Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[c.d.]

Martha was overkill too...stabbing overkill, which does not equate with slicing open the body and cutting pieces off/out. In Marys case, how about slashing a face with a knife back and forth, now what purpose would that have? Or placing organs under her head. Annies killer cut her open where he needed to in order to access the organ he eventually takes. "There were no meaningless cuts"...was a quote from the medical examiner.

I get your question, (maybe not your conclusion). I think Marys killer lost his cool. I think he had a personal vendetta at work in that room, and in part, he sought to punish and erase Mary Kelly, or whomever it was. So might suggests that the facial wounds and the disassembling of her anatomy was to allow for misidentification. Remember, Barnett claimed he could only recognize 2 features, hair and eyes. The hair however is down her back in the photos, and her eyes are not visible at all. But to take that a step further, the mutilations almost successfully concealed the identity of the dead woman to the extent that a recent live in lover could barely recognize her.

Were those cuts an attempt to conceal the identity, or as a result of a personal anger directed at Mary, or whomever it was. I keep saying "whoever it was" because after 30 years studying these cases, and reading all the tremendous research that has been done by our members, the woman who we call Mary Kelly still cannot be traced. I doubt that was her name. And I wonder why she had a backstory if it wasnt real. Simon Wood has suggested that story was provided to Mary, and/or some of those close to her, by the authorities.. and he may be right.

Hello Michael,

That is a lot of speculation there. Why do the other victims killed that Fall not merit an attempt to establish a personal relationship with their killer as well?
And if we want to use Occam's razor to put things in perspective a very simple answer would be that in all instances (excluding Stride) we are dealing with a very sick individual who liked to kill women and then cut them up. It doesn't really need to get more complicated than that.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Trevor,

If these "bona fide medical persons" were secretly purloining the organs at the mortuary, why did Doctors Sequiera and Brown feel the need to perpetuate the 'Ripper and his lightning surgical skills' myth.

Regards,

Simon

[Varqm]

Inspector Chandler, recalled, said he reached the mortuary a few minutes after seven. The body did not appear to have been disturbed.
He did not stay until the doctor arrived. Police-constable 376 H was left in charge, with the mortuary keeper. Robert Mann, the mortuary keeper and an inmate of the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, said he received the body at seven o'clock on Saturday morning. He remained at the mortuary until Dr. Phillips came. The door of the mortuary was locked except when two nurses from an infirmary came and undressed the body. No one else touched the corpse.He gave the key into the hands of the police.

Robert Mann: I have charge of the Whitechapel mortuary. On Saturday last I received the body of the deceased at the mortuary about seven o'clock. I was there most of the day. No one touched the body until the nurses came over and undressed it. I remained at the mortuary until the doctor arrived,and the door was locked. The police were in charge of it. No one touched the body except the nurses. I was not present when they laid the corpse out.

Mr. George Baxter Phillips,
Having received instructions soon after two o'clock on Saturday afternoon, I went to the labour- yard of the Whitechapel Union for the
purpose of further examining the body and making the usual post-mortem investigation

---

In the Chapman case...

1 assumption, Police-constable 376 H left before Phillips arrived.If the PC left then either Robert Mann took the organs or the nurses.For the mean time until disproved I'm going with Chandler,no one touched the body except the nurses.So the nurses took it?

---

[c.d.]

How do you look at a body and determine hatred on the part of the killer as opposed to some other motive? And even if you could somehow do so, how would you determine that it was personal hatred as opposed to say hatred of women in general?

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

I asked basically the same thing some time back, if Trevor's theory explains why none of the people involved in this organ snatching ever mentioned it to anyone - since Trevor insists that according to the anatomy act it was all totally legit and legal, and there was no problem doing it.

So why not inform the police that it wasn't, in fact, the Ripper who removed organs, it was medical staff and medical students doing research in an entirely lawful manner?

I did not receive a reply.

