Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[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?

[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 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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[Jon Guy]

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?

Mike

Yes, the list you have produced does have a few facts, but what they have to with the veracity of Israel Schwartz` statement, god knows.

[Abby Normal]

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?

Hi MR

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.

your kidding right? I don't know why he wasn't at the inquest-you don't know, nobody knows. I have my suspicions, as do you-but no one really knows. if you have an evidence why he wasn't there then please share.

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

Schwartz
Marshall
Smith
lawende

and I said witness suspects not "all the witnesses"

[Fisherman]

Oh the irony Fish....the IRONY.

You may want to expand on that, Mike. I see no irony at all in what I say, but you are perhaps thinking that pointing to Lechmere is a waste of space too? In which case you would be wrong.

But I really should not get ahead of things, I´ll just leave it to you to explain where the irony supposedly lies.

[Michael W Richards]

your kidding right? I don't know why he wasn't at the inquest-you don't know, nobody knows. I have my suspicions, as do you-but no one really knows. if you have an evidence why he wasn't there then please share.


He isnt a part of the Inquest records, though he would have had to have been if he was believed because his story would have had relevance...so, he wasnt relevant. Thats all thats clear on the records, why they didnt believe him may have had something to do with the fact that, as I said, no-one corroberated his story, or because it came out that his story was altered to the benefit of the club because he knew Wolff Wess, ...I dont claim to know why, only that its clear he wasnt.

Schwartz
Marshall
Smith
lawende



Schwartz cannot correberate himself, Marshall saw someone much earlier, Smith saw Wess, and Lawende may have seen Kate. None of which supports Israels story that at 12:45 he walked by the club gates and saw and heard what he claimed to see and hear.

Israels statement has no real bearing on what happened to Liz between 12:45 and 1am, particularly when she was perhaps cut as early as 12:46 in the passageway.

[Michael W Richards]

You may want to expand on that, Mike. I see no irony at all in what I say, but you are perhaps thinking that pointing to Lechmere is a waste of space too? In which case you would be wrong.

But I really should not get ahead of things, I´ll just leave it to you to explain where the irony supposedly lies.

Making something of nothing and then mocking someone who you think does the same is ironic Fish. Historically there were dozens of people who happened to work in the area and happened to be in town the nights of the murder. Youve claimed that one of them should be a suspect based almost solely on that. Thats making something of nothing.

[Michael W Richards]

Mike

Yes, the list you have produced does have a few facts, but what they have to with the veracity of Israel Schwartz` statement, god knows.

Well Jon;

Number 1 means his story cannot be validated by anyone
Number 2 means his story was not relevant to Liz Stride Inquest
Number 3 means a witness who saw and heard things did not hear or see anything that Israel claimed
Number 4 means that we know she could hear bootsteps and hoof steps while she was inside her house.
Number 5 means that we can state she was where she said she was, which is corroborated by her sighting in Number 6
Number 7 proves that Fannys statement disproves Louis's contention.

Ergo, we have a witness that we can establish was there, was watching the street, could hear from inside her house, and did not hear or see anything that Israel says happened. That's how you challenge the veracity of the statement, and that how you can understand why he is not relevant to the Inquest.

Israel knew Wess, and Israels story about why he was there at 12:45 stinks...he likely attended the meeting and stuck around, and his story fortuitously grants immunity from suspicion on the club attendees because he includes details that suggest the attack began off site, and was done by a gentile who had antiemetic feelings. Instead of what we know at face value, that Liz wasn't seen alive by anyone after 12:35, and she wasn't seen by Fanny during the 20 minutes she spent off and on at her door from 12:30 until 12:50. In fact, we have 3 witnesses that say they were by the dying woman at 12:45, which directly contradicts Israel again.

[Abby Normal]

Israels statement has no real bearing on what happened to Liz between 12:45 and 1am, particularly when she was perhaps cut as early as 12:46 in the passageway.

LOL. yeah no real bearing. he only saw a women getting attacked moments before her dead body was found feet away. By a suspect who not only was wearing a peaked cap but fit the general description of the other witnesses suspects that night.

He isnt a part of the Inquest records, though he would have had to have been if he was believed because his story would have had relevance...so, he wasnt relevant. Thats all thats clear on the records, why they didnt believe him may have had something to do with the fact that, as I said, no-one corroberated his story, or because it came out that his story was altered to the benefit of the club because he knew Wolff Wess, ...I dont claim to know why, only that its clear he wasnt.

he didn't attest the inquest because he wasn't relevant???? according to you? or is that documented in the records somewhere? good grief.

Schwartz cannot correberate himself, Marshall saw someone much earlier, Smith saw Wess, and Lawende may have seen Kate. None of which supports Israels story that at 12:45 he walked by the club gates and saw and heard what he claimed to see and hear.

you asked me what witnesses claimed to see a man with a peaked cap. I listed them. not sure what your babbling about now... and I don't care anymore.

[Michael W Richards]

LOL. yeah no real bearing. he only saw a women getting attacked moments before her dead body was found feet away. By a suspect who not only was wearing a peaked cap but fit the general description of the other witnesses suspects that night.

Im not surprised you dont understand the word relevant, few of your posts are. I already said before...over and over again for the challenged, that IF BELIEVED his story would HAVE TO BE IN THE INQUEST.

he didn't attest the inquest because he wasn't relevant???? according to you? or is that documented in the records somewhere? good grief.

Are you just being annoying again, or do you really feel that you should contest that remark? If his story was out before the Inquest, and not recorded in any fashion for the Inquest, he wasnt relevant. My god, the easiest concepts seem hard to grasp for some.

you asked me what witnesses claimed to see a man with a peaked cap. I listed them. not sure what your babbling about now... and I don't care anymore.

No, if youll check again I did not ask you that, I essentially asked what other witnesses saw anyone with that type of cap near to the location and time of the murder. Like Israel said he did.

There is zero proof that Israel was even there, let alone he saw what he claims he did. The people running the Inquest were not impressed with his story, thats a certainty. So....if you use Israel in your own bizarre storyline about what actually happened back then you will be sure of one thing....the wrong answers.

This isnt about Liz Strides murder here anyway, if I hadnt have had to deal with some ridiculous comments we could be back on the Kelly case.

My patience with bs, poor reading skills and misinformation has peaked.

[caz]

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.

Hi Abby,

Apologies for my late response.

If the ripper had a problem having sex, mental or physical, and this contributed to, or even triggered his motivation to kill, that would suggest it was an unwelcome but fairly recent development, in which case he could have used prostitutes for sex at any time prior to his first murder, without facing any such humiliation. In fact, a regular prostitute user in the 1880s, with the potential to become a serial killer, might well have put the blame [un]fairly but squarely on these women, if and when his tackle began to let him down.

Love,

Caz
X