Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

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

  • Originally posted by Karl View Post
    Suggesting it was a different killer does not in any conceivable way, shape or form suggest that killer #2 had a better reason for killing than killer #1.
    No, Karl, but arguing for a different killer - for no good reason I have ever seen - inevitably suggests some personal reason for wanting to destroy a particular individual, in this case the woman known as Mary Kelly.

    Nobody has come up with a shred of decent evidence for this because, let's face it, how could they? Sod all is known about the poor woman, not even her real name, and everything we think we might know has come from Barnett, or from other witnesses who only claimed to know, or to have heard, certain stuff about her.

    Somebody wanted to destroy Ms Anonymous, and there has only ever been one likely suspect in my view - the Mister Nobody who went round destroying women who meant absolutely nothing to him alive.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Karl View Post
      I just came across a very pertinent question I asked long ago in a different thread: what sources have we for MJK's height, anyway? It seems we all take 5'7 for granted, but neither the inquest nor the post mortem make any mention of it. It is also commonly assumed that "Long Leg" Liz Stride was tall - 5'5, tall for a woman at that time. Where that figure stems from, however, I have no idea - Stride's inquest quite plainly states she was 5'2. So could Mary's tall height be another spurious piece of received wisdom?
      Assuming the nickname Long Liz came from her surname, as in "Long Stride", it had nothing to do with the lady's height.

      Another apparent myth that often crops up is that Mary Kelly's clothes were found 'neatly folded'. I don't recall anyone finding a contemporary reference to this detail [or even a sketch clearly indicating it?], but it seems to have been introduced at some point in the mid 20th century.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Another apparent myth that often crops up is that Mary Kelly's clothes were found 'neatly folded'. I don't recall anyone finding a contemporary reference to this detail [or even a sketch clearly indicating it?], but it seems to have been introduced at some point in the mid 20th century.

        Caz, you know it's references like these that have become so misleading to Ripperologists. Could the admins not weed out all the c**p and keep the real facts? The neatly folded clothes has always led me to believe that she never left her room and in saying that she could not have met the Ripper, but I think she did meet the Ripper.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post
          . Another apparent myth that often crops up is that Mary Kelly's clothes were found 'neatly folded'. I don't recall anyone finding a contemporary reference to this detail [or even a sketch clearly indicating it?], but it seems to have been introduced at some point in the mid 20th century.
          I think this "myth" can be traced to the Daily Telegraph, Nov 10th, 1888:

          "That the woman had had no struggle with her betrayer was shown by her position and the way in which her garments, including a velvet bodice, were arranged by the fireplace."


          As you say, Caz, they are not necessarily 'folded,' but they are arranged in an organized manner instead of being cut to pieces or thrown onto the floor or the bedside table in a heap. I think many find this puzzling; it is a little too cozy in comparison to the impatient lunatic we sense was at work in Hanbury Street, Buck's Row, etc.

          Personally, I believe it is the same man, but something seems slightly 'amiss' to me.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            No, Karl, but arguing for a different killer - for no good reason I have ever seen - inevitably suggests some personal reason for wanting to destroy a particular individual, in this case the woman known as Mary Kelly.
            Yes, which such ghastly facial mutilations would suggest. I do not see why the killer having some personal motive should be so controversial, though.


            Nobody has come up with a shred of decent evidence for this because, let's face it, how could they? Sod all is known about the poor woman, not even her real name, and everything we think we might know has come from Barnett, or from other witnesses who only claimed to know, or to have heard, certain stuff about her.
            There is no more evidence for Kelly being a Ripper victim, either. After all, the exact same evidence is being used both for and against - it's all down to interpretation, and different people emphasising different pieces of evidence - and downplaying anything which doesn't fit. Because no matter how you try to categorise MJK, she's a square peg in a round hole.


            Somebody wanted to destroy Ms Anonymous, and there has only ever been one likely suspect in my view - the Mister Nobody who went round destroying women who meant absolutely nothing to him alive.
            Yes, in your view. But that isn't a suspect - that's a person or persons unknown. These Casebook pages contain no fewer than 31 suspects, most of whom are fervently believed to be the one by some, and all of whom are confidently dismissed by most. Personally I believe there are at most three Ripper victims, and at least two killers for the canonical five - though I'm leaning towards three.

            You say it's the same killer because "look at all the similarities". That's interpretation. Me, I say MJK had a different killer because "look at all the differences". That, too, is interpretation. Personally, I find my own interpretation to be much more compelling than yours. You say you haven't seen a "good" reason for my interpretation, nor a shred of "decent" evidence for it. What constitutes "good" and "decent"? Because the reasons argued for the Ripper in MJK's case are, in my view, not good reasons at all. And I have explained why. And no doubt you will see me as dismissing vital pieces of evidence simply because they do not fit my theory, but how do you think the theory you subscribe to looks to me? I have pointed out how MJK was completely different from the other victims in terms of victimology, and those who disagree with me not only trivialise those differences, but completely sweep them under the rug. "They're not important". Why are they not important? Because it doesn't fit the theory. Had the other victims been like MJK, you would take that as evidence in your favour, as well you should. And you know you would. When it doesn't fit, it should be counted as just as significant.

