MJK Murder Oddities

[Wickerman]

.....if we're prepared to accept that he could change the type of venue, we ought to make the same sort of allowances for the manner in which he approached them. If not, I'm afraid you're giving "Kelly wasn't a ripper victim" theorists with a stick to beat you with...

This view has more to do with upholding some tradition than being objective with the known evidence. Kelly's murder is, to some degree, held as the epitome of the Jack the Ripper killings, and yet, in this murder, more so than any other, the differences are so untypical from what has gone before. So much so that we are compelled to view this particular murder with what maybe an unpopular yet unbiased eye and read the evidence for what it suggests rather than defend the more popular myopic interpretation.

.....
If we have examples of serial killers entering homes and surprising their victims as they slept, the type of victim isn't of immediate relevance. They probably reasoned that a sleeping victim was easier to murder that an awake one, and that will hold true of prostitutes and non-prostitutes alike.

More than one problem with this, anyone living in this environment knew that several people shared accomodation, Kelly had been living with Barnett up until the previous week. Maria Harvey then stayed with her Monday & Tues. night. Residents were coming and going at all hours to different houses, e.g., Sarah Lewis visiting No. 2 at 2:30 am.
Breaking in while 'any number of occupants' were presumed to be sleeping is a risky endeavour. How did the intruder know there was only one occupant?
Breaking and entering is not the typical JtR modus operandii. You are perhaps unduly influenced by modern serial killers who can break into premises silently because modern homes have windows that open quietly once unlocked, not so with Kelly's door, and we don't even know if her window opened at all.
The mechanic's of such scenario's need to be thought through not just thrown together willy-nilly, "Bundy did it today so Jack could have done it yesterday!!"

[Sam Flynn]

I'd say there were enough witnesses to arrive at a reasonably informed conclusion as to the likely degree of activity in #13.

I can't see how one can believe that, Ben, when one considers that Kelly was ripped apart that morning and - out of all the residents of Miller's Court - only two women and a cat seem to have heard anything. Furthermore, they might have nicked their stories off one another, cat excepted. In addition, Kelly was singing rather loudly before 1am, but only three witnesses seem to have reported it, whilst another (cat-woman) heard nothing at all, despite her being there or thereabouts at around the right time.

[Ben]

And as I've pointed out before, there were precious few witnesses in a position to confirm that there was or wasn't anyone in there with Kelly after 1.00am

And I've tended to disagree.

It wasn't as though there was an entire army of nosey-neighbours outside the door, but between Kelly's close neighbours (whether they were inside or to-ing and fro-ing), I'd say there were enough witnesses to arrive at a reasonably informed conclusion as to the likely degree of activity in #13.

I wouldn't say that nobody witnessed his arrival. He may well have been seen at or near the crime scene.

Best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I've said before - and without wishing to engage in an interminable debate along those lines again - I'd also expect at least some indications of a client in the room with Kelly after 1.00am as there was with the Blotchy man, but there wasn't.

And as I've pointed out before, there were precious few witnesses in a position to confirm that there was or wasn't anyone in there with Kelly after 1.00am. Unless Blotchy was her killer, there quite evidently was somebody else in there at some point, but - assuming Hutchinson was wrong - nobody witnessed his arrival. Hardly surprising, given the lateness of the hour and the paucity of witnesses.

[Wickerman]

Hi WM,
As to the first, I think it's pretty easy to envisage her undressing to go to sleep, and then being woken by one of Jack McC's punters that he'd sent down there since he knew he'd be needing some rent from Mary pdq.

Did I just understand you right??, are you suggesting this otherwise unseen, unknown, stealth-like nemesis of neglect has now arranged to have his next victim served to him on a platter so to speak by her pimp? (witness, witness, witness!!!).
Jack the Ripper has now given his identity and whereabouts to some backstreet landlord who can run straight to the peelers and hand him over ($$$$$) after her remains are seen to be served up for breakfast at sunrise?


I must have missunderstood you..

[Ben]

The idea that Kelly went meekly to bed at 1AM when other streetwalkers in Miller's Court and elsewhere were known to be up and about for some time afterwards

Except we know that at least one Miller's Court prostitute was venturing out into the small hours and wasn't bringing clients home. I'm not sure where "meekly" comes from, but according to Mrs. Cox, Kelly was heavily intoxicated and potentially in no good condition to a) care a great deal about her rent arrears (which McCarthy allowed to climb to the lofty figure it did), or b) venture out again on a miserable night when the pickings were slim. As I've said before - and without wishing to engage in an interminable debate along those lines again - I'd also expect at least some indications of a client in the room with Kelly after 1.00am as there was with the Blotchy man, but there wasn't.

Regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Not if Kelly met him on the street, and took him somewhere else to do what ever business she had in mind - which seems "incredibly reasonable" to me

Indeed, but no more so than the alternative I suggested.

The idea that Kelly went meekly to bed at 1AM when other streetwalkers in Miller's Court and elsewhere were known to be up and about for some time afterwards, whilst possible, seems less reasonable on balance than the usual view. That is, that a known street-walker, in desperate rent arrears, seen taking a man back to her room that very night, did the very same a little later - thus meeting a killer who had shown previous "form" in picking up his victims in the street.