Why would they mention it, especially if they had taken the organs from bodies that were not supposed to have been tampered with, that would make their actions unlawful, and that would result in some form or prosecution against them.

The term needs must when the devil calls spring to mind

The key to the organs removal is in as follows

Firstly prove that the killer did not have enough time in Mitre Square to do all that he is supposed to have done. Do that and the theory that the killer removed organs from any of the victims is dashed.

Accept Insp Reids account that no organs were missing from Kellys room, if you accept that you are left with only two victims that were missing organs

two victims that were taken to two different mortuaries

two victims whose bodies were left for 12 hours before the post mortems were carried out

two victims that had the same organ removed using two different procedures pointing to two different removers of those organs.

Like i said last night i have nothing more to say on the topic these are the results of my investigation and I stand firmly by them now.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Are you suggesting that these "bona fide medical persons with anatomical knowledge" aided and abetted the Ripper myth by leading the post mortem doctors to believe that Chapman and Eddowes' murderer had taken the organs which they themselves had only recently removed?

Regards,

Simon

There was no aiding an abetting the ripper, that has been done over the years by researchers who have been believing that the killer took the organs from the victims at the crime scenes.

Remove the organ myth from the mystery and a big chunk of what the Ripper myth has been built upon is destroyed, and if that happened some researchers would be reduced to tears.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi Kattrup,

I should have added " . . . and the doctors fell for it?"

Regards,

Simon

[Kattrup]

Hi Trevor,

Are you suggesting that these "bona fide medical persons with anatomical knowledge" aided and abetted the Ripper myth by leading the post mortem doctors to believe that Chapman and Eddowes' murderer had taken the organs which they themselves had only recently removed?

Regards,

Simon

I asked basically the same thing some time back, if Trevor's theory explains why none of the people involved in this organ snatching ever mentioned it to anyone - since Trevor insists that according to the anatomy act it was all totally legit and legal, and there was no problem doing it.

So why not inform the police that it wasn't, in fact, the Ripper who removed organs, it was medical staff and medical students doing research in an entirely lawful manner?

I did not receive a reply.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Trevor,

Are you suggesting that these "bona fide medical persons with anatomical knowledge" aided and abetted the Ripper myth by leading the post mortem doctors to believe that Chapman and Eddowes' murderer had taken the organs which they themselves had only recently removed?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor am I right in thinking that one of the reasons you believe Mary was killed by a different hand than Annie and Kate is because the doctor's believed the killer showed anatomical skill whereas Mary was just hacked to death? But if that anatomical skill shown was the removal of organs how can it be the removal of organs when you don't believe any organs were removed by the killer? So in other words, if no organs were removed by Jack then he showed no surgical skill just like in as you believe the killer of Mary.

You have not being keeping up with the threads.

In short, if the organs of Chapman and Eddowes were removed at the mortuary before the post mortems by bona fide medical persons with anatomical knowledge, then when the doctors came to do the post mortems and found the organs were missing, they postulated that who ever had removed them must have had anatomical knowledge, that is documented

There was no mention of any of the organs of Kelly having been removed from her body with any anatomical knowledge as Bond infers in his report to Anderson.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, This person who killed Mary hacked her to pieces because of for whatever reason, [maybe betrayal etc] the hatred he felt towards her, thus the overkill aspect of the murder with a knife [not bludgeoned to death with a hammer, cudgel etc? with blows raining down on her until her head split open]. Just like the overkill aspect with Kate, Martha and possibly Annie

Martha was overkill too...stabbing overkill, which does not equate with slicing open the body and cutting pieces off/out. In Marys case, how about slashing a face with a knife back and forth, now what purpose would that have? Or placing organs under her head. Annies killer cut her open where he needed to in order to access the organ he eventually takes. "There were no meaningless cuts"...was a quote from the medical examiner.

