think his initial reaction says a lot, because that's probably what most investigators would say if they saw the crime scene photo. What it does show is that the Ripper context in itself may be deceiving.

Indeed, a cogent observation - but that also applies to taking the context of an indoor location and a body on a bed as signifying a domestic murder.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Don't be naive, Sam. You know as well as I do Dan's position on the Kelly murder, as I am sure you know mine.

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 is strange to talk about 'influence' when the 'influence' most likely came the more information he was given rather than in the beginning.

I think his initial reaction says a lot, because that's probably what most investigators would say if they saw the crime scene photo or walked into a similar crime scene (and he certainly wuldn't be alone in this). What it does show is that the Ripper context in itself may be deceiving.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Or else it could have been the correct one.

Actually, Glenn, Dan's point wasn't so much about the correctness or otherwise of the conclusion, but about the well-attested fact that the manner in which evidence is presented can fundamentally influence a person's judgment.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

In fact his original belief that it might have been a domestic could have been more influenced by the way you presented the information to him in the first place.

Or else it could have been the correct one.

All the best

[rain]

Maybe he was infatuated with Mary Kelly, and she kept rejecting him. Outraged, he takes his anger on the other victims.

He gives her one last chance and again she rejects him. He is now at the point of rage that he kills her in an even more vicious passion than he killed the others.

This is just a theory of course.

[Chava]

Did he know about your belief that the killing was unrelated? If he knew or picked up on it from your responses, he could have just been trying to be polite to you. In fact his original belief that it might have been a domestic could have been more influenced by the way you presented the information to him in the first place.

No, I didn't tell him. And in fact after I spoke with him I began to revise my own opinions. I'm still not sure whether this was a Ripper kill or not, but he did make me entirely rethink my position. And, no, he wasn't being polite. I described the way the body was found first, and the medical findings as to the position when killed. I then went on to describe how the killer might have got into the room although I was careful to let him know she may have let/brought him in there in the course of her evening's work, and then turned to the mutilations etc. He felt that the position of the victim when killed, and the fact that the heart was taken, all pointed to some prior relationship between the victim and the killer. However he said he had never come across such extensive mutilation in a case of straightforward domestic murder. In general, he said, such major work is down to attempts to hide the body etc. So you might get dismembered parts turning up in suitcases, or--as in the case of Dr Crippen--bits of a de-boned body under the cellar floor. He thought that the actual killing blow seemed indicative that the murder was a Ripper crime. He didn't think it likely that a copycat who wanted to kill his girlfriend would have gone to such lengths. Also the mutilation was similar in pattern to what was done to Eddowes. The major differences? The age and appearance of the victim; the location of the crime. It looked to him as if the killer had had one particular type in mind for too long to change so quickly to another without transition. So that was something he couldn't explain without a lot more than I could give him at the time. I pointed him in the general direction of Donald Rumbalow's book and the A-Z. He could probably learn a lot from a good crime-scene photograph, but there isn't one that shows the whole room, and he would want to see other things in the room aside from the body. How and where things were placed, was there any staging of non-body material etc. He wondered whether the clothes on the chair might have been put there by the killer rather than the victim. One thing he looks for in a crime scene is, as he put it, 'one neat thing' amid the chaos. It sounded like those clothes may possibly have been that one thing. He thought the stuff found around Chapman may have been something like that.

After my conversation I went back and looked at as much Kelly material as I could, and then thought long and hard. The profiler said that from what I'd told him, this was an organized killer. And I got to wondering just how organized he was. I looked at the canonical murders differently. I'd always seen Kelly as the anachronism, and that's why I thought she was part of a different crime, or maybe a victim of the same killer but for different reasons. Then I turned the situation on its head. Supposing Kelly was the actual target. Then why weren't other similar women killed ahead of her? Why did he pick on the women he picked on, rather than woman more like Kelly? What struck me immediately was the total defenselessness of the women he killed ahead of Kelly--who may or may not have had a mean right hook, but was certainly bigger, stronger, younger and probably faster than the other four. After looking at the earlier victims something that struck me was the progression. He starts by killing Nicholls. According to the inquest testimony, it looks like he grabbed her with a hand around her mouth and tightly yanked her head back to kill her with his knife. He then slashes around in her abdominal area and leaves. Maybe he's disturbed. Chapman, however, is semi-strangled before he cuts her throat, and it looks like she was almost dead when the cuts were made. Had Nicholls struggled? Maybe he felt it would be easier to use his knife--which is clearly what he wants to do--if the victim is more-or-less dead already. Stride looks like she was strangled first. But a little while later, Eddowes is killed by the knife. There are no signs of strangulation.

And then Kelly, six weeks later.

So that was when I started to wonder if he was practicing. In the way other sks practice on animals before they progress to humans. He wanted that Kelly kill to be everything he had fantasized about, so he had a few rehearsals first. I realize that this is far-fetched, but it does explain the anomalies of victim choice and location choice. The women he killed were so down on their luck that they didn't have any kind of a room to sleep in. They were sick, tired and old. They all drank heavily. And he may well have been on the lookout for a drunken woman when he was trolling, as a drunk wouldn't have been able to put up even token resistance. In fact one of the few things that Kelly has in common with the others, is that she was drunk that night. I think he knew that, and that's why he killed her then.

[dougie]

Hi Chava,

Sorry, I can't go along with this one. It's not like Mary was a professional wrestler or had a black belt in karate.

c.d.

No but wasnt it said somewhere she had a mean left hook if "aroused"?

[Ben]

It's not like Mary was a professional wrestler or had a black belt in karate

They didn't call her "Black Mary" for nothing, CD.

Seriously though, I agree that the earlier victims can't be chalked up purely to practice, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an acquaintance between Kelly and the killer. It depends how he gained entry to Kelly's room. If he was brought in off the street Astrakhan-style, they may have been strangers. If he stalked her before "breaking in" (like Bundy and BTK), there's a stronger argument for an acquaintance of some sort, which wouldn't be unusual, incidentally, given that a prostitute's client base is likely to consist of more then a few familar faces.

But that's without wishing to embark upon another marathon "Did Kelly venure out after blah blah blah..." session.

Best regards,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

He felt very strongly that the Kelly killing was part of the series, but saw immediately the numerous differences.

Yeah, and serial killers often have differences between victims, sometimes major ones.

he couldn't quite understand why those major differences were there, and couldn't come up with a viable reason for them.

Did he say what those alleged major differences were? The only differences I can think of seem relatively minor and very easily explained: Kelly happened to have a room, she brought him there instead of the street like the other prostitutes, Jack could do more there.

Did he know about your belief that the killing was unrelated? If he knew or picked up on it from your responses, he could have just been trying to be polite to you. In fact his original belief that it might have been a domestic could have been more influenced by the way you presented the information to him in the first place.

[joelhall]

personally i think were bordering onto fantasy again with this one.

[c.d.]

Hi Chava,

Sorry, I can't go along with this one. It's not like Mary was a professional wrestler or had a black belt in karate. A sharp knife is a powerful weapon. All the killer had to do was to wait until she fell asleep or was quite drunk. I just can't see the need for practice.

c.d.

[Chava]

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

[Ben]

Seems a very reasonable theory to me, Chava.

Have you read Bob Hinton's book, From Hell? He advances a similar theory, and I'd strongly recommend it.

[Sasha]

Not sure whether this is a new theory. It's certainly not crazy or at least no crazier than mine!

Cheers
Sasha