Kelly's Killer

[Henry Flower]

Tunnocks! Ohmygod Tunnocks! MmmmmmmMMMMMMM!

Anyone want to start a Tunnocks thread? Let's face it, SPE is right - we'll never definitively name the Ripper, so why don't we just compare notes on biscuits instead?

I know, it's kinda off topic, but....

Maybe not: Thomas Tunnock started his company just two years after the Ripper murders. Can anyone PROVE that the murders didn't stop because Thomas Tunnock had begun planning the world's finest wafer biscuits and stickiest teacakes? That's one heck of a distraction. I'm not saying Tunnock was definitely the Ripper, but he wasn't dead at the time and I have yet to read any serious author who has solid proof that he wasn't the Whitechapel murderer. That's usually evidence enough for a Ripper paperback isn't it?

[Henry Flower]

Carol, I'm so sorry. I can't do that.

I want to eat them. All of them.

Just me.

[caz]

So far nobody has come forward with a PLAUSIBLE reason to discount Mary Kelly as a Ripper victim ( which is what I want).
so Sad
Keep Well
Jimi

Hi Jimi,

Unfortunately I can't see that happening. I've been around these boards since the dawn of time - okay, since the end of 1998 - and I've seen a million reasons offered, but none of them plausible.

Another strange argument I keep seeing lately (kicked off by ex poster Perry Mason I think) is that we can't be dealing with a lone serial killer because this kind of thinking has got us nowhere over 120+ years. In fact I believe the opposite to be true. Only a serial killer would have been this hard to identify, not having been caught in the act, or later with any incriminating evidence; not having left any crucial clues behind (like the Blackout Ripper for instance); not having confessed; having no clearcut motive or any tangible connection with any of the victims.

Conversely, individual murders committed for conventional motives such as jealousy, revenge, financial gain and so on, are generally cleared up pretty quickly - especially domestic murders - yet not a single Whitechapel murder has produced a really strong suspect or likely motive, and not one of them is any nearer being solved today than it was back in the day.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Henry,

I'm afraid you will still have to take my word for things, although I will happily provide you with more food for thought:

a) It was a Tunnocks chocolate wafer biscuit, which requires unwrapping before demolishing.

b) It is fair to say the ferocity of my attacks is at top whack every time I unwrap a fresh Tunnocks and I demolish it in seconds, usually with a nise cuppa Typhoo.

c) What made me select this biscuit and not another biscuit? Because the Jammy Dodgers from Christmas are all gone and yes, I just take my chances and eat whatever is left in the fridge until my next trip to Tesco. Usually it's a Tunnocks.

d) I rarely have to abandon a biscuit, but yes I would devour the next biscuit as soon as poss thereafter, with the same level of pleasure.

e) It's nonsense to suggest I dipped my finger in the chocolate last time and wrote the initials of a former love on the wall near the ripped open packet. I left those initials on the wall of the British Legion club and used the wrapper to wipe my bum on. (Don't fall for that old chestnut - Ed.)

f) I think you are right. I am the woman who will be blamed for eating biscuits until I'm caught or I die. Or my partner scoffs them all first.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

But don't you think this mght have been because he couldn't get to those bits in the previous killings or he didn't have time to attack them? And with the exception of Stride, all of the women had the womb area and the pubic area attacked to some extent. Also, Eddowes was facially attacked - that's pretty personal.

Maybe. I mean, clearly I don't know I'm going on instinct mostly. But It's certainly possible that JtR could have had the time with his victims to at least make token forays into the Kelly level of mutilation. So lets say the primary targets of a sexual attack are the obvious places associated with sex, sex organs, breasts and mouth (clearly there are exceptions, but these involve decapitation and dismemberment, so we'll put that aside).

For the victims previous to Kelly, with the exception of Eddowes, the external genitalia was untouched. Eddowes has a long slash that starts at the hip and divides the (right?) external labia from the pubis. But had the external genitalia been targeted, there would be no reason to start at the hip, and one would expect further mutilation. Given the length and depth of the slash, I'm confident that it was a skip. That the knife hit something, skipped over and the force carried it across. So with the previous murders, there is no purposeful mutilation of the most obvious target.

Kelly on the other hand had her external genitalia ravaged. Which doesn't require really anything in terms of time or effort.

When a killer takes a uterus, it can be sexual. It can also be an attack on the organs of generation, like a revenge based hysterectomy or something. If it's a fetish, then that is essentially the motive. Whatever else he gets out killing these women, it's the uterus he's after. But if it's some sort of revenge or mommy thing, then the uterus is still the motive. And he's careful with it. He takes the uterus, takes care to remove it intact, but leaves the vagina which is an odd choice for a sexually charged crime.

Kelly's uterus was removed, but it wasn't taken. If I recall it was under her head. What we don't know is what happened to the vagina. The intimation is that literally everything was taken out. But if the vagina had been attached to the uterus, one would think that would be noted, since that would be new. And no separate mention is made as far as I know, so it may be AWOL. That would be a very significant difference. As is the fact that he left the uterus at the scene.

In the previous murders, their breasts and mouths were untouched. Except Eddowes who had her lips cut when he cut off her nose. But again, it isn't purposeful. Now the breasts are easy to get to, being right there on the chest. And as he had a knife, with a minimal amount of effort he could have exposed them and mutilated them. Or not exposed them and stabbed at them. But evidently they might as well have not existed.

Kelly's breasts were excised, and her lips were cubed.

The facial mutilations of Eddowes and Kelly seem similar, but they really arent. Eddowes was essentially drawn on with a knife. Specific cuts were made that altered her features, and probably completely obscured her face in blood. Kelly's face was obliterated. And a completely different technique was used. She had parts cut off, almost flensed, and everything else came from long crossing slashes. Both mutilations would have taken roughly the same amount of time. If I had to guess, I would say that Eddowes looked like someone Jack didn't want to "watch" while he killed so he disfigures her just enough to obscure the resemblance. Kelly on the other hand I would say was being punished. He took her face, something she would have been proud of, and something that quite possibly was one of the problems.

