Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Michael W Richards]

zero evidence to beleive him? his suspect was wearing a peaked cap and fit the general description-so just like ALL the other witnesses suspects that night-so there coroberation right there.

And besides, just because a witnesses testimony isnt directly corroberated by other witnesses dosnt make it useless. Most eye witness testimony isnt corroberated and still holds up in court no problem.


would be nice to know why he wasnt at the inquest though. i think it might have something to do with the fact that he was a foreigner and didnt speak the language.

He had a translator with him when he came in to give his statement, could have been Wess. He supposedly did so for Goldstein later that week.

You already know why he wasn't on any Inquest records, its because he wasn't relevant in any way to those discussions. Which is extremely odd if he was believed, an assault within minutes of her throat cut would have been very relevant.

And you mention ALL the witness who saw someone in a peaked cap that night, want to list all those folks for me?

[Abby Normal]

Jon,

I have no problem debating with anyone, but suggesting what Ive said here is "so wrong" is just blatant erroneous mud slinging.

-I said there was no corroborating account for Israel-fact
-I said that nothing of Israels statement appears in any Inquest documentation-fact
-I said the witness lived steps from where Israel said his event took place-fact
-I said that she claimed to hear bootsteps from inside-fact
-I said she said she was at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1am-fact
-I said she saw Leon Goldstein during that time-fact, at 12:55
-I said she didn't see or hear Louis arrive AT 1am as he claimed-fact

People want to believe Israel, fine go ahead. There is zero reason to do so though, he is not an accredited witness to the events that night by virtue of Inquest inclusion, so just be honest with that little fact ok?

zero evidence to beleive him? his suspect was wearing a peaked cap and fit the general description-so just like ALL the other witnesses suspects that night-so there coroberation right there.

And besides, just because a witnesses testimony isnt directly corroberated by other witnesses dosnt make it useless. Most eye witness testimony isnt corroberated and still holds up in court no problem.


would be nice to know why he wasnt at the inquest though. i think it might have something to do with the fact that he was a foreigner and didnt speak the language.

[Michael W Richards]

...and the chance of both these mutilators cutting the abdominal wall away in sections from their victims makes the case an even worse one. Much worse, in fact.
I regard the suggestion as a complete waste of space.

Oh the irony Fish....the IRONY.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi All,

I wonder if the difference some see in the Miller's Court murder might suggest that JtR, very likely a habitual user of prostitutes, met Kelly and was attracted to her, and only intended to have sex in that room, but something happened - or didn't happen - which enraged him and, now thoroughly immersed in the art, once more turned to murder and mutilation, as his go-to means of regaining control over himself and the situation. They say murder gets easier after the first time, so might it not also become an unplanned reaction to accompany a sudden outburst of anger or frustration, when it concerns a man and a woman alone together?

There is little doubt in my mind that we have here a killer who either had significant issues with the fairer sex and/or a very unhealthy obsession with what made them female.

If Michael insists on Kelly not soliciting that evening, then fine. Let's have Blotchy or A.N.Other chatting her up, assuming she's up for it, while Kelly herself is eyeing the charmer up and down, not as a one-off paying customer, but as a prospective new beau and regular rent payer. According to Joe Barnett, they met one day and shacked up together the next, so now Barnett has taken himself out of the picture, why would Kelly not be on the lookout for someone to take his place - someone she could feel equally 'at home' with after five minutes?

Love,

Caz
X

Its so interesting that wildly speculating about why Marys murder is so different is just fine for some, not for others.

Kelly sang to Blotchy for over an hour Caz, that's not prostitution of any kind, if anything maybe you should be suggesting she decided to give recitals with every trick that night.

[Abby Normal]

Hi All,

I wonder if the difference some see in the Miller's Court murder might suggest that JtR, very likely a habitual user of prostitutes, met Kelly and was attracted to her, and only intended to have sex in that room, but something happened - or didn't happen - which enraged him and, now thoroughly immersed in the art, once more turned to murder and mutilation, as his go-to means of regaining control over himself and the situation. They say murder gets easier after the first time, so might it not also become an unplanned reaction to accompany a sudden outburst of anger or frustration, when it concerns a man and a woman alone together?

