Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael. I believe the word 'lust' in the 'lust murderer' sense mostly means that the killer attacks the genitalia (and breasts) of the victim, and probably gains some psychosexual gratification doing it. Most likely, with Kelly, we see utter destruction due to him having a secure location and more time.

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.

I understand that many would see the 2 individuals Im talking about as similarly motivated, but that's not necessary. I can easily see someone brutal that Mary knows killing her, for whatever reason, in a brutal fashion. that's not a psychosexual event, its just sheer uncontrolled savagery. It does have its moments, perhaps the defleshing of her leg, removing her heart, where that might come into play. I don't believe that the severity of the injuries are simply because the same killer had more time, because that killer to my eye kills women who are strangers to him , working the streets alone early in the morning, and he eviscerates them outdoors with specific abdominal focus...thereby getting his "thrills".

3 women meet that criteria within the Canonical Group. Kelly is not among them.

Elizabeth Stride could very well have just met someone she shouldn't mess with and messed with him. There were lots of men carrying knives, and Id imagine around midnight on the streets, some would be drunk and without the ability to judge right from wrong. One mistaken act in anger, that could be all that was. Why fit a specialized killer, as you along with others here seem to feel this Ripper chap was, and then assume he was interrupted to explain away the distinctive lack of interest the killer seemed to have after the throat cut. Why not see Stride and Kelly for what they really may have been, savage acts committed in a fairly savage environment by savage men. We have plenty of evidence they were around. And there is no evidence that there was an interruption.

We have little or no evidence this was actually 1 savage man.

[J6123]

I do see the Lust in the Kelly killing quite clearly, because there is anger evidence there for one. But I don't see Annie and Pollys killer as particularly emotional at all.

Hello Michael. I believe the word 'lust' in the 'lust murderer' sense mostly means that the killer attacks the genitalia (and breasts) of the victim, and probably gains some psychosexual gratification doing it. Most likely, with Kelly, we see utter destruction due to him having a secure location and more time.

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.

[Batman]

Hi batman
By definition a sadist is a torturer. There is no evidence that the the ripper was either. On the contrary everything points to he tried to kill them as swiftly and painlessly as possible. Everything is post mortem for the ripper.

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.

[Abby Normal]

In today's world, possibly, by reason of copycatting, but as pointed out in my other reply, the copycat hypothesis has problems in that... well a copycat would have copycatted Eddowes or Chapman, but with Kelly there is not just escalation, but entirely new behaviour, such as hiding her breast under her head and placing the organs about the body by a much more controlled design.

Kelly's wounds are so extreme as to almost completely rule out that this was a first murder attempt. If we came across this today, we would ask, where else has this offender been? Copycatting is something that comes on the scene about a decade later, not during the Autumn of Terror, IMO.

By the way, with respect to sadism, JtR receives gratification from another person's suffering. That is sadism. However, he is not a torturer. He executes his victims quickly and often silently and it is important to him that they are dead before mutilations. If they are not dead, he would not be experiencing this odd postmortem behaviour he seems to require for sexual reasons. So sadist yes, but torturer, no.



I think he didn't know what he needed to do to kill his victims and is not as medically aware as Philips would have him. I would be inclined to agree with Bond, that JtR isn't even experienced with butchering. I outline my reasons why, here.

If you want to link all the victims, then that would be done by the prostrate condition under which he cuts their throats. It is extremely unique. He has them down on the ground prostrate before an incision occurs. He is likely manually strangling them. Philips all but says strangulation in his autopsy report. The others had their neck so badly destroyed (except maybe Nichols, but it was bad enough all the same) they couldn't tell, but strangulation seems almost a certainty and nearly all the autopsy reports point at it (including Nichols). Even if it isn't, the absence of blood down their fronts means their necks had to be at a horizontal angle for gravity and spray not to cover their fronts. Lying on their back explains all of this and also the fact that Chapman had blood spray stains just above her head on the wall and very low down on the fence next to her.

In 1888, if you were to get your throat cut, it would be from behind, while you are standing up, or from the front in an assault. What JtR was doing even before mutilating, stands out.

Hi batman
By definition a sadist is a torturer. There is no evidence that the the ripper was either. On the contrary everything points to he tried to kill them as swiftly and painlessly as possible. Everything is post mortem for the ripper.

[c.d.]

"I would argue that almost anyone is capable of doing the things we see done in that room, and to the other women. There is darkness. We see the proof every day in the news. That's why I believe its unreasonable to simply imagine a single killer who dramatically changes all the pertinent aspects of his behaviors in just 2 months, and that he performs these acts with a variety of weapons and shows varying degrees of skill with them."

