Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    I think her descriptions/height/size varies widely-but the one thing that seems in common she was attractive and had red hair.

    from the horrendous photos to me though she does not look like a big women.
    Especially If you notice her wrists, arm and ankle looks pretty skinny-to me anyway.
    True - the contemporary illustration of MJK portrays her as rather plump, but I just don't see that in that crime scene photo - mutilations notwithstanding.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      Good point, Karl. I don't know off the top of my head what the source (if any) of that nugget of info is; perhaps someone will enlighten us.
      Not sure if it's elsewhere too, but the height of 5'7" was given in the Thanet Advertiser 17 Nov, possibly provided by Mrs Carthy?

      "The unfortunate victim is described as being a woman about 25 years of age, 5ft 7in in height, rather stout, with blue eyes, fair complexion, and a very good head of hair."

      Mrs Maxwell also calls her "somewhat stout", but Mrs Prater and an un-named source say she was "tall and slim"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
        Height and age did not matter.Nov 8-9 was the first time since October
        they did not have patrols,Dorset St in particular,because of the Mayor's show.She was "available".Mary was killed lying down, Phillips:"cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner. "
        Harvey left,Kelly was alone Nov. 7-8 at night.

        ---
        Here's the thing about availability, though: there were lots of other available prostitutes in the area, as well. Women who more closely matched the previous victims would not be in short supply. Another thing to note is that Mary seems to have undressed herself and neatly folded her clothes. In no other case did the killer wait for the victim to undress, nor did he even seem sexually interested in them at all. On the contrary, he seems to have wanted to kill them at the very first opportunity, and only then gone to work. He was more interested in seeing their insides than their nude forms. If the same killer killed MJK, why not attack her while she was undressing? Taking her boots off, for example. But all the while Mary undressed, she either trusted the man enough to have her back turned - which she wouldn't if he were a stranger. Or she was facing him the whole time, in which she would have plenty of time to regard the face of the man who was soon to kill her. Either way, it just doesn't fit with the same mentality of the man who sex-lessly murdered the other women.
        Last edited by Karl; 09-14-2018, 01:49 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
          Not sure if it's elsewhere too, but the height of 5'7" was given in the Thanet Advertiser 17 Nov, possibly provided by Mrs Carthy?

          "The unfortunate victim is described as being a woman about 25 years of age, 5ft 7in in height, rather stout, with blue eyes, fair complexion, and a very good head of hair."

          Mrs Maxwell also calls her "somewhat stout", but Mrs Prater and an un-named source say she was "tall and slim"
          Maxwell probably never saw her-she had someone else who she mistook for mary

          Prater lived above mary, knew her well, saw the body in the room, spoke to her a lot. went to her funeral.
          added to that the other descriptions of her as attractive and the photos which show not a stout or plump woman.


          id go with prater.


          forget about Maxwell-just another worthless "witness" that does nothing but muddy the water.
          Last edited by Abby Normal; 09-14-2018, 02:09 PM.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Hi .
            For the record I am not suggesting that Mary Kelly was definitely targeted, only speculating , using hearsay, mixed with what is known.
            There is a lot of coincidences, that suggest she may have been sought after far too many to go into here,
            The truth is no one has a clue who Jack was, his motive, or his demise.
            I have stuck with Casebook for many years, and covered many angles, thoroughly enjoyed it, and hope we all persevere.
            Regards Richard.
            Last edited by richardnunweek; 09-14-2018, 02:54 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
              The truth is no one has a clue who Jack was, his motive, or his demise.
              I have stuck with Casebook for many years, and covered many angles, thoroughly enjoyed it, and hope we all persevere.
              Regards Richard.
              That's the healthiest spirit with which to approach these discussions. We should all strive to be as tolerant.

              Comment


              • Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Mary was a tall and powerful woman, I don't see that presenting an obstacle that couldn't be overcome by the suddenness of the attack and the use of a knife. I just don't think it would have let her killer (who I believe was Jack) deter him.