            I try not to be biased. And if I may place a feather in my own cap, I ask you to note that Kelly's height was one of the two main arguments (in fact the most important one of the two) that I had for dismissing her as a Ripper victim - and I was also the one to express doubts concerning Kelly's height. If I may be so forward, I haven't seen a similar degree of scepticism from those who are adamant that Mary was a Ripper victim - who indeed refuse to acknowledge even a shred of evidence for an alternative explanation.


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


            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.
            It implies nothing of the kind. If we say that OJ Simpson murdered his wife, does this suggest she was at fault somehow? Should OJ have been acquitted for no better reason than this would make his wife look better? Should we assume murder victims were always victims of random acts of psychotic violence, so as to be very very careful to avoid accidentally blaming the victim? Maybe a man kills a woman because she rejected him - how can anyone say or even suggest that she brought it on herself? Instead, she was just unfortunate enough to be the object of attention of a man who was not right in the head. A personal motive does not imply anything at all, unless you define what that motive was.
            Last edited by Karl; 09-19-2018, 11:16 AM.

            Comment


            • Have you been able to define what that motive is, Karl?

              While your opinion on Kelly being different within the victimology of the case does have supporting evidence to suggest such i.e her 'height'; 'youth' and such - this does not offer much evidence to the contrary of her not being a victim of the same killer, either.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AuroraSarintacos View Post
                Have you been able to define what that motive is, Karl?
                Certainly not. Motive can only be discussed once we have specific suspects we can examine. Different suspects may be assigned different motives. If it was suspect A, his motive was probably such and such. If it was suspect B, then he probably did it for these reasons. Personally, I have no suspects.


                While your opinion on Kelly being different within the victimology of the case does have supporting evidence to suggest such i.e her 'height'; 'youth' and such - this does not offer much evidence to the contrary of her not being a victim of the same killer, either.
                Those things do constitute evidence to the contrary, as anything which deviates from a pattern is evidence of an architect different from the maker of that pattern. It's not conclusive by any means, but what is conclusive in these murder cases anyway? It's still evidence, though.

                Comment


                • Mary Kelly was a bit younger and a bit taller than the other victims.

                  Ergo, she wasn't slain by the same knife-wielding lunatic butchering women in Whitechapel.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                    Mary Kelly was a bit younger and a bit taller than the other victims.

                    Ergo, she wasn't slain by the same knife-wielding lunatic butchering women in Whitechapel.
                    Lynette Culver and Kimberly Leach were pre-teens, ergo they weren't killed by Ted Bundy, who killed girls in their teens or twenties. (Similar things could be said of Shawcross and Sutcliffe, among others.)
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Lynette Culver and Kimberly Leach were pre-teens, ergo they weren't killed by Ted Bundy, who killed girls in their teens or twenties. (Similar things could be said of Shawcross and Sutcliffe, among others.)
                      I should've added a wink wink.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                        I should've added a wink wink.
                        Ah, I get your drift, Harry!
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                          Mary Kelly was a bit younger and a bit taller than the other victims.

                          Ergo, she wasn't slain by the same knife-wielding lunatic butchering women in Whitechapel.
                          I am of the opinion that Kellys murder was different from the rest

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            I am of the opinion that Kellys murder was different from the rest
                            Is that because her heart was taken by the killer ?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                              Mary Kelly was a bit younger and a bit taller than the other victims.

                              Ergo, she wasn't slain by the same knife-wielding lunatic butchering women in Whitechapel.
                              She had also very likely been trafficked between Cardiff, France, Kensington and the Ratcliffe Highway - very different circumstances from the other victims.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                I think this "myth" can be traced to the Daily Telegraph, Nov 10th, 1888:

                                "That the woman had had no struggle with her betrayer was shown by her position and the way in which her garments, including a velvet bodice, were arranged by the fireplace."


                                As you say, Caz, they are not necessarily 'folded,' but they are arranged in an organized manner instead of being cut to pieces or thrown onto the floor or the bedside table in a heap. I think many find this puzzling; it is a little too cozy in comparison to the impatient lunatic we sense was at work in Hanbury Street, Buck's Row, etc.

                                Personally, I believe it is the same man, but something seems slightly 'amiss' to me.
                                We don't know if these were the clothes Mary was wearing that night. Maria Harvey said in her testimony that she had left a number of items of clothing with Mary [including two dirty shirts]. Perhaps Mary cleaned clothes in the tin bath seen under the bedstead for an extra penny or two and she had washed these clothes earlier and left them in front of the fire to dry. I think it is also worth noting that Abberline, though mentioning a great deal of clothing was burnt in the fire he doesn't mention the items which were not burnt next to the fire {and why wouldn't the ripper burn these items since they were readily accessible?], if they were indeed there.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X