Hello Michael,

While I agree that in theory anyone is capable of doing what was done in that room, the reality is it is extremely uncommon otherwise the Ripper would have faded quickly into history and you and I would not be having this discussion in 2018.

c.d.

[Batman]

I tend to agree with your analysis, Batman. However, as Kelly was obviously aggressively mutilated, whereas the other victims clearly were not, indicating that JtR was probably not a sadist, doesn't this suggest at least some element of doubt? Or at least a different, more personal, motive?

In today's world, possibly, by reason of copycatting, but as pointed out in my other reply, the copycat hypothesis has problems in that... well a copycat would have copycatted Eddowes or Chapman, but with Kelly there is not just escalation, but entirely new behaviour, such as hiding her breast under her head and placing the organs about the body by a much more controlled design.

Kelly's wounds are so extreme as to almost completely rule out that this was a first murder attempt. If we came across this today, we would ask, where else has this offender been? Copycatting is something that comes on the scene about a decade later, not during the Autumn of Terror, IMO.

By the way, with respect to sadism, JtR receives gratification from another person's suffering. That is sadism. However, he is not a torturer. He executes his victims quickly and often silently and it is important to him that they are dead before mutilations. If they are not dead, he would not be experiencing this odd postmortem behaviour he seems to require for sexual reasons. So sadist yes, but torturer, no.

I regard the extensive throat mutilations as part of JtR,'s signature, as they clearly went way beyond what was necessary to kill the victim. This is why I also have doubts about Stride being a Ripper victim, i.e. because of the absence of that signature element and why, on balance, I consider Kelly to be a Ripper victim. And, of course, she also fits perfectly with the geo profile!

I think he didn't know what he needed to do to kill his victims and is not as medically aware as Philips would have him. I would be inclined to agree with Bond, that JtR isn't even experienced with butchering. I outline my reasons why, here.

If you want to link all the victims, then that would be done by the prostrate condition under which he cuts their throats. It is extremely unique. He has them down on the ground prostrate before an incision occurs. He is likely manually strangling them. Philips all but says strangulation in his autopsy report. The others had their neck so badly destroyed (except maybe Nichols, but it was bad enough all the same) they couldn't tell, but strangulation seems almost a certainty and nearly all the autopsy reports point at it (including Nichols). Even if it isn't, the absence of blood down their fronts means their necks had to be at a horizontal angle for gravity and spray not to cover their fronts. Lying on their back explains all of this and also the fact that Chapman had blood spray stains just above her head on the wall and very low down on the fence next to her.

In 1888, if you were to get your throat cut, it would be from behind, while you are standing up, or from the front in an assault. What JtR was doing even before mutilating, stands out.

[John G]

Chapman had her abdominal wall taken away is sections. Kelly had her abdominal wall taken away in sections. Case closed. Same killer.

If only it were that simple! You might want to consider the difficulties that an eighteenth century mutilator would have over a modern offender.

In any event, in one case we have a victim skillfully mutilated, and where an emaciated state could have determined the killer's strategy, and in the other event a very different scenario of a victim simply being hacked to pieces.

Frankly, in certain respects the rspective cases could hardly be more different. To that extent, any "similarities are superficial at best. In fact, if the "abdominal wall* argument is so significant, you could just as easily argue that Chapman, Kelly and Jackson were killed by the same person, and every other victim was killed by somebody else.

I will respond in more detail, on the Torso book thread, tomorrow, when I have more time.

[Fisherman]

I tend to agree with your analysis, Batman. However, as Kelly was obviously aggressively mutilated, whereas the other victims clearly were not, indicating that JtR was probably not a sadist, doesn't this suggest at least some element of doubt? Or at least a different, more personal, motive?

I regard the extensive throat mutilations as part of JtR,'s signature, as they clearly went way beyond what was necessary to kill the victim. This is why I also have doubts about Stride being a Ripper victim, i.e. because of the absence of that signature element and why, on balance, I consider Kelly to be a Ripper victim. And, of course, she also fits perfectly with the geo profile!

Chapman had her abdominal wall taken away is sections. Kelly had her abdominal wall taken away in sections. Case closed. Same killer.

[John G]

The 'lust' being talked about is the emotional gratification the offender gets involving sexually sadistic homicides. That what we find when we breakthrough psychologically with offenders is that the act of mutilating is sexually satisfying for them. We have actually known this for over a hundred years now and the thing is... it doesn't change. Lust murderers don't differ on this point which is why we are fairly certain that the organ harvesting was for no other purpose than a sexual one. Not for sale to medical students. Not for sending the newspapers or Lusk's men. It was done for sexual reasons. For Annie and Polly the displacement of clothes and mutilation of the sexual areas POSTMORTEM is what takes us into Lust murderer territory. He required them to be dead before he did this so JtR has two main phases when he murders them. The MO phase, which is the throat cutting, is jus ta means to an end, to the signature, which is the second phase of the mutilation of sexual areas. Sexual in homicide is a broad term. It can also mean features that are useful for sexual reasons, such as looks, or breasts, for example.