                But if we go with the assumption that Jack would have shied away from her as a potential victim due to her size, we then have to assume that there were two (at least) absolute maniacs in Whitechapel at the same time both of whom desired to kill women and remove their internal organs. While possible it really seems like a stretch.

                c.d.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Karl View Post
                  Here's the thing about availability, though: there were lots of other available prostitutes in the area, as well. Women who more closely matched the previous victims would not be in short supply. Another thing to note is that Mary seems to have undressed herself and neatly folded her clothes. In no other case did the killer wait for the victim to undress, nor did he even seem sexually interested in them at all. On the contrary, he seems to have wanted to kill them at the very first opportunity, and only then gone to work. He was more interested in seeing their insides than their nude forms. If the same killer killed MJK, why not attack her while she was undressing? Taking her boots off, for example. But all the while Mary undressed, she either trusted the man enough to have her back turned - which she wouldn't if he were a stranger. Or she was facing him the whole time, in which she would have plenty of time to regard the face of the man who was soon to kill her. Either way, it just doesn't fit with the same mentality of the man who sex-lessly murdered the other women.
                  If she was killed lying down how would height come into play?

                  ---
                  Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                  M. Pacana

                  Comment


                  • How do we know he did not liked younger women also but only old unfortunates were available,in a "doable/killable" situation,in the early mornings? The killer killed fast while he was behind the victim,I do not think he would have waited for Kelly to undress,noise would wake up the neighbors.Anyway I believe Kelly was killed lying down because the killer had no choice.

                    ---
                    Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                    M. Pacana

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                      Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Mary was a tall and powerful woman, I don't see that presenting an obstacle that couldn't be overcome by the suddenness of the attack and the use of a knife. I just don't think it would have let her killer (who I believe was Jack) deter him.

                      But if we go with the assumption that Jack would have shied away from her as a potential victim due to her size, we then have to assume that there were two (at least) absolute maniacs in Whitechapel at the same time both of whom desired to kill women and remove their internal organs. While possible it really seems like a stretch.

                      c.d.
                      There are thirteen non-canonical victims, not including the torso murders - how much of a stretch is it really? And as Michael W. Richards added earlier:

                      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                      Here in Toronto 2 summers ago we had a few murders within a short time that involved dismemberment..then suddenly 2 more cases, 1 in Buffalo, presently we have in custody a killer who killed and dismembered 8 victims during that same period up to present time. All 3 instances had the murder details well publicized.

                      The current killer didn't kill the first 2, he was arrested and sentenced, and neither of them killed the Buffalo victim. So did we have 3 individuals that all apparently felt the compulsive need to dismember...something that is very rare in the recorded history of murder...or can we safely assume that one or more of them was influenced by prior publicized events?
                      This was in response to me pointing out that notoriety inspires. People seek to emulate their idols, for better or worse, and so I would not at all be surprised to find that one brutal killer could inspire another. Not so much that it would make murderers of people who would otherwise be law abiding, but to quote the first Scream movie: "Movies don't create psychos, movies make psychos more creative".

                      In fact, me quoting Scream is another example of copy-catting. I could have articulated my opinion using my own words, but I recalled that movie and thought the quote apt, and so I used it. I very much doubt I would have used that quote if we were discussing the finer points of football. But in that moment, as the context was right, I let myself inspire.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                        If she was killed lying down how would height come into play?
                        ---
                        To almost no extent, unless we are talking about trained wrestlers. If she was already lying down it would have been much easier to overpower her, true. But that begs the question, why was she lying down? Either on her own accord, or she was forced - in which case height would have come into play before. My argument, however, is not related to how easy or difficult it would have been to overpower Mary, but rather that her height would have disqualified her as a target in the first place. She was obviously the target for someone, but I do not see any similarity between MJK and any of the other victims. They were women and prostitutes, yes, but those are very broad strokes.

                        The killer killed fast while he was behind the victim,
                        With the others he had attacked from the front. At least some of the others.


                        I do not think he would have waited for Kelly to undress,noise would wake up the neighbors.Anyway I believe Kelly was killed lying down because the killer had no choice.
                        Interesting. Elaborate?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Karl View Post
                          To almost no extent, unless we are talking about trained wrestlers. If she was already lying down it would have been much easier to overpower her, true. But that begs the question, why was she lying down? Either on her own accord, or she was forced - in which case height would have come into play before. My argument, however, is not related to how easy or difficult it would have been to overpower Mary, but rather that her height would have disqualified her as a target in the first place. She was obviously the target for someone, but I do not see any similarity between MJK and any of the other victims. They were women and prostitutes, yes, but those are very broad strokes.


                          With the others he had attacked from the front. At least some of the others.



