Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[sepiae]

And certainly the Ripper did not proposition Kelly for sex, accompany her to her room, wait for her to undress and then get into bed.

Hi markmorey,

what makes you so certain about this? If we think of JtR as the same man who killed both Anni Chapman and Mary Kelly, then we'd have to ask ourselves how he got Chapman to get into that backyard with him. The residents had been interviewed about the yard being frequented for the purpose of paid sex, and at least one resident confirmed. Without wanting to jump into conclusions, but it is the most likely option that the murderer of Anni Chapman went into that backyard with her under the pretence of doing business with her.
Thus, what makes the same so unlikely in Kelly's case?

Greetz

[markmorey5]

Hi markmorey,

what makes you so certain about this? If we think of JtR as the same man who killed both Anni Chapman and Mary Kelly, then we'd have to ask ourselves how he got Chapman to get into that backyard with him. The residents had been interviewed about the yard being frequented for the purpose of paid sex, and at least one resident confirmed. Without wanting to jump into conclusions, but it is the most likely option that the murderer of Anni Chapman went into that backyard with her under the pretence of doing business with her.
Thus, what makes the same so unlikely in Kelly's case?

Greetz

If Jack the Ripper went to Kelly's room to have sex with her, then he wouldn't have waited for her to remove her clothes before she got into bed. He would have killed her immediately. This is the fourth time I have typed this. I might be looking at this from the perspective of a psychologist, and maybe it's clear to me that he was risk-averse and he wouldn't have stood around for some (or several) minutes waiting for all those layers of clothes I described to be removed.

Of course the Ripper could have accompanied Kelly to her room, and if he did he would have killed her immediately the door was closed. Therefore, the Ripper didn't go with Kelly to her room. Either he broke into her room or she was killed by someone else.

It's a tiny room surrounded by other rooms, every noise was clearly audible, and he wouldn't have waited for Kelly to get undressed, and he certainly wouldn't have had sex with her then killed her. There is a sexual element in many of the Ripper's mutilations so he wasn't the sort of man to have sex with a victim, or probably with any woman.

[sepiae]

If Jack the Ripper went to Kelly's room to have sex with her, then he wouldn't have waited for her to remove her clothes before she got into bed. He would have killed her immediately. This is the fourth time I have typed this. I might be looking at this from the perspective of a psychologist, and maybe it's clear to me that he was risk-averse and he wouldn't have stood around for some (or several) minutes waiting for all those layers of clothes I described to be removed.

Of course the Ripper could have accompanied Kelly to her room, and if he did he would have killed her immediately the door was closed. Therefore, the Ripper didn't go with Kelly to her room. Either he broke into her room or she was killed by someone else.

It's a tiny room surrounded by other rooms, every noise was clearly audible, and he wouldn't have waited for Kelly to get undressed, and he certainly wouldn't have had sex with her then killed her. There is a sexual element in many of the Ripper's mutilations so he wasn't the sort of man to have sex with a victim, or probably with any woman.

Hi again,

I most certainly agree with you that he wouldn't have sex with her, and for the very reasons you stated. Hence the 'pretended.'
Where I don't agree with you is your absolute certainty concerning much of the rest - please understand: that is different from saying you're wrong; it might very well have occurred precisely as you have described it. It's the certainty:
it is likely that this was the first indoor kill for him; any other murder that would contradict this would be one that has escaped us. And I'd argue that we simply don't know enough about him to flat out say, that him entering with Kelly and indeed waiting for her to undress and fold her clothes would be impossible - it is somewhat unlikely, perhaps, it doesn't quite fit into what I imagine either. But it's not impossible. Who can say what these new circumstances meant for him.
Where I disagree even more with you is the claim that he must have been risk-averse. I understand this term as 'avoiding all risk to the best extent.'
Hating risk, so to speak. Others have actually described him as having been quite bold: the backyard in which Anni Chapman was killed had quite a number of windows looking out, Mitre Sq. was, well, a square, etc. I rather tend to suspect that he was neither bold nor particularly 'risk-conscious'. In the end it's a simple matter of priorities: the more risk-conscious I am the further I'm moving towards not doing it in the 1st place. In the other scale lies the drive, the compulsion, whatever it was. Clearly the latter won over the former and led to killings in places where he could have easily been spotted. And I think the risk issue changes quite substantially with the relative safety of this new kind of location.
One more about the clothes: there have been alternative models suggested, e.g. that those were perhaps not the clothes that she'd worn at the time around the murder. This might seem far fetched.
All in all I couldn't be that positive.

