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
    With the Ripper murders, you have the ages at 43, 47, 45, 43... and 25. And granted, Nichols was said to look about ten years younger than she was, but even so she'd be a mature adult at the most generous. If Kelly look about ten years older then that would at least be something, but her description as beautiful suggests otherwise.
    Goodness, don't let Helen Mirren or Joanna Lumley see this!

    And what is your evidence for MJK being 25, apart from what she may have claimed herself?

    And beauty, with respects to the first four, could hardly be said to be a quality they shared with Kelly.
    Oh blimey! Their killer operated at dead of night - he wasn't recruiting for Miss World with a black bag full of skimpy swimsuits.

    Have you lost the plot, Karl?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 09-20-2018, 10:05 AM.
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post

      I strongly disagree - both with the value of trying to 'categorise' MJK in the first place, and with her being a square peg in a round hole. You'd need evidence that she was not precisely the ripper's cup of tea - being a vulnerable female, living on her wits, who had nobody with her to keep her safe when her killer encountered her.
      You must have meant more evidence Caz, because the square peg and round hole analogy is certainly apt based on what we know:

      -indoor kill-1st and only
      -no evidence victim met killer soliciting
      -no focus on female abdomen
      -known to be in love triangle at the time.
      -15 years or more younger than preceding victims
      -had flesh cut from thighs to the bone
      -left uterus behind
      -did not leave body in public view, actually prevented any easy access to it.

      The plethora of things that were unique in the Kelly murder have often been explained by arguments such as "well, he finally had a private venue"..."or he lost his mind committing this murder"...neither of which are anything substantiated by any real evidence. Who says outdoors weren't his objective? Who says he changed from stranger to stranger encounters with actively working prostitutes to intimate killing in the victims own private room?

      All of the malarkey that attempts to connect Mary...and also Liz...with the women who were killed by someone who posed as a client and then attacked them outdoors amounts to a pile of speculation that is used to create a Canonical Group.

      The women who we don't know were soliciting at the time of their murders had dumped lovers that same week or shown less than alledged commitment to their partners. That in and of itself leave room for motives that do not include drooling madmen.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Michael,

        We are never going to see eye to eye on this, and I have no intention of dipping my pretty [as in pretty unsightly] toes into the realms of fantasy, so I'll just say this:

        The more arguments [half reasonable, questionable or downright loopy] I see listed for MJK being a square peg in a round hole, the less credible I find the argument for another killer hoping to pull off the perfect copycat ripper murder!

        Your man was clueless, wasn't he? Indoors when all the others had been out? What was his problem? Did MJK never venture out alone at night?

        Left the uterus behind, when he had gone to all the time and trouble to remove it, along with the kidneys, for display purposes only? What was his problem? Pockets not deep enough? Didn't have the prescribed black bag with him?

        I could go on, but I'm sure everyone would prefer that I don't.

        See you all when I return from Portmeirion - if they let me return.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Last edited by caz; 09-20-2018, 10:27 AM.
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • I agree with everything Caz has said previously. Summed up my opinion on the matter perfectly.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            Michael,

            We are never going to see eye to eye on this, and I have no intention of dipping my pretty [as in pretty unsightly] toes into the realms of fantasy, so I'll just say this:

            The more arguments [half reasonable, questionable or downright loopy] I see listed for MJK being a square peg in a round hole, the less credible I find the argument for another killer hoping to pull off the perfect copycat ripper murder!

            Your man was clueless, wasn't he? Indoors when all the others had been out? What was his problem? Did MJK never venture out alone at night?

            Left the uterus behind, when he had gone to all the time and trouble to remove it, along with the kidneys, for display purposes only? What was his problem? Pockets not deep enough? Didn't have the prescribed black bag with him?

            I could go on, but I'm sure everyone would prefer that I don't.

            See you all when I return from Portmeirion - if they let me return.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            But the argument you make for this being a poor copycat, also casts some doubt on including MJK as a ripper victim.

            I am undecided. I hate to think it was a romantic murder that was hurriedly disguised (in some ways poorly as you say) as a ripper murder, meaning two people got away with murder. But there are enough questions that I believe you cannot completely rule out that possibility.

            Balancing all we know, I think MJK probably was a victim of the Ripper, but there are niggling doubts. One of the issues that I wonder about are the mid morning sightings of MJK. If it had just been one person, then error would be the obvious explanation. More than one, as in this case, makes it more difficult to accept error as the explanation.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              Michael,

              We are never going to see eye to eye on this, and I have no intention of dipping my pretty [as in pretty unsightly] toes into the realms of fantasy, so I'll just say this:

              The more arguments [half reasonable, questionable or downright loopy] I see listed for MJK being a square peg in a round hole, the less credible I find the argument for another killer hoping to pull off the perfect copycat ripper murder!

              Your man was clueless, wasn't he? Indoors when all the others had been out? What was his problem? Did MJK never venture out alone at night?

              Left the uterus behind, when he had gone to all the time and trouble to remove it, along with the kidneys, for display purposes only? What was his problem? Pockets not deep enough? Didn't have the prescribed black bag with him?

              I could go on, but I'm sure everyone would prefer that I don't.

              See you all when I return from Portmeirion - if they let me return.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Hi Caz,

              It occurs to me that we have been sparring in a friendly manner here for over 10 years, its been a pleasure to debate with you.

