Definitely canonical

[DVV]

Abberline dismissed him for a good reason and a reason we dont know

Hi Malcolm,
if we don't know the reason, we don't know that it was a good one.

Amitiés,
David

[Nothing to see]

yes maybe.... we just dont have enough to go on do we

because all you're likely to get is another Maybrick in 3 years time, thus any evidence to be believed by us lot has to be ``concrete proof``
and there isn't any; or it would've been discovered 50 years ago!

What pity CCTV didn't in 1888! You can't move around central London without having your photo snapped every few mins.

[Malcolm X]

Sorry. I don't believe Blotchy Face and I don't believe Hutchinson as suspects. Someone else again. Jack.

yes maybe.... we just dont have enough to go on do we

because all you're likely to get is another Maybrick in 3 years time, thus any evidence to be believed by us lot has to be ``concrete proof``
and there isn't any; or it would've been discovered 50 years ago!

[Nothing to see]

Sorry. I don't believe Blotchy Face and I don't believe Hutchinson as suspects. Someone else again. Jack.

[Malcolm X]

He really hasn't looked any more or less innocent than he did 120 years ago, Mal.

yea' i suppose so (shrug)

even so, i'm not as convinced as i once was.....he's too young at only 22 and it looks like he's the real Hutch as well.......but S.Lewis mentions no age of the man she saw outside....so i've no idea what to say...but S.Lewis could've easily have identified HUTCH later, so it's a huge risk for H to come forward if he wasn't the man outside.

Abberline dismissed him for a good reason and a reason we dont know

did Hutch see the Ripper or did he make it all up.......too soon to say, but i very much doubt that he's Jack the Ripper...because only a bloody fool would go to the police if he was the Ripper...way too risky.

the ripper was probably Blotchy face, because he's a close match for Broadshoulders and maybe Lawende too ( but he'd definitely need to change his clothes for this to work, the Lawende suspect is too slim as well)

but it's too early to say yet, i'm just thinking aloud right now

[Nothing to see]

That means you buy into Bond and others theories...despite the fact that less than a year later Bond suggests Alice McKenzie didnt belong to Jack because her killer lacked skill and knowledge...the very observations he suggested Jack the Ripper victims did not display the previous Fall...disagreeing with the Senior Medical opinion of the men that actually examined the victims personally...Bond only did one Canonical autopsy.

The murder in room 13 was likely committed by someone that knew Mary based on the circumstantial evidence...and that potential connection could address much of the violent and angry components seen in her murder and no others. Perhaps even spiteful acts, like sticking organs around her and under her head.

I would think a crime of passion and a murder with clinical disposition make 2 entirely different crime scenes....like Marys was compared with the more clinical murder-extractions done outdoors.

Best regards

Hi. I don't buy into any theories except one. There was a sexually motivated serial killer prowling Whitechapel in 1888 and he killed 5 women. The doctors squabbled among themselves and let's face it, they couldn't even differentiate between human and animal blood until 1902? I think, so I tend to believe that's professional rivalry raising it's head.

You say based on circumstantial evidence and you're right. You look at MJK's crime scene and see passion and jealousy. I look at MJK's crime scene and see a serial killer with the greatest luxury he'd ever had - time on his hands. And he used it.

No-one saw Jack go into Mitre Sq with Eddowes and no-one saw Jack go into Miller's Ct with Kelly. I see Jack as disorganised, a risk taker and he was. I don't see anything clinical about Jack's murders but then I don't buy into doctor theories. I see Jack becoming more and more disturbed, pushing the boundaries every time (except of course for Stride, where he was disturbed). H'm, hope I haven't gone off topic.

Anyway, MJK Jack's last canonical victim. IMO.

[Ben]

but it might not be as easy as this, because since i've returned to this forum, HUTCH is starting to look more innocent every day.

He really hasn't looked any more or less innocent than he did 120 years ago, Mal.

[Malcolm X]

From my perspective Mal, Mary may well have been asleep....heard a tap on the window or the door, or the door opening itself...she exclaims "oh-murder" when she sees who it is, and lets him in while she slides back onto the bed. Maybe she even expected him to perhaps pop in that night....the "oh-murder" is just her way of saying...."at almost 4am you show up?"

I believe at this point she is killed due to a momentary loss of self control by a man who resorts to violence when arguing with a woman, and when he regains some control, he does what he thinks will help him escape suspicion for this murder....by making her a bloody Ripping mess. The acts that we see that are not required.....such as skin flaps from the abdomen to remove and then leave abdominal organs...flesh taken from bone, Marys face, organs set aside....are to me indications that he performed acts that have no purpose. So why did her do them?

