Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Batman]

There are a few problems with assuming that same man killed Kelly though.

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

absolutely bang on batman

[Sam Flynn]

absolutely bang on batman

Agreed.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

I would agree that you stated your argument well, of course I add up the variables differently than you do. 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? 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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?

Sexual fulfilment (or satisfying one's "lust") can be obtained by means other than the obvious - e.g. the act of cutting out organs gave the Ripper a sexual thrill. Ultimately, labelling the Ripper as a "lust murderer" is somewhat subjective, albeit no less subjective than discerning "anger" or "emotion" in the Kelly murder and, personally, I'm not sure such labels help us much at all.

[Michael W Richards]

Sexual fulfilment (or satisfying one's "lust") can be obtained by means other than the obvious - e.g. the act of cutting out organs gave the Ripper a sexual thrill. Ultimately, labelling the Ripper as a "lust murderer" is somewhat subjective, albeit no less subjective than discerning "anger" or "emotion" in the Kelly murder and, personally, I'm not sure such labels help us much at all.

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. Her arms tell a story of self defense. That's an emotionally charged event. Applying some kind of choke hold that quickly subdues the victim and then slicing them open quietly and somewhat deftly suggests dispassionate behavior.

Surely the particular character of the individual should be of paramount importance when seeking him in a haystack of bad men.

Mary said that the other Joe "treated her poorly", which might indicate we had someone there that could get some thrill by being cruel and/or violent.

There is no evidence at any murder scene that the killer achieved some gratification to sate his "lustful" mind. In the case of the murdered women outdoors, the thrill could just be the stranger and the danger.

[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.)

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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]

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.