Kelly is also the only one on whom any attempt at dismemberment was made. Her killer took her heart, which is intensely symbolic, and left her eyes intact, quite purposefully. The facial mutilations would have been easier if allowed her eyes to be cut, but he specifically cut around them. Maybe he wanted her to watch.

The thing is, just because a killer mutilates bodies doesn't necessarily mean he wants to do it more. I mean, it is far easier to cut out the entire contents of the abdomen than root around for one organ. He doesn't do that. He seems to have a system. He has goals he wants to achieve, and his method revolves around that. It's entirely possible that you could leave him with the corpse of a woman for two days and he would never do anything more than essentially what he does on the streets. A guy who wants uteri does not necessarily want to rend women down to their component parts. I mean he might, but there's no rule. If part of his thrill was the possibility of discovery, then the last thing he would want is to be in some safe room.

Anyway, Kelly looks like one of those wives who is finally caught by a crazy and abusive ex. The other victims look like abandoned anatomy projects. It just doesn't strike me as the same.

[Carol]

Makes you wonder what else she might be capable of...

I'm off to get myself some Chocolate Hobnobs. That's lunch sorted.

Hello Henry,

Yup - never underestimate our Caz!

Would it put you out too much if you sent a Chocolate Hobnob over here to Sweden with the next pigeon post! Thanks.

Carol

[Limehouse]

Carol and Richard, I couldn't agree more. I didn't mean a word I wrote - I was bored so I pretended to be an idiot for a short while. (It helps me get through the day sometimes).

I always enjoy the speculation, and Caz always gives us food for thought.

I just love chocolate biscuits. She made me want one and I don't have any. Not fair. Evil mind games.

I thought that post was very clever and very funny and I am sure Caz would have enjoyed it almost as much as her chocolate biscuit!

[DVV]

Hi Jimi

So far nobody has come forward with a PLAUSIBLE reason to discount Mary Kelly as a Ripper victim.
Jimi

And that's good news, if you ask me. But some do spread this untenable theory in every thread, as you've certainly observed. Of course, having no plausible reason to back up their mistake, they do not venture on this thread.

[Henry Flower]

Makes you wonder what else she might be capable of...

I'm off to get myself some Chocolate Hobnobs. That's lunch sorted.

[Carol]

Carol and Richard, I couldn't agree more. I didn't mean a word I wrote - I was bored so I pretended to be an idiot for a short while. (It helps me get through the day sometimes).

I always enjoy the speculation, and Caz always gives us food for thought.

I just love chocolate biscuits. She made me want one and I don't have any. Not fair. Evil mind games.

Hello Henry,
I did realise you were joking and actually thought it very amusing. I'm sure Caz did too. Caz's chocolate biscuit made me want one. I don't have any either and I keep thinking about chocolate digestives now. As you say, evil mind games. Caz probably wrote that on purpose just to upset you and me.
Carol

[lynn cates]

hermeneutics

Hello Caroline. Not a bad explanation. Of course, I arrived at JI second hand AFTER figuring out Stride and Eddowes.

Regarding MJK, given her lack of a history, age, speed of inquest, etc. I take it she was one of Sir Ed's girls. Seems, however, that I was scooped on this one. Many have theorised this way before me.

Seems that, besides infecting threads, I am now infecting thinking. good.

Cheers.
LC

[Henry Flower]

Carol and Richard, I couldn't agree more. I didn't mean a word I wrote - I was bored so I pretended to be an idiot for a short while. (It helps me get through the day sometimes).

I always enjoy the speculation, and Caz always gives us food for thought.

I just love chocolate biscuits. She made me want one and I don't have any. Not fair. Evil mind games.

[Carol]

Hi Heinrich.
If only the grave sitting account actually happened.
Two men were present..Joseph Barnett and ?
Let me guess his brother Dan
A male relation [ brother] of Mary Kelly
Joseph Fleming
The list surely ends there.
So if the spitting occurred the culprit most likely was someone with romantic attachment which surely places Joseph Barnett top of the list, he would be the most likely be the mourner left to his own thoughts as the other seven moved away.
Ah if only that happened did such a episode take place, well according to Associated R, they were considering doing a special involving that letter, but it never happened.
So its indeed likely, many have said even if it did occur, the spitting may have been an act of grief, but spitting down on a coffin is more likely to have been out of acute disrespect don't you think?
Regards Richard....I now will visit my flak tower.

Hello Richard,
Many thanks for referring to one more thing I didn't know about the JTR case. My poor head!
I agree with you - acute disrespect or even done through a feeling that Mary was despicable. You have to have been really hurt by someone to feel that, I think.
Carol

[Jimi]

Research

Hi All
Hi Richard
I couldn't agree more with your last post
So................
Hi Heinrich
If you can PROVE Barnett killed please name your sources/evidence.
Hi DVV
What are the clues to Kellys murder being personal that you can see from her body?
Hi Caz
Right! I can only say a have a very good anti-virus package on my pc.
Hi All
So far nobody has come forward with a PLAUSIBLE reason to discount Mary Kelly as a Ripper victim ( which is what I want).
so Sad
Keep Well
Jimi

[Carol]

We can only speculate, discuss alternative views, and hope we hit upon something that can be researched, and who knows possibly discover something exiting, we may even hit a nerve that may encourage someone ''out there'' to release information, maybe from a family member of MJK, or even the killers .
Lets adopt a positive approach.
Regards Richard

Hello Richard,
Extremely well put in my opinion (humble, of course).
Carol