There is little doubt in my mind that we have here a killer who either had significant issues with the fairer sex and/or a very unhealthy obsession with what made them female.

If Michael insists on Kelly not soliciting that evening, then fine. Let's have Blotchy or A.N.Other chatting her up, assuming she's up for it, while Kelly herself is eyeing the charmer up and down, not as a one-off paying customer, but as a prospective new beau and regular rent payer. According to Joe Barnett, they met one day and shacked up together the next, so now Barnett has taken himself out of the picture, why would Kelly not be on the lookout for someone to take his place - someone she could feel equally 'at home' with after five minutes?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz
interesting. I do think mary knew her killer and i also think she WAS probably on the lookout for a new sugar daddy that night and NOT actively solicitating.

but I think her killer may have been keeping her in the back of his mind and it was his fortune that she broke up with barnett and learning this moved in.

so in contrary to a spur of the moment accidental type thing that was triggered by something in that room I think he was planning, or hoping he might get his opportunity with her to do his thing.

i think the ripper may have been a frequenter of prostitutes, but I doubt for sex. All indications are no kind of sexual interaction took place with the victims.
most serial killers of prostitutes who frequented prostitutes before engaged in sex with them before they started killing and after. it was part of there process, even after they started there murders-whether having sex with them before during or after the attack.


I dont think the ripper was like this. I think he may have had problems having sex, mental or physical and could be one of the possible triggers that got him started.


specifically if you transposed this type of scenario from Kelly to Tabram though you might be on to something.


i could see Tabram as his trigger kill, she said or did something(about his size? not being able to get it up?) that set him off. Might explain the "anger" possibly exhibited in the frenzied nature of her murder.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

We go through all this a couple times a year, and you do seem to be a little confused re: Schwartz. Your facts above are so wrong that I`m wondering if you`re just winding me up. :-)

Jon,

I have no problem debating with anyone, but suggesting what Ive said here is "so wrong" is just blatant erroneous mud slinging.

-I said there was no corroborating account for Israel-fact
-I said that nothing of Israels statement appears in any Inquest documentation-fact
-I said the witness lived steps from where Israel said his event took place-fact
-I said that she claimed to hear bootsteps from inside-fact
-I said she said she was at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1am-fact
-I said she saw Leon Goldstein during that time-fact, at 12:55
-I said she didn't see or hear Louis arrive AT 1am as he claimed-fact

People want to believe Israel, fine go ahead. There is zero reason to do so though, he is not an accredited witness to the events that night by virtue of Inquest inclusion, so just be honest with that little fact ok?

[caz]

Hi All,

I wonder if the difference some see in the Miller's Court murder might suggest that JtR, very likely a habitual user of prostitutes, met Kelly and was attracted to her, and only intended to have sex in that room, but something happened - or didn't happen - which enraged him and, now thoroughly immersed in the art, once more turned to murder and mutilation, as his go-to means of regaining control over himself and the situation. They say murder gets easier after the first time, so might it not also become an unplanned reaction to accompany a sudden outburst of anger or frustration, when it concerns a man and a woman alone together?

There is little doubt in my mind that we have here a killer who either had significant issues with the fairer sex and/or a very unhealthy obsession with what made them female.

If Michael insists on Kelly not soliciting that evening, then fine. Let's have Blotchy or A.N.Other chatting her up, assuming she's up for it, while Kelly herself is eyeing the charmer up and down, not as a one-off paying customer, but as a prospective new beau and regular rent payer. According to Joe Barnett, they met one day and shacked up together the next, so now Barnett has taken himself out of the picture, why would Kelly not be on the lookout for someone to take his place - someone she could feel equally 'at home' with after five minutes?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There are more problems assuming it was someone else. The copycat hypothesis has a number of issues.

