Kelly's Killer

[Jimi]

I have been asked to start this thread as there seems to be a lot of 'discussion' as to whether Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim.

There are 3 possible scenarios that I can see

1. Stand Alone murder
2. Copycat Murder
3. Ripper Victim

It is a lot easier for me if Kelly wasn't a ripper victim as this would fit in with the theory Joseph Levy recognised his cousin Jacob and put him under some form of house arrest, however I don't really feel like I can justify this as I do think Kelly was a Ripper victim, for me it was a logical escalation.

However there seems to be talk on the boards recently about Kelly not being a Jtr killing, so I thought we could put it together on one thread. If anyone has any thoughts on my 3 scenarios or indeed has some of there own please feel free to add them.

Keep well
Jimi

[caz]

Hi Jimi,

How refreshing to see someone admitting it would fit better with their own theory if only they could justify a conclusion that Mary Kelly's murder was a one-off.

It would be interesting to see what proportion of those who argue for excluding Kelly from the ripper's tally have become wedded to a theory that doesn't really work otherwise. My guess is a very high proportion, because everything about this woman's murder, even without the previous ones, is suggestive to me of an opportunist offender who did what he did for the sheer hell of doing it, ie for no conventional motive.

Look at what Robert Napper did to a woman in her own home and what he had done previously to a woman on Wimbledon Common. These are very rare crimes of violence against women but they do happen and they are documented. Mary Kelly's murder was similarly rare, but far from unique as one - very possibly the last - of a particularly violent series. Those with an agenda would make it appear unique in the history of crime.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jimi]

Kellys Killer

Hi All
Hi Caz.
Thanks for that.
I agree totally with what you say about the crime being made to fit the subject. Kelly has to have been a ripper victim, well cos it fits.
For me ,from what little I know about him, Napper was an 'anger-excitation sociopath'. Listen to me, I sound great and I think this may be what leads to a confusion about murders. We try to give titles and pigeon hole killers as we try to understand them, but every killer and every victim is different. Basically, Napper liked to kill women and play with their bodies and that is very similar to JTR.
The only difference between catching JTR and catching Napper was technology.
Keep Well
Jimi

[DVV]

Hi Jimi, in my opinion she is a ripper victim, no question at all, but she's not a random victim, hence the noted differences (victimology, indoors) which might prompt one to think she was a stand alone.

[Carol]

Hi Jimi, in my opinion she is a ripper victim, no question at all, but she's not a random victim, hence the noted differences (victimology, indoors) which might prompt one to think she was a stand alone.

I agree. Kelly was a Ripper victim and I think it possible that she was 'targetted' because she had a 'private' place - her home. I think it also possible that Kelly had 'serviced' the Ripper before, but not in her own home. As she seemed to be so concerned about the Ripper I don't think she would have taken home a man that she was not already acquainted with and felt safe with.

Carol

[DVV]

Hello Carol, that's right.
Being both a non-random victim and killed indoors, it's just logical that the killer had changed part of his MO. But the signature is the same. Moreover, while some are insistent that we have Nichols and Chapman on the one hand, and Eddowes and Kelly on the other (dunno exactly their Stride theory, must be a Jewish anarchist), Kelly and Chapman have been ripped open in the same manner ("flaps removed from the abdomen"), which isn't the case with Eddowes.

[caz]

The only difference between catching JTR and catching Napper was technology.

Too right, old sport. Too right.

In my opinion it's only the lack of cctv back in 1888 that allows for many of today's barking mad theories to see the light of day.

And I'm allowed to say that because I'm regularly accused along with others of swallowing the 'most absurd rot' that there was a lone serial offender (not dissimilar to Napper) roaming the streets of Whitechapel preying on women.

Assuming one man killed Polly and Annie, and they were both soliciting when they encountered him, he could have killed before or gone on to kill more, either way earning himself the definition of serial killer, or he began with these two and was stopped before he could earn that definition - enter Lynn's pork butcher. If he only stopped at two because he had no choice, he was in effect an ineffectual serial killer. Not so absurd a notion then, surely?

Love,

Caz
X

[Carol]

Hello Carol, that's right.
Being both a non-random victim and killed indoors, it's just logical that the killer had changed part of his MO. But the signature is the same. Moreover, while some are insistent that we have Nichols and Chapman on the one hand, and Eddowes and Kelly on the other (dunno exactly their Stride theory, must be a Jewish anarchist), Kelly and Chapman have been ripped open in the same manner ("flaps removed from the abdomen"), which isn't the case with Eddowes.