Sorry that you had to write it 4 times. I also had to write things a number of times for those who might have missed a previous post of mine; I din't mind doing it.

Regards

[lynn cates]

acquaintance

Hello Stephen.

"I've always thought there was a possibility of the killer sneaking into MJKs bedroom rather than be invited in. Whether she left the door ajar with being so drunk, or he reached in the broken window and entered."

If the latter, looks like they knew one another and he were aware of the entrance procedure.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Next Step Beyond.

Hello Mark.

"Because the man who killed the other women did not go to her room, wait for her to undress and wait for her to get into bed."

Now, one step more.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

cut clothing

Hello Barnaby.

"And pragmatically, he wouldn't have to cut through all the clothing as well."

Of course, he did not do that with Polly and Annie.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mark

If Jack the Ripper went to Kelly's room to have sex with her, then he wouldn't have waited for her to remove her clothes before she got into bed. He would have killed her immediately. This is the fourth time I have typed this. I might be looking at this from the perspective of a psychologist, and maybe it's clear to me that he was risk-averse and he wouldn't have stood around for some (or several) minutes waiting for all those layers of clothes I described to be removed.

I'm not a psychologist , nor can I claim to have much studied the subject...but it seems to me that the Whitechapel Murderer is doing what he does, and leaving the evidence that he does, as a statement...perhaps to simply to show us that he CAN...

The clothes up around the waist, the knees up and legs apart...the highly visible incisions etc are to me a form of display and more significant than the mere MO of possible strangulation followed by a cut throat...the MO is merely a means to an end and can therefore be varied or developed upon without any change of motivation...many serial killers have demonstrated this, including Peter Sutcliffe...

(Even if I've got his motivation wrong, it seems to me pretty obvious that "Motivation" can be entirely separated from "MO")

Personally, I believe the killer's looking to make a statement of power to the finders... "This is what I can do and I do it because I can"...which might well hold good with Emma Smith and Martha Tabram too, (if one perhaps accepts the former as a first, perhaps shared, attempt and the second as part of a learning curve)....

So, with this in mind, on to the specifics...he's been admitted to Mary's inner sanctum...he has at last greater "opportunity" to add to his ever-present "motive", so why should the MO not be varied here too? Why should he not wait for her to undress? There is no parallel - the previous victims were never going to undress...this one was...he can surely bide his time and possibly increase his pleasure...

And if he's so risk-averse, until he strikes there is actually, no risk at all...Mary's entertaining and he's simply there...When he does strike, the risk is no greater and, (because he's not in the open air, where sounds carry and witnesses can suddenly appear), may possibly be less...what possible risk is there for him, sitting quietly and apparently aquiescently, in the security of MJK's room, waiting for MJK to take her clothes off?

Of course the Ripper could have accompanied Kelly to her room, and if he did he would have killed her immediately the door was closed.

In safe surroundings? Why? And based upon which evidence or precedent?

If this is the Whitechapel Murderer, he has a previously unprecedented opportunity, so how can we be so positive about what he might or might not do?

Therefore, the Ripper didn't go with Kelly to her room. Either he broke into her room or she was killed by someone else.

In the light of the foregoing, this is surely revealed as a circular argument...

It's a tiny room surrounded by other rooms, every noise was clearly audible, and he wouldn't have waited for Kelly to get undressed

Why not? There is no risk...Mary is simply entertaining someone...listen, she's singing...as I said above, there is no risk until he strikes...

and he certainly wouldn't have had sex with her then killed her. There is a sexual element in many of the Ripper's mutilations so he wasn't the sort of man to have sex with a victim, or probably with any woman.

