Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Simon Wood]

Are you flying in the face of Ripper lore and suggesting she was murdered by someone else?

[Wickerman]

Are you flying in the face of Ripper lore and suggesting she was murdered by someone else?

C'mon Simon, when have you known me to be controversial?



In this case, I don't remember if the question posed by the thread title was ever answered.
For me, I take the safe route and fall in line with all those less imaginative sorts who align themselves with the obvious.

[Karl]

I don't believe MJK was a Ripper victim. All the other victims were significantly older, and smaller. By all accounts, Jack was no taller than average himself, whereas MJK was taller than even the male average. She would not have looked like an easy target. And yes, it is fully possible that the killer was stronger than her still, but serial killers do not usually gamble. Especially when he's used to choking them from the front, which becomes a lot more difficult if the victim is taller - even if the victim is weaker. MJK would have been five or more inches taller than JtR, which should be enough to give any man pause, no matter how confident he is in his strength. Perpetrators of all sorts of crime where strangers are targeted never pick their victims at random - it's almost always someone they deem to be an easy target.

[Rob1n]

That's all quite sensible but, knowing she was, as you say, 5 or so inches taller, could that be why he killed her inside, her cloths were stacked neatly, suggesting they had calmly got ready for bed, as they lay down she wouldn't be expecting an attack, she would probably have expected and attack standing up in a dark place like the others. I'm suggesting she was totally off guard and therefore, an easy target.I'd imagine he'd picked his target and possibly for your reason and possibly because he knew she had her own quiet room, that MJK was targeted by the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

I don't believe MJK was a Ripper victim.

Then two different men came up with the idea of cutting the abdominal wall away in large flaps from both Chapman and Kelly. The chances of that happening are extremely slim.

[Karl]

That's all quite sensible but, knowing she was, as you say, 5 or so inches taller, could that be why he killed her inside, her cloths were stacked neatly, suggesting they had calmly got ready for bed, as they lay down she wouldn't be expecting an attack, she would probably have expected and attack standing up in a dark place like the others. I'm suggesting she was totally off guard and therefore, an easy target.I'd imagine he'd picked his target and possibly for your reason and possibly because he knew she had her own quiet room, that MJK was targeted by the Ripper.

The reason she was killed inside is because she brought her tricks inside. Unless he knew her, however, he would probably not have known that she was an in-door prostitute when he approached her.

And the neatly folded clothes is another thing. The killer of the other victims does not seem to have been interested in watching them expose themselves before he struck. And MJK would have been at her most vulnerable while undressing (even if facing him) and not after.

[Karl]

Then two different men came up with the idea of cutting the abdominal wall away in large flaps from both Chapman and Kelly. The chances of that happening are extremely slim.

They didn't have to "come up" with the idea. I see MJK as a copy-cat murder: I believe she was murdered for a completely different reason, and the killer mutilated her as best he could in order to associate the murder with Jack the Ripper.

You draw the comparison of "cutting the abdominal wall away in large flaps" between Chapman and Kelly. But how well does that comparison fare with Nichols or Eddowes?

[Sam Flynn]

They didn't have to "come up" with the idea. I see MJK as a copy-cat murder: I believe she was murdered for a completely different reason, and the killer mutilated her as best he could in order to associate the murder with Jack the Ripper.

With Kelly, mutilation and evisceration were taken much further than the Ripper had before. If Kelly died by another hand, it wasn't so much a case of the Ripper being copied, but surpassed.

[Fisherman]

They didn't have to "come up" with the idea. I see MJK as a copy-cat murder: I believe she was murdered for a completely different reason, and the killer mutilated her as best he could in order to associate the murder with Jack the Ripper.

You draw the comparison of "cutting the abdominal wall away in large flaps" between Chapman and Kelly. But how well does that comparison fare with Nichols or Eddowes?

It does not. Then again, it was Kelly you wanted to rule out, and I pointed to how she is closely tied to Chapman, close enough, in fact, to be either the victim of the same killer or - as you suggest - the victim of a copycat killer.

A copycat killer who copied the flap thing and then went over the top totally.

[AuroraSarintacos]

Given the fact that Ms. Kelly was in an enclosed environment I feel it is a safe assumption that due to the extensive mutilations she was, for all intents and purposes, murdered by the same hand as the previous women.

The escalation of violence is evident in each killing; the attacking of the face was present in the Eddowes murder.

I strongly doubt she was murdered by a "copy cat" killer and I do not believe he was intimidated by Ms. Kelly's stature.