[Ben]

Jack had changed the type of venue several times already - an open street, a back yard, a secluded square. To him, and arguably his victims, these were little more than "places to work" - ditto Kelly's private room

Yes, but not to the comparatively radical extent that he decided for forgo outdoor kills altogether in favour of killing the victim in her home. I'm not, for a moment, suggesting that this points to an assailant other than JTR, but a fairly drastic change in venue can quite plausibly call for a difference in approach as it does with other serialists. Even if the venue changes weren't in place, we know that serial killer aren't exactly robotic in the manner in which they approach their target - far from it.

Not if Kelly met him on the street, and took him somewhere else to do what ever business she had in mind - which seems "incredibly reasonable" to me

Indeed, but no more so than the alternative I suggested.

Holding up Bundy, say, as an example of a killer who picked up women outdoors but who once attacked a bunch of preppy girls in their dorm might indeed reflect the type of victim he coveted

Yes, but alternatively, it could have been his preferred approach to indoor targets as it afforded him a greater chance of evading capture. When it came to outdoor attacks, Bundy inveigled his victims using false guises, but when it came to indoor attacks, it was boring old breaking and entering.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Nor does killing indoors, Gareth, but if we're prepared to accept that he could change the type of venue.

Jack had changed the type of venue several times already - an open street, a back yard, a secluded square. To him, and arguably his victims, these were little more than "places to work" - ditto Kelly's private room.

If not, I'm afraid you're giving "Kelly wasn't a ripper victim" theorists with a stick to beat you with.

Not if Kelly met him on the street, and took him somewhere else to do what ever business she had in mind - which seems "incredibly reasonable" to me, given Kelly's incontestable status as a prostitute.

If we have examples of serial killers entering homes and killing victims in their sleep, the type of victim isn't of immediate relevance.

I don't hold with the idea of a "serial killer" as a "species" in its own right - each killer is largely different from another, and each has his own quirks. Holding up Bundy, say, as an example of a killer who picked up women outdoors but who once attacked a bunch of preppy girls in their dorm might indeed reflect the type of victim he coveted, rather than something we might expect to find repeated in others who belong to the same coarse-grained descriptive category.

[Ben]

Unfortunately, Ben, it doesn't appear to be consistent with Jack's

Nor does killing indoors, Gareth, but if we're prepared to accept that he could change the type of venue, we ought to make the same sort of allowances for the manner in which he approached them. If not, I'm afraid you're giving "Kelly wasn't a ripper victim" theorists with a stick to beat you with.

or any other murderer of street-walkers that I can recall

If we have examples of serial killers entering homes and surprising their victims as they slept, the type of victim isn't of immediate relevance. They probably reasoned that a sleeping victim was easier to murder that an awake one, and that will hold true of prostitutes and non-prostitutes alike.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

The idea that Kelly was surprised by her killer as she slept is an incredibly reasonable one, and quite consistent with what we know of other serial killer behaviour.

Unfortunately, Ben, it doesn't appear to be consistent with Jack's - or any other murderer of street-walkers that I can recall.

[Ben]

I think it's pretty easy to envisage her undressing to go to sleep, and then being woken

Indeed, Claire - very safe indeed.

The idea that Kelly was surprised by her killer as she slept is an incredibly reasonable one, and quite consistent with what we know of other serial killer behaviour.

Best regards,
Ben

[claire]

What I find more difficult to envisage is Mary undressing on a cold and wet November night just to pose on her bed while Jack stands in the shadows in his top hat and cape...


Sex was the entire premise for all the Whitechapel Murders, why do you think the killer(s) approached prostitutes?

Hi WM,

As to the first, I think it's pretty easy to envisage her undressing to go to sleep, and then being woken by one of Jack McC's punters that he'd sent down there since he knew he'd be needing some rent from Mary pdq.

Regarding the second, I agree with Gareth that this was a simple expediency. If sex was indeed the entire premise, then there isn't really a need to focus just on prostitutes (such as they even were prostitutes), other than expediency. A killer would know that, however undesirable he might look, he'd a fair chance of persuading one of these unfortunates into a relatively secluded place. And, as discussed on another thread, a sexual motive doesn't require conventional sexual contact...murder was the entire premise for the Whitechapel Murders: it may be a tautology, but there it is. And, to commit a murder, it's not necessary to wait on someone's being in the right position.

[Wickerman]

It strikes me that old men might still put up a better fight than a frail, small-framed woman.

Well, if there was no visible signs of a struggle (Bonds report, excluding Kelly), and yet they were strangled (or otherwise subdued and laid out), then the initial attack could have been from behind, and most likely was - therefore, the killer had nothing to fear by way of resistance from man or woman, his approach circumvents that possibility.

[Sam Flynn]

Certainly they were, but so were old men, and what easier target than an old drunk staggering home after the pubs close?

It strikes me that old men might still put up a better fight than a frail, small-framed woman. Besides the salient point is that, simply because a particular sex is targeted, doesn't mean that the killer had a sexual intent, nor does it mean that all the victims were prostituting themselves when killed. They were frail and middle aged, out on the streets, desperate, vulnerable and alone.