I get your question, (maybe not your conclusion). I think Marys killer lost his cool. I think he had a personal vendetta at work in that room, and in part, he sought to punish and erase Mary Kelly, or whomever it was. So might suggests that the facial wounds and the disassembling of her anatomy was to allow for misidentification. Remember, Barnett claimed he could only recognize 2 features, hair and eyes. The hair however is down her back in the photos, and her eyes are not visible at all. But to take that a step further, the mutilations almost successfully concealed the identity of the dead woman to the extent that a recent live in lover could barely recognize her.

Were those cuts an attempt to conceal the identity, or as a result of a personal anger directed at Mary, or whomever it was. I keep saying "whoever it was" because after 30 years studying these cases, and reading all the tremendous research that has been done by our members, the woman who we call Mary Kelly still cannot be traced. I doubt that was her name. And I wonder why she had a backstory if it wasnt real. Simon Wood has suggested that story was provided to Mary, and/or some of those close to her, by the authorities.. and he may be right.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I don't have a name in mind Darryl, only a profile. Someone who Mary knew intimately. Someone who had a history of violence with women. Someone who may have been tipped off to her whereabouts by clues the police had in their possession prior to her murder. Someone involved in criminal activities, perhaps terrorist. Someone who felt betrayal, who held Mary responsible for that feeling.

I know, not very specific, but that's because I don't know for sure who the woman in the bed really was, and because of that I cant be sure what factors may have contributed to her attack. I would like to find out who this other Joe was though, I personally don't see Flemming as this unknown Joe.

Michael, This person who killed Mary hacked her to pieces because of for whatever reason, [maybe betrayal etc] the hatred he felt towards her, thus the overkill aspect of the murder with a knife [not bludgeoned to death with a hammer, cudgel etc? with blows raining down on her until her head split open]. Just like the overkill aspect with Kate, Martha and possibly Annie

[Darryl Kenyon]

If the killer didnt remove the organs then the anatomical knowledge seen by the doctors at the post mortem was as a result of them being removed at the mortuary before the post mortems by a bona fide medical person acting perhaps unlawfully under the Anatomy Act. These bodies should not have been tampered with but who knows what went on during the 12 hour window when they were left before the doctors came back to carry out the post mortems.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor am I right in thinking that one of the reasons you believe Mary was killed by a different hand than Annie and Kate is because the doctor's believed the killer showed anatomical skill whereas Mary was just hacked to death? But if that anatomical skill shown was the removal of organs how can it be the removal of organs when you don't believe any organs were removed by the killer? So in other words, if no organs were removed by Jack then he showed no surgical skill just like in as you believe the killer of Mary.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael can I ask you a question. Who do you think killed Mary and why?

I don't have a name in mind Darryl, only a profile. Someone who Mary knew intimately. Someone who had a history of violence with women. Someone who may have been tipped off to her whereabouts by clues the police had in their possession prior to her murder. Someone involved in criminal activities, perhaps terrorist. Someone who felt betrayal, who held Mary responsible for that feeling.

I know, not very specific, but that's because I don't know for sure who the woman in the bed really was, and because of that I cant be sure what factors may have contributed to her attack. I would like to find out who this other Joe was though, I personally don't see Flemming as this unknown Joe.

[Harry D]

Mary Kelly only has more mystery because we're not sure who she really was, which lends itself to all kinds of imaginative theories regarding her murder.

Mary Kelly was younger
Mary Kelly was murdered indoors
Mary Kelly was extensively mutilated
Mary Kelly's uterus wasn't taken by the killer

..therefore she wasn't a Ripper victim, because the killer would only ever follow the exact same pattern every time. Obviously, there was just another knife-wielding psychopath waiting in the wings to follow the Ripper's escalatory behaviour.

Peter Sutcliffe's victims ranged from 16 to 47 years old. Most of his victims were prostitutes, but not all. He used a hammer, knife, hacksaw and screwdriver through the course of his murders. It's a good job that Mr Marriott wasn't working on that case, otherwise Sutcliffe would never have been caught.