                          Interesting. Elaborate?
                          So it was her height rather than her availability - that she was alone and drunk.We just have to disagree.
                          I posted before on the other topics.

                          --
                          Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                          M. Pacana

                          Comment


                          • Judging by Marys position on the bed and the splashed blood on the partition wall, it appears that she was likely facing the wall, on the right hand side of the bed, when her attacker struck. If she was in a fetal position facing the wall, then he could use his left hand to cover her mouth, she would raise her head as a result, then he could use his right hand to bring the knife under her throat and draw back cutting. Or he was left handed. Something not in the evidence in the previous "Ripper" style killings.

                            That raise some interesting questions. Would it be possible to sneak into the room and perform those actions while she slept? If someone else was in the room then her back being turned to him and the right side of the bed orientation suggests she expected that person to slip in behind her. Someone obviously she would have trusted. So, not a stranger pick-up. There is no concrete evidence she ever left the room after 11:45pm Thursday night, and there is the matter of Blotchy Face and what happened to him.

                            All in, it would seem that Mary was probably not out soliciting that night and she spent time in her room after midnight, until around 1:30am, with the man seen by Mary Ann. Whether he had left when the room grew silent and dark, this does not fit a profile that is based upon opportunity kills of strangers while they plied their trade.

                            There is evidence in this case that Mary was in a love triangle at the time of her death and the second Joe apparently treated her "rough" sometimes. There are far more murders that occur when emotions are high than by serial mutilating madmen. The fact that this happened at the end of a spree of murders that fit the madman mold might just be an explanation for the extent of her injuries. Hide the real motive within a "ripperesque" murder scene.
                            Last edited by Michael W Richards; 09-15-2018, 02:49 AM.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                              Not sure if it's elsewhere too, but the height of 5'7" was given in the Thanet Advertiser 17 Nov, possibly provided by Mrs Carthy?

                              "The unfortunate victim is described as being a woman about 25 years of age, 5ft 7in in height, rather stout, with blue eyes, fair complexion, and a very good head of hair."
                              Hi Joshua.

                              That sounds very much like the description offered by Mrs Pheonix to the Leman street police.
                              https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18881112.html
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by AuroraSarintacos View Post
                                . . .are you serious?

                                The most simplest explanation is the one, I feel, closest to the truth: these were desperate women in dire circumstances who, like many prostitutes today, belong in a class high-risk for violence.

                                Kelly was no seemingly different than the other women. She was at the wrong place at the wrong time for an opportunistic killer who enjoyed mutilating women.

                                Other than her supposed youth there is nothing that differs this poor woman from the rest. This opinion is of seemingly extreme sexism and it makes me quite upset that this seems to be a continuing opinion because the underlining assumption is that she must have done something to deserve that.

                                Jack, whoever he was, was a little bloke who hated women and enjoyed mutilating them. The violence escalates, as it tends to do in most serial killers who lose the first initial "high" of their first killings, and I really do not know how one could be of the opinion that that was not the case or how the mutilation of his victims didn't really match all together and therefore must have been a copy-cat killer or what have you.

                                Once again, and last time, focus on the proof. There is no empirical evidence that suggest any of these fantastical suggestions. Stop blaming the victims. Seriously.

                                Stop.
                                I don't think anyone is intentionally blaming any of the victims, but I do agree with much of your post, Aurora.

                                With both Mary Kelly and Liz Stride I have read many theories involving a separate killer, which would necessarily involve a specific motive for wanting this specific female destroyed and out of his life. Revenge? Sexual jealousy? A sudden fit of temper? This would tend to imply the woman herself had done or said something to provoke a male associate into committing - for the first and only time in his life - this most extreme of crimes.

                                I do find it distasteful when such theories are based on a victim being viewed as somehow 'unlike' the others, whether it's Kelly being younger or considered more attractive, or Stride supposedly dolling herself up [??] for an 'innocent' date, simply because of that clothes brush and flower - which all the victims would have been equally glad to have. [I don't see a similar argument made for poor Polly Nichols and her jolly bonnet.] It's meaningless in the context of a predatory serial mutilator, whose interest could not have been further from the grooming habits of any of the women he killed, and was all about getting the next live specimen alone for another spot of knife practice.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Last edited by caz; 09-19-2018, 07:41 AM.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X