Cause he is now indoors and can take some time to just fool around? Maybe

Cause he is experimenting with new acts and sensations? Maybe

Cause he has always had a strong desire to cut flesh with a knife, despite the deliberate abdominal nature of some of his earlier crimes, they were just unfulfilled cutting fantasies until Mary? Maybe

Cause he was doing things that meant nothing to him personally but were to only create an illusion of a madman? Maybe

Cause he wasnt Jack the Ripper, and the focus that was seen in Ripper victims wasnt his focus? Maybe.

Theres far too many "maybe's" to address before anyone can state with any authority that Jack Killed Mary.

Best regards

well if you favour a break in, or a surprise visit at this time from a friend then this could point towards Hutch, because we've already proven in the past on this forum, that his lurking outside is perfect for a 4am break in; in fact his tactics are a requirement, there's no other way to be sure that she's at home or even on her own, the killer has to wait outside as per Hutch.

but it might not be as easy as this, because since i've returned to this forum, HUTCH is starting to look more innocent every day.

[Sam Flynn]

Cause he is now indoors and can take some time to just fool around? Maybe

Cause he has always had a strong desire to cut flesh with a knife, despite the deliberate abdominal nature of some of his earlier crimes, they were just unfulfilled cutting fantasies until Mary? Maybe

Cause he was doing things that meant nothing to him personally but were to only create an illusion of a madman? Maybe

Cause he wasnt Jack the Ripper, and the focus that was seen in Ripper victims wasnt his focus? Maybe.

Theres far too many "maybe's" to address before anyone can state with any authority that Jack Killed Mary.

Precisely the same arguments can be used against any of the other canonical victims, Mike, provided you apply the same loaded and arbitrary assertions - which I've highlighted in bold/red type for convenience.

This one is commendably neutral, however, and might have applied in some or any of the previous murders: "Cause he is experimenting with new acts and sensations? Maybe"

Turning all this on its head, you've missed the biggest one of all, namely:

"There was someone else capable of such an appalling act of disembowelment and mutilation at large in that part of town at that time? Maybe."

From my perspective Mal, Mary may well have been asleep....heard a tap on the window or the door, or the door opening itself...she exclaims "oh-murder" when she sees who it is, and lets him in while she slides back onto the bed. Maybe she even expected him to perhaps pop in that night....the "oh-murder" is just her way of saying...."at almost 4am you show up?"

I believe at this point she is killed due to a momentary loss of self control by a man who resorts to violence when arguing with a woman, and when he regains some control, he does what he thinks will help him escape suspicion for this murder....by making her a bloody Ripping mess. The acts that we see that are not required.....such as skin flaps from the abdomen to remove and then leave abdominal organs...flesh taken from bone, Marys face, organs set aside....are to me indications that he performed acts that have no purpose. So why did her do them?

Cause he is now indoors and can take some time to just fool around? Maybe

Cause he is experimenting with new acts and sensations? Maybe

Cause he has always had a strong desire to cut flesh with a knife, despite the deliberate abdominal nature of some of his earlier crimes, they were just unfulfilled cutting fantasies until Mary? Maybe

Cause he was doing things that meant nothing to him personally but were to only create an illusion of a madman? Maybe

Cause he wasnt Jack the Ripper, and the focus that was seen in Ripper victims wasnt his focus? Maybe.

Theres far too many "maybe's" to address before anyone can state with any authority that Jack Killed Mary.

Best regards

[Malcolm X]

I think the accurate way to frame that might be that in the case of Mary Kelly, the above seems to have merit.

But remember...there is only one Canonical victim that is killed in completely different circumstances to the others, circumstances that implied someone known to her as her killer.....none of the 4 others have that kind of circumstantial evidence present.

That the killer arrived in the middle of the night doesnt suggest pre-meditation, unless he was trying to catch her asleep....he could have gone there to kill her, or gone there just to confront her or even just sleep with her, and it turned violent when he got answers he didnt like.

Random is a tricky term....a random choice to kill spur of the moment, or randomly choosing who to kill.