Hello David,
For what it's worth, my thoughts at the moment keep going back to Stride being a Ripper victim. As he was interrupted before he could mutilate Stride I can easily imagine him being almost out of his mind with the need to mutilate. He took a very great risk with killing Eddowes but by then he was in such a state that he HAD to take the risk. Knowing that he might be interrupted again at any minute he slashed away at Eddowes' body in what might look a disorganized way but was, in fact, the murderer just trying as quickly as he could to get at the organs he wanted.

Carol

[Limehouse]

I agree. Kelly was a Ripper victim and I think it possible that she was 'targetted' because she had a 'private' place - her home. I think it also possible that Kelly had 'serviced' the Ripper before, but not in her own home. As she seemed to be so concerned about the Ripper I don't think she would have taken home a man that she was not already acquainted with and felt safe with.

Carol

I think this makes a lot of sense.

For me, I consider Kelly to have been a ripper victim and I believe that she was so terribly mutilated because the killer had the time and privacy to indulge his perversions.

I think the killer increased in confidence as he progressed through his victims, and it seems whereever he had the opportunity to go that extra bit further, he did so.

1. Annie Chapman, in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, not a great deal of privacy, it's true, but a little less risky than the thoroughfares of Bucks's Row and Berner Street.
2. Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square - again risky - but the relative safety of a dark corner and a little more time to experiment with 'mark making' - this time on the face.
3. Mary Kelly in that squalid room, with at least four killings behind him, perhaps a little more skilled with getting the knife through flesh and fat and muscle (sorry to be so graphic, but it really is quite difficult to mutilate someone if you have no 'training') and more time and privacy to indulge. Nevertheless, all of these locations carried relatively high risk and therefore, I believe we are looking for a man with a degree of nerve and composure who could flee away into the night without drawing too much attention to himself.

[Errata]

I think if JtR did kill Kelly, then it was kind of a Kemper thing.

It's all in how you see the murders as a whole really. Me, I don't especially see the three or four previous murders as personal, or even as sexual. Kelly on the other hand seems intensely personal, and intensely sexual. Her killer targeted areas left completely untouched in the other victims. I think it was a completely different motive.

But then Edmund Kemper had one motive for killing co-ed hitchhikers, and quite a different one for killing his mother. Despite the similarities in method, There was an above and beyond his other murders that shows his mother's murder to be intensely personal. So maybe Kemper uses his mother's head as a dart board, and Jack the Ripper take Mary Kelly's heart.

To me, the murder of Kelly does not look the same. Whoever killed her was after something completely different than what Chapman's killer was after. But that doesn't mean it wasn't the same guy. It just means it was a different motive.

[Limehouse]

I think if JtR did kill Kelly, then it was kind of a Kemper thing.

It's all in how you see the murders as a whole really. Me, I don't especially see the three or four previous murders as personal, or even as sexual. Kelly on the other hand seems intensely personal, and intensely sexual. Her killer targeted areas left completely untouched in the other victims. I think it was a completely different motive.

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.

[lynn cates]

serial killers

Hello Caroline. Well, when you put it THAT way. . .

But it seems to me not quite correct to call someone a killer who was likely unaware of what he was doing.

Cheers.
LC

[Jimi]

Method or Motive

Hi All
Hi Limehouse
I completely agree, you can see an increase of violence all the way through the murders, quite possibly even from Tabram.
Hi Errata
JTR was forced to change his method, probably by the police presence on the street but also by his desire to need more time with the dead victim, surely this is a change of method, I believe his motive never changed.
May I ask, where do you see anything personal about Kellys killing?
Keep Well
Jimi

[Jimi]

2+2

Hi All
Hi Caz
You think there's a possibility that one man killed Nicholls and Chapman and another killed Eddowes and Kelly....... and Stride commited suicide!!
Only joking
That is a very interesting supposition and I must admit one I've never heard of before. I can actually see where you are coming from with it. Very clever.
Personally I would still follow the progression of violence as a signature but you have made me think.
Still, that's what ladies do to us men innit?
Keep Well
Jimi

[DVV]

May I ask, where do you see anything personal about Kellys killing?
Jimi

There are many good reasons, Jimi. One being : because it's my belief.
'Night all.