Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[AuroraSarintacos]

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.

[Karl]

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.

[rjpalmer]

. 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.

[Busy Beaver]

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.

[caz]

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

[caz]

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

[caz]

. . .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

[Wickerman]

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_reports/daily_news/18881112.html

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Varqm]

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.

--

[Karl]

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?

[Karl]

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:

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.

[Varqm]

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.

---

[Varqm]

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?

---

[c.d.]

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.