Why they have this inclination is the subject of further study but it seems that at some point in their developmental that there is a fusion of violence and sex together to the point that they may become sexual sadists. It is something which if you don't have, you can't get or force yourself to acquire. It is clearly a psychological aberration as killing someone for sexual reasons has no sexual reproductive advantages to the dead.



JtR did some intestine draping. For Chapman, he placed the intestines in a pile on her shoulder. For Eddowes he placed her intestines also on her shoulder. You can see them on her right shoulder here.

Eddowes would also have been alone, tired, hungover, and still having to solicit to get doss money.

I am inclined to favour that JtR either knew the spots he was in because he had used them with prostitutes before or he knew some of the victims. I think it is a combination of both. There is indirect evidence that all his victims would have likely known each other because of where they had lived/were living, in the hot zone near Flower & Dean St.



Mary Kelly's door was a "pull closed to lock" mechanism that could be opened via the window. Apparently, MJK had lost the key so anybody going in with her or looking up the court, may actually learn this. Which means JtR may have been watching her and waiting for his chance. However, I tend to favour that she met him and invited him back.



That does appear somewhat true but it isn't exactly the Ritz, is it? Maybe Kelly was a little more pricey for these reasons. Still, Cox didn't mention that it was odd that Kelly did this. Cox, herself an unfortunate, seems to have just described it like any other evening, except for the murder (and maybe not even that given it was Dorset St.).



The only other person capable of this is another lust murderer.

There seems to be no reason though to invoke another lust murderer as one lust murderer is sufficient to explain it.

I tend to agree with your analysis, Batman. However, as Kelly was obviously aggressively mutilated, whereas the other victims clearly were not, indicating that JtR was probably not a sadist, doesn't this suggest at least some element of doubt? Or at least a different, more personal, motive?

I regard the extensive throat mutilations as part of JtR,'s signature, as they clearly went way beyond what was necessary to kill the victim. This is why I also have doubts about Stride being a Ripper victim, i.e. because of the absence of that signature element and why, on balance, I consider Kelly to be a Ripper victim. And, of course, she also fits perfectly with the geo profile!

[Batman]

Lets take then Lust element you stated, can you cite some evidence from either Annie's or Polly's murder that shows us that Lust played any factor?

The 'lust' being talked about is the emotional gratification the offender gets involving sexually sadistic homicides. That what we find when we breakthrough psychologically with offenders is that the act of mutilating is sexually satisfying for them. We have actually known this for over a hundred years now and the thing is... it doesn't change. Lust murderers don't differ on this point which is why we are fairly certain that the organ harvesting was for no other purpose than a sexual one. Not for sale to medical students. Not for sending the newspapers or Lusk's men. It was done for sexual reasons. For Annie and Polly the displacement of clothes and mutilation of the sexual areas POSTMORTEM is what takes us into Lust murderer territory. He required them to be dead before he did this so JtR has two main phases when he murders them. The MO phase, which is the throat cutting, is jus ta means to an end, to the signature, which is the second phase of the mutilation of sexual areas. Sexual in homicide is a broad term. It can also mean features that are useful for sexual reasons, such as looks, or breasts, for example.

Why they have this inclination is the subject of further study but it seems that at some point in their developmental that there is a fusion of violence and sex together to the point that they may become sexual sadists. It is something which if you don't have, you can't get or force yourself to acquire. It is clearly a psychological aberration as killing someone for sexual reasons has no sexual reproductive advantages to the dead.

From my point of view, their killer....the only 2murders I am about 100% certain were by the same man, was dispassionate. Clinical, or at least methodical.. in Annies case in particular. And Im also sure that they met their killer when they were at their weakest...alone, tired, hungover, and still having to solicit to get doss money. And that they likely did not know him.

JtR did some intestine draping. For Chapman, he placed the intestines in a pile on her shoulder. For Eddowes he placed her intestines also on her shoulder. You can see them on her right shoulder here.

Eddowes would also have been alone, tired, hungover, and still having to solicit to get doss money.

I am inclined to favour that JtR either knew the spots he was in because he had used them with prostitutes before or he knew some of the victims. I think it is a combination of both. There is indirect evidence that all his victims would have likely known each other because of where they had lived/were living, in the hot zone near Flower & Dean St.