Best regards

it could also be that the Ripper knew Kelly as a friend.......but not the other victims....it seems strange that Kelly was singing in her room for so long to a total stranger, but this friend; might have only known KELLY for two weeks!

i find it hard to imagine this killer as a Copycat, but a friend yes... HUTCH was supposedly a friend too, but at only 22 years old this is a real problem.... even if all suspect descriptions are 50% inaccurate.

my guess is the killer is either Blotchy face, Hutchinson, or Mary went out again........ least likely is Mary going out again.

if HUTCH killed her, he almost definitely broke in close to 4am... after stalking her outside.........but how BLOTCHY met Kelly on the street is a real mystery, my guess is he waited outside her ``local pub``, waited for her to leave, with beer in his hands as a lure to get him into her room...or as a new friend in her life, that just so happens to be walking by...or her new friend arranged to go for a drink with her that night, from the previous day...who knows!

least likely is.....the killer was getting drunk with Kelly in a local pub, far too many witnesses, but he could've been standing at the bar, while KELLY was in the corner with her friends, shouting her mouth off and getting drunk.... she left, he quickly brought beer from the landlord and followed her...... this feels a bit creepy, so maybe!

now unless the Ripper was a total oddball, it's likely that he went into pubs, probably before he started stalking the streets.... did he go into a pub near KELLY's place and suddenly take note of her sitting in the corner........ no idea!

i favour him choosing her as a victim a couple of weeks before

I have absolutely no doubt that JTR was "a friend,a trusted one",etc.
These were not random murders.

I think the accurate way to frame that might be that in the case of Mary Kelly, the above seems to have merit.

But remember...there is only one Canonical victim that is killed in completely different circumstances to the others, circumstances that implied someone known to her as her killer.....none of the 4 others have that kind of circumstantial evidence present.

That the killer arrived in the middle of the night doesnt suggest pre-meditation, unless he was trying to catch her asleep....he could have gone there to kill her, or gone there just to confront her or even just sleep with her, and it turned violent when he got answers he didnt like.

Random is a tricky term....a random choice to kill spur of the moment, or randomly choosing who to kill.

Best regards

[Mr.Hyde]

I have absolutely no doubt that JTR was "a friend,a trusted one",etc.
These were not random murders.

[Malcolm X]

The murder in room 13 was likely committed by someone that knew Mary based on the circumstantial evidence...and that potential connection could address much of the violent and angry components seen in her murder and no others. Perhaps even spiteful acts, like sticking organs around her and under her head.

I would think a crime of passion and a murder with clinical disposition make 2 entirely different crime scenes....like Marys was compared with the more clinical murder-extractions done outdoors.

Best regards

yes this could be so.. GLENN used to argue in favour of this too, i know that OUIJA board is probably a load of crap, but it said Kelly was murdered by a friend/ a trusted one/ a dear one, nearly all the time... quite a few boards said the same thing..

now if this hoax Ouija Board was gathering info off ``GOOGLE`` etc, it should have said THE RIPPER. yea' yea' i know what you're thinking, but some answers from that OUIJA board were very creepy indeed.

especially when i deleted it from ``BOOKMARKS`` the previous day and the next.... it was back on the screen again, i almost died of fright when i saw it.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

On your point 1 above, it was suggested by senior medical opinion that the killer of Annie did what he did specifically to obtain her uterus, and removing a kidney through the victims front is not what a slash and grab artist would get from Kate.

Well, he wasn't going to get hold of much else by opening their abdomens, was he?

On point 2, you dont see any difference between just removal and removal and theft of organs

I honestly don't. Besides, he "thieved" Kelly's heart, did he not? Presumably because "it was there" for the taking - much the same as Eddowes' kidney.

Once again youve categorized the killer as a man who simply cuts anywhere-anytime, takes any random organ he decides to on the spot

Isn't that what Jack did? He was hardly going to be able to cart Chapman's and Eddowes' intestines away with him, was he? I mean, he was in the wrong part of town for one thing - had he chosen Limehouse, at least he might have tried to get away by shoving them over his head and passing himself as a Chinese dragon.

On point 3, again, Annies flaps were to make an abdominal entry point that he could use to enter the abdomen and to remove and take the uterus and partial bladder.

What else is he going to take?

On point 4, the only people who imagine that what Jack the Ripper really wanted ultimately was just to cut and stick his hands in corpses, are the people that believe he killed Kelly.

It has nothing to do with Kelly. It's not as if Nichols', Chapman's and Eddowes' killer had an aversion to sticking his hands into women's innards.


A metaphor, by way of making a general point: Lifting one's line of sight tends to allow one to see better, and further ahead.