              The missing answers that you inquire about above just helps illustrate my point, the acts were performed without the requisite desire or compulsion. He didn't take the uterus because to him it had no value,..but her heart seems to have had. To Polly and Kates killer the uterus seems to have had meaning. On Mary's killer, maybe he didn't kill her outdoors because he wasnt out looking for women outdoors, maybe he was targeting just this one indoor girl.

              The circumstances combined with the physical evidence tell a tale that most Ripperologists don't want to concede...among these five women there seems to be differences in the manner, the weapon, the location, the victimology, the general MO, the wounds inflicted and the circumstances in which they took place. We know 2 women were assaulted by what we can conclude was a killer posing as a client. He had specific things he did, and a focus that is evident. We dont know what the remaining 3 women were doing when they were attacked or why they were where they were. We do know that just those three are dramatic contrasts. From almost a complete dissection of the human form to a slice on the throat. Ill add that Liz had just ended a relationship, as had Mary, and Kate went the opposite direction of where we understand she knew John would likely be, and that he knew she was in jail and made no attempt to see her or wait for her to be released. A sign their relationship, one of supposed "man and wife" variety, wasn't what we are told it was at that time.

              And in 2 of those 3 cases an argument can be made for superfluous cutting, something not seen in the aforementioned ladies.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Michael,

                I don't think we should judge Kelly too harshly. He wouldn't have been allowed to see Kate while she was in her cell, and he could hardly be expected to sit around waiting for her potentially all night.

                Kate had done time before, in a proper prison - Wandsworth - so a night in the cells at Bishopsgate nick wouldn't exactly have been a traumatic experience for her.

                Gary
                Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-27-2018, 04:09 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  Michael,

                  I don't think we should judge Kelly too harshly. He wouldn't have been allowed to see Kate while she was in her cell, and he could hardly be expected to sit around waiting for her potentially all night.

                  Kate had done time before, in a proper prison - Wandsworth - so a night in the cells at Bishopsgate nick wouldn't exactly have been a traumatic experience for her.

                  Gary
                  I should add that her two spells in Wandsworth that we know of were for drunkenness. On one of those occasions she was banged up with her youngest child. I doubt that night in the police cells was a unique occasion, so perhaps Kelly's not unreasonable reaction would have been, "you've made your bed, lie in it".

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    Michael,

                    I don't think we should judge Kelly too harshly. He wouldn't have been allowed to see Kate while she was in her cell, and he could hardly be expected to sit around waiting for her potentially all night.

                    Kate had done time before, in a proper prison - Wandsworth - so a night in the cells at Bishopsgate nick wouldn't exactly have been a traumatic experience for her.

                    Gary
                    I think we can judge him for not coming forward after he hadn't heard from her after her release though Gary, wasn't his original story that he read about the victim and realized it was Kate? And lets not forget that Kate supposedly claimed she had intentions of naming someone for the murders, could that not leave her at risk if that party to be named knows it? Extenuating circumstances is my point Gary.

                    There are no real obstacles with the presumption that the killer of Polly likely also killed Annie. There are with a presumption that the same man also killed Liz. Or Mary. Or Martha. Kate is a question mark in my book.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • A good way of identifying a copycat is that they only know about what they are copying from what they read in the papers.

                      So if one finds things about MJK that don't appear in papers with the other victims, then that's a good way to demonstrate the copycat hypothesis has problems explaining how the copycat could know things.

                      For example, how did he know how to pose MJK? Spread-eagled, her right hand placed into her disembowelment. Her face turned towards the door. It was not as open and displayed as many of his other crimes, but she appears displayed from the crime scene photos and what he lost in a more public setting he gained in the extent of how badly she had been mutilated.

                      Her right arm was lying supine with her fingers closed. I think this is found in other murders. Eddowes right leg is more bent than her left leg. This seems to be how he organizing things when mutilating from their sides. The same appears to have been done to MJK. More bending on the right leg than the left.
                      Bona fide canonical and then some.

                      Comment


                      • There is little about Eddowes' position that suggests that she wasn't simply left as she was when she fell.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          There is little about Eddowes' position that suggests that she wasn't simply left as she was when she fell.
                          Just coincidence then that Eddowes and Kelly's right legs are bent much more at the knee than their left legs?
                          Bona fide canonical and then some.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                            Just coincidence then that Eddowes and Kelly's right legs are bent much more at the knee than their left legs?
                            Yes. The killer had little choice but to work from the left hand side in both cases, so he naturally wasn't going to leave the left leg standing up and getting in his way. He stood to gain nothing from laying the right leg flat. That's not "posing", but a simple matter of practicality,
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              Yes. The killer had little choice but to work from the left hand side in both cases, so he naturally wasn't going to leave the left leg standing up and getting in his way. He stood to gain nothing from laying the right leg flat. That's not "posing", but a simple matter of practicality,
                              So for what purpose did the photographer 'pose' the left leg in MJK3 do we think ?
                              It's clearly elevated for that photo
                              You can lead a horse to water.....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                Yes. The killer had little choice but to work from the left hand side in both cases, so he naturally wasn't going to leave the left leg standing up and getting in his way. He stood to gain nothing from laying the right leg flat. That's not "posing", but a simple matter of practicality,
                                What makes you think JtR worked on Eddowes left-hand side? Her left side has a piece of detached intestine on the ground where he was supposed to be kneeling in your version. In Chapman's case, he throws intestines away from himself, not towards himself. They were tossed over her shoulder. He threw Kelly's intestines away from himself also onto the bench for example.
                                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X