MJK is entirely explained by an escalating Lust murderer. There is nothing about the crime that isn't. In escalation, there are no age barriers, no location barriers, no barriers except for the loose condition that the violence inflicted be more emphasized than the last. Meaning in the case of a lust murderer, that the sexual areas will be violated more. Also, in escalation, the violence may sometimes need not to be more emphasized but the rate of murders increases. This is still escalation.

So being indoors or outdoors, young or old, isn't how to rule out the same hand at all. It is entirely consistent with even examples we have today. We have repeats of this happening with other offenders (same hand each time). It might simply be newish grounds, but it's still Whitechapel and it might be a different age but it's still the same victimology.

More importantly, a copycat, copies what they read in the news, in this case, it would be papers reporting on the inquests and mimic those. Yet there is no evidence of this. Consider the following.

- The option of murdering MJK in Miller's court rather than her room.
- To not completely eviscerated her but match what was done to Eddowes (even Chapman or Nichols would have sufficed given Stride was considered a JtR victim).

You only have to ask one question... "Would JtR if alone with a prostitute in her room and free from intrusion, murder her like MJK was murdered?"

There we have it. No barrier to JtR at all.

MJK was posed like many of the other victims. The fact her breast was left under her head and other body parts hidden about her body was something new not seen in the other victims. A copycat would have not have done these.

All the deviations you are seeing as another hand are in fact a standard lust murderers escalation combined with opportunism.

Holy posting, Batman!

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Love,

Robin
X

[Jon Guy]

Oh, the other "believed" witness whose statement isn't on any Inquest records, in any form Jon? There is no corroborating account of what Israel Schwartz says he saw and heard, and there is evidence that a witness very near to that spot likely would have at least heard something. She stated she heard bootsteps while indoors...she wouldnt hear Lipski being shouted out? In just a few minutes she will be at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1am....during which time she hears or sees no-one, other than Leon Goldstein. Not even Louis. Who was vehement he arrived at precisely 1am.

Hi Michael

We go through all this a couple times a year, and you do seem to be a little confused re: Schwartz. Your facts above are so wrong that I`m wondering if you`re just winding me up. :-)

[Michael W Richards]

Apart from the eye witness who saw a man assaulting a woman at about that time, where the body was later found.

Oh, the other "believed" witness whose statement isn't on any Inquest records, in any form Jon? There is no corroborating account of what Israel Schwartz says he saw and heard, and there is evidence that a witness very near to that spot likely would have at least heard something. She stated she heard bootsteps while indoors...she wouldnt hear Lipski being shouted out? In just a few minutes she will be at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1am....during which time she hears or sees no-one, other than Leon Goldstein. Not even Louis. Who was vehement he arrived at precisely 1am.

[Abby Normal]

...and the chance of both these mutilators cutting the abdominal wall away in sections from their victims makes the case an even worse one. Much worse, in fact.
I regard the suggestion as a complete waste of space.

yes very different methods. lol ; )

[Fisherman]

I think it has also been suggested by experts that the chances of two disorganised lust murderers/post-morten mutilators operating in the same small area at the same time would be exceedingly slim.

...and the chance of both these mutilators cutting the abdominal wall away in sections from their victims makes the case an even worse one. Much worse, in fact.
I regard the suggestion as a complete waste of space.

[Fisherman]

I don't have a problem with this. If we don't want to say there is sadism involved as per physical torture, then fine, but I find the sadistic part of his crime was in the humiliation of leaving them open and displayed. It's still postmortem.

But that is not sadism. It is a complete disregard for fellow human beings, which is a very different matter.

If there was sadism involved at all, then it was necrosadism. There is no place for any other type.

[Fisherman]

If only it were that simple!

It is. There is absolutely no need for inventing any difficulties. Same killer. End of.

[Jon Guy]

And there is no evidence that there was an interruption.

Apart from the eye witness who saw a man assaulting a woman at about that time, where the body was later found.