Its almost a certainty that the killer of Mary Kelly was in her room with her agreement when she is killed, and there is no evidence at all that she ever brought clients into that room.

Mary Kelly's door was a "pull closed to lock" mechanism that could be opened via the window. Apparently, MJK had lost the key so anybody going in with her or looking up the court, may actually learn this. Which means JtR may have been watching her and waiting for his chance. However, I tend to favour that she met him and invited him back.

She only could have done so since the previous Tuesday anyway,(Maria moved out), and we know she was seen out Wednesday. She sang to Blotchy for over an hour, off and on. That's not your typical street sex scenario in the Victorian era.

That does appear somewhat true but it isn't exactly the Ritz, is it? Maybe Kelly was a little more pricey for these reasons. Still, Cox didn't mention that it was odd that Kelly did this. Cox, herself an unfortunate, seems to have just described it like any other evening, except for the murder (and maybe not even that given it was Dorset St.).

I would argue that almost anyone is capable of doing the things we see done in that room, and to the other women.

The only other person capable of this is another lust murderer.

There seems to be no reason though to invoke another lust murderer as one lust murderer is sufficient to explain it.

[Michael W Richards]

Again, what was done to Mary could have been done by anyone. There was no skill shown, no particular anatomical knowledge, and many, many wounds that serve no greater purpose than to disfigure.

That's not the same person who killed Annie so he could obtain her uterus. Making something seem reminiscent of prior crimes doesn't mean the acts themselves must match. Everyone but me uses the term copycat here, Ive never said that. The acts are not replications, they are similar acts without the requisite drive or compulsion. Like Kates murder as well perhaps.

The person doing the similar acts has no idea why the prior person did them, that's why we have a uterus under Marys head. Her killer knew that organs were taken previously, he just overlooked the fact that specific organs may have been the target.

[Michael W Richards]

Wasn't there? Who's to say what his emotional state was?

Dispassionate injuries, ones that are inflicted to achieve an objective...in the cases mentioned earlier, the objective was mutilation of the abdomen and extraction of an organ, vs Passionate, injuries that are representative of pent up emotion Sam.


Annies killer was cold, Marys was hot. Simple. Marys killer fought her off, and slashed her face back and forth. Annies killer, as he did with Polly, killed so he could have a body to work with. Marys killer killed Mary.

I know you fight over minutia but its pointless to discount the presence of anger in room 13 Sam, its so obviously there in some of the actions taken.

So...how does a cool killer become categorized as "hot"? He has emotional and vested interests that present themselves in his actions.

I think these arguments may be rendered as useless anyway, because I'm fairly sure a woman named Mary Kelly with the background provided by Barnett and others never really existed. Someone calling themselves Mary Kelly is probably the more realistic position.

[Sam Flynn]

The part I emboldened above is the crux here Sam, there is no such "emotional state" evidence in either of the 2 killings

Wasn't there? Who's to say what his emotional state was?

[Michael W Richards]

So was Eddowes' face - not to the same extent as Kelly's, but pretty nasty nonetheless.
The (possible) defence wounds indicate that she put up a bit of a struggle, that's all we can say. Perhaps one or more of the others did, too, but it tells us little about the killer.I guess most people being attacked by a man with a knife would feel a bit emotional, and I've no reason to doubt that the man doing the attacking would have felt a bit aroused as well. (And I don't necessarily mean sexually aroused, for the record.)

The part I emboldened above is the crux here Sam, there is no such "emotional state" evidence in either of the 2 killings, which are to most people, easily associated with a single killer. Room 13 had anger present. There is also no evidence in any prior Canonical that the victim struggled at all. There is in room 13. There is no evidence that any prior Canonical knew their killer, save for the possible connection indicated by Kates placing of her hand on the mans chest. If that was indeed Kate. Marys killer was in her room with permission, based on the evidence. She knew him.

The man who killed Mary vented on her. The man who killed Polly and Annie did so in order to move to the next step.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, the circumstantial evidence is like a breadcrumb trail to the motive, which in turn helps to isolate the probable culprit. Kellys face was slashed by someone.

So was Eddowes' face - not to the same extent as Kelly's, but pretty nasty nonetheless.

Her arms tell a story of self defense.

The (possible) defence wounds indicate that she put up a bit of a struggle, that's all we can say. Perhaps one or more of the others did, too, but it tells us little about the killer.

That's an emotionally charged event.

I guess most people being attacked by a man with a knife would feel a bit emotional, and I've no reason to doubt that the man doing the attacking would have felt a bit aroused as well. (And I don't necessarily mean sexually aroused, for the record.)