This is something of a non-sequitur...Question: who, per the evidence, had sex with Mary Kelly? Answer: Per the evidence, nobody...

Sorry Mark, but your argument is?

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Personally, I believe the killer's looking to make a statement of power to the finders... "This is what I can do and I do it because I can"

I had to wonder if that was the reason behind his removal of the kidney.

That, and only that, particular demonstration was for the doctors.

[Stephen Lee]

Hello Stephen.

"I've always thought there was a possibility of the killer sneaking into MJKs bedroom rather than be invited in. Whether she left the door ajar with being so drunk, or he reached in the broken window and entered."

If the latter, looks like they knew one another and he were aware of the entrance procedure.

Cheers.
LC

Possibly, or he may have just been prowling and observed Kelly enter that way when she retired. Also if he was peering in he may have seen that the catch was within reach and tried his luck. The majority of break-ins are opportunistic. Thou I have to admit it poses the question of why didn't the Police work this out the next morning.

Not that I'm trying to push this voyeur theory particularly, but I was just reading today that in an FBI study it's claimed that over 70% of serial killers were also voyeurs/peeping toms.

[markmorey5]

Hi Mark



I'm not a psychologist , nor can I claim to have much studied the subject...but it seems to me that the Whitechapel Murderer is doing what he does, and leaving the evidence that he does, as a statement...perhaps to simply to show us that he CAN...

Dave

There are two, possible psychological motivations. One is general misogyny and the other is a hatred of prostitutes and possibly middle-aged prostitutes, although a later possible victim was closer to Kelly's age so the middle-aged may not be the issue. But certainly his motive is hatred of women in general and using women who were available, or hatred of a specific type of woman. Further it is likely that he was sexually inadequate in some form.

From there we know a few other things. He blended in and was able to gain the women's confidences, he knew the local area well, and he was skilled in anatomy to the point of removing organs in near-darkness. He also knew or developed the technique to avoid blood spray, and a surgeon told me how that could have been done. He was also able to cut a woman's throat with one blow and prevent her from making a noise, so he knew how to do that.

He was probably patient and possibly didn't kill every woman he propositioned for sex unless he felt the place and time was safe. But we cannot be sure about that because he took a risk in more than one instance (Hanbury Street and under the railway bridge). More likely once he went with a woman he knew she would take him somewhere secluded, so he went ahead with killing her. In one case despite the risk he killed two women on one night when he was disturbed with the first victim, so he seemed to have developed a compulsion to kill and mutilate on that, specific night. Chapman's murder was a risk, so here we have something like a complusion as well (hypothesis: he tried for a number of hours and found Chapman late, but he still felt driven to kill her despite the risk of people close by rising for work, or he felt a compulsion to kill but didn't start looking for a victim until later in the evening).

There is a general escalation in the degree of mutilation, unless he was disturbed. My surgeon friend read the report and looked at the crime scene pictures of Mary Kelly and suggested that it wasn't surgical precise.

Based on past murders the Ripper would have found Kelly wandering the streets looking for sixpence (her most likely going rate, given she was young), and went with her as a victim to kill. Kelly was working from her room and we have evidence of this, so she would have taken the Ripper to her room. Then she undressed and she may not have been fully dressed, but it was a cold night so she would have worn some layers of garments and it would have taken some minutes to remove them (lace up boots take a while alone). She stripped to her chemise, her most basic undergarment, and went to bed. Regardless of where she was on the bed, left or right, the bed was close to or against the partition wall and the blood spray was on the partition wall, so the Ripper would have leaned over Kelly to cut her throat, and he didn't use his technique of preventing blood spray so he would have been sprayed at least on his wrist and lower arm. I know if Kelly was on her back and I cut the right side of her neck, it would be easier if I was left-handed, but the degree of difficulty for a right-handed person may have been dictated by circumstance. I can't explain why he didn't prevent the blood spray, because the initial spurts would have soaked him and this is something he had avoided until that time.