I think one of the more stranger things is the fact that she was undressed. The killer seemed to have been (based off the eye witness testimony and the finding of the bodies) a blitz killer - acting fast and catching the victim off guard. He seemed to have killed his victims within 15 minutes of meeting them. And while I doubt he "enjoyed" Ms. Kelly undressing, I would say that he was acting fairly calm before he attacked her.

Other than her youth and the fact that she had her own flat (which she was behind in rent) there is really nothing that differs this woman from the rest of the women murdered.

[Yabs]

This is a photo of Dorset street in Henry Mayhews time?
Doesn't seem to me to be alive with anyone.Plus I have found pleny of photos on the web of empty London streets,taken in Victorian times.

I don’t know if I’m imagining this, but if you enhance that picture, as I’ve done here.

http://i64.tinypic.com/2edppxy.jpg

Can anyone see the ghostly image of the woman facing the camera in the apron that appears in the well known photo of Dorset Street?

http://i63.tinypic.com/72eyio.jpg

[Wickerman]

Yes, they are the same pictures, with the people removed.
Misrepresentation is a mainstay of the anti-Hutchinson group, or it could have been done in jest.

[Karl]

It does not. Then again, it was Kelly you wanted to rule out, and I pointed to how she is closely tied to Chapman, close enough, in fact, to be either the victim of the same killer or - as you suggest - the victim of a copycat killer.

A copycat killer who copied the flap thing and then went over the top totally.

If it was one killer who did all the murders, he isn't really evolving in a straight line. Nichols, mutilation, no flaps. Chapman, worse mutilation, flaps. Stride, no mutilation. Eddowes, severe mutilation, but no flaps. Kelly, unprecedented mutilation, flaps. Clearly, if all murders were committed by the same person, whether or not the abdominal wall was cut away in large flaps is irrelevant, as it cannot be used as a tell-tale sign that X is a Ripper victim. It clearly is not part of the MO, just happened to be done on one or two of the victims.

By the way, I don't believe Stride was a Ripper victim, either. And indeed, I wouldn't be at all surprised if each victim had a different killer. Remember how after the Nice terror attack, there seemed to be a spree of similar terror attacks using a truck as the primary weapon several other places, too? As if the Nice attack made them realise, "hey, trucks can be really effective." Completely unrelated perpetrators, but certain acts of notoriety will always inspire copy-cats.

[Fisherman]

If it was one killer who did all the murders, he isn't really evolving in a straight line. Nichols, mutilation, no flaps. Chapman, worse mutilation, flaps. Stride, no mutilation. Eddowes, severe mutilation, but no flaps. Kelly, unprecedented mutilation, flaps. Clearly, if all murders were committed by the same person, whether or not the abdominal wall was cut away in large flaps is irrelevant, as it cannot be used as a tell-tale sign that X is a Ripper victim. It clearly is not part of the MO, just happened to be done on one or two of the victims.

By the way, I don't believe Stride was a Ripper victim, either. And indeed, I wouldn't be at all surprised if each victim had a different killer. Remember how after the Nice terror attack, there seemed to be a spree of similar terror attacks using a truck as the primary weapon several other places, too? As if the Nice attack made them realise, "hey, trucks can be really effective." Completely unrelated perpetrators, but certain acts of notoriety will always inspire copy-cats.

If you think that flaps being cut away from the abdominal wall is something that will "just happen to be done" every now and then, you may want to produce examples of other cases where this happened?

And while you are at it, perhaps you can exemplify other outbreaks of copy-cat killings involving severe eviscerations and organ taking?

[Karl]

With Kelly, mutilation and evisceration were taken much further than the Ripper had before. If Kelly died by another hand, it wasn't so much a case of the Ripper being copied, but surpassed.

The facial mutilation is significant. Such acts are seen where the killer wishes to destroy the very identity of the victim, and is usually the case where the victim and perpetrator know each other - not necessarily closely. And indeed, being a hardened serial killer is no pre-requisite for mutilating one's victims. The worst mutilations are often perpetrated by first-timers, fuelled by a personal hatred, and who would not turn serial killer at all. Multiple perpetrators are not uncommon in cases of severe mutilation.

Eddowes's face was mutilated, but not beyond recognition. When you assault a person's face so severely that you destroy the features by which he or she could be identified, that means something. Kelly's eyelids were removed, as were her eyebrows, her nose and part of her cheeks, and her lips were viciously slashed. These are not random targets - her face was quite deliberately destroyed, her identity annihilated. It seems someone had it in for her personally, more than just hating her for her sex.