So the differences are: he didn't strike at first opportunity in a secluded place like the other women, he didn't prevent blood spray and the mutilations were more extensive and less surgically precise. He didn't have sex with Kelly prior to murdering her, and I don't know if the police at the time considered this when determining if it was a Ripper murder or not. At the time they may not have understood the difference between a sexual motive and sexual inadequacy.

[markmorey5]

Hello Mark.

"Because the man who killed the other women did not go to her room, wait for her to undress and wait for her to get into bed."

Now, one step more.

Cheers.
LC

He didn't have sex with her and then kill her, because he hated women or prostitutes.

[Michael W Richards]

Then this someone else was far worse than the real killer if he could spend and hour or more in a room with a dead girl dismantling her body in ways most of us couldn't imagine. This would mean that there are two serial killers here, because the second one certainly didn't just decide to denude bones, flay a face, and throw meat on a table without some earlier practice and a bit of a mental issue.

Mike

As many seem to forget, at the time of Kellys murder there was someone sought for the Whitechapel murders and someone else sought for the Torsos, ergo, there were at least 2 working serial killers at the time of Kellys murder. The Torso creator being the one that seems to have worked over a number of years, like serial killers often do.... for those who thrive on the serial premise.

The wreck of Mary Kelly, not the seemingly clinical dispatch and removal of organs as we saw with Nichols and Chapman, would seem to indicate that Kellys murder had no specific objective with the cutting and no attachment to completed actions....as the partially denuded thigh you referred to. That lack of focus is inconsistent with the findings in the murder of the aforementioned Canonicals, and as such, would be a rather radical departure for any killer.

Since its reasonable to state at this point in time that the woman who was presumed murdered in her bed was probably not a Mary Jane Kelly at all, it would be imprudent to assume that anyone can conceive of motivations for murdering her, without first knowing who she actually was.

As for cutting a body up, that's not something that only Jack the Ripper could have done. Check the images from 1880's medical students at work, or the slaughterhouse men, or the butchers. In that latter two cases you would find appalling devastation of flesh routinely created by nice men with families. But of course the mentality is that cut up animals are less dramatic than a human form, because the perception is that their lives have less value, or whatever it is people who treat animals like unfeeling objects think.

Cheers

[markmorey5]

I just looked at the crime scene photos of Mary Kelly and I remembered one other difference between Kel;y's murder and the other victims. The heads of the other victims had been turned away from their murderer while the head of Mary Kelly was turned towards her murderer. From a psychological perspective that may be more significant than it seems.

[Vincenzo]

That one seems to me the easiest to answer: he didn't change his MO . His MO was to find a prostitute and allow her to use her local knowledge to take him to a secluded spot to transact their business. In MJK's case he struck lucky and found himself in a location where he didn't have to keep an ear open for the sound of approaching footsteps.

MrB

Completely agree with you here.

Also, I think that his experience with the Mary Kelly bloodbath may have driven him to suicide in the days or weeks following.

This is strictly my own theory. But his previous murders were in low light and he didn't have much time to do everything he had probably always imagined. In MJK's room, however, he had all the time to indulge in every debauchery and enough light to see it all. I think he may very well have killed himself, not being able to live with himself after seeing that horror. And really, what else was there to do after he annihilated poor Mary? He still may have felt empty. If that wasn't going to satisfy him, maybe he realized that nothing ever would?

Anyways, just one of my little pet theories as to why he seemed to drop off the face of the earth after MJK's brutal murder.

[Vincenzo]

I just looked at the crime scene photos of Mary Kelly and I remembered one other difference between Kel;y's murder and the other victims. The heads of the other victims had been turned away from their murderer while the head of Mary Kelly was turned towards her murderer. From a psychological perspective that may be more significant than it seems.

I don't know if I would put too much into the position of her head. Didn't the police move the bed at one point to take one of the crime scene photos? Even if not, I don't think the killer thought of his victims as people at all during his frenzy and probably did not care one bit about the position their heads were in.

But then again, maybe he did? That's what makes this case so fascinating to discuss, nothing can be easily discounted.