Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[The Good Michael]

But on the balance of probabilities based upon the serial killer's hatred of women or prostitutes and his behaviour to that point in time, I believe that someone else killed Kelly by cutting her throat, and it was common knowledge that the other victims had their throats cut, and then butchered her to make the murder seem like the serial killer.

Then this someone else was far worse than the real killer if he could spend and hour or more in a room with a dead girl dismantling her body in ways most of us couldn't imagine. This would mean that there are two serial killers here, because the second one certainly didn't just decide to denude bones, flay a face, and throw meat on a table without some earlier practice and a bit of a mental issue.

Mike

[c.d.]

Then this someone else was far worse than the real killer if he could spend and hour or more in a room with a dead girl dismantling her body in ways most of us couldn't imagine. This would mean that there are two serial killers here, because the second one certainly didn't just decide to denude bones, flay a face, and throw meat on a table without some earlier practice and a bit of a mental issue.

Mike

Couldn't have said it better myself.

c.d.

[John Wheat]

Then this someone else was far worse than the real killer if he could spend and hour or more in a room with a dead girl dismantling her body in ways most of us couldn't imagine. This would mean that there are two serial killers here, because the second one certainly didn't just decide to denude bones, flay a face, and throw meat on a table without some earlier practice and a bit of a mental issue.

I agree Michael. And surely the chances of three violent serial killers operating in London at the same time, (I include the Torso Killer), at one time must be astronomical.

Cheers John

[Wickerman]

One report in one newspaper.

So we will ignore the Daily News - 15th, Evening News - 16th, & Sheffield Independent - 16th, and just acknowledge the Echo on the 19th?
How much attention did Mrs long, PC Smith, Schwartz & Lawende receive a week after their respective inquests concluded?

If Abberline was still not pursuing the Hutchinson suspect the police would not have had such a keen interest in Isaacs, and after his arrest on Dec. 6th, that "this is a big thing".

Meanwhile investigators were searching for the killer amongst the down and outs of low lodging houses and casual wards,...

Why do you think Scotland Yard were so interested in the Birmingham suspect, a medical man, if they were so convinced the killer was a low-life dosser?
Why do you think they checked out so many "respectably" dressed suspects?

Like it or not the investigation had a broad front, regardless what witnesses were telling them.

Your confusion is such that you are even arguing that Hutchinson’s story was both accepted and rejected by investigators – rejected on the basis of Brown’s estimation of Kelly’s time of death.

That is a strange complaint to make considering your own preferred source, the Echo, published that the police were divided on this matter.
A story, incidentally 'borrowed' from the Daily Telegraph of that morning.
It is only my belief that Dr Bond's opinion (not Brown), is the more likely cause for the uncertainty by Scotland Yard.

Anderson and the other leading investigators rejected Hutchinson’s version of events.
.
.
(quote from Dew) And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.’

Exactly, and rightly so.
Anderson knew Hutchinson had not seen the killer because Isaacs was suspected, located, interrogated and cleared, so naturally by 1910 Anderson was aware Hutchinson had not seen the killer. Though he never claimed he had.

Dew, on the other hand, was not saying Hutchinson was wrong about Astrachan, Maxwell never saw Astrachan, though Dew takes issue with Maxwell seeing Kelly.
Dew is saying Maxwell & Hutchinson must have been mistaken about seeing Kelly.

"The informant this time was a young man named George Hutchinson, who declared that he had seen Kelly at 2 a.m. in Dorset Street...."
Walter Dew.

Which does not reflect on whether Hutchinson saw Astrachan or not.

[sepiae]

Not only youngest.
Definitely younger than the other victims.

Hi DVV,

perhaps age was not a criteria at all for him, but opportunity?

[sepiae]

Si.

I'm beginning to feel that Mary Kelly shouldn't be taken for granted as a Ripper victim.

slight mutilations in comparison to Kelly's utter annihilation.

notable change in modus operandi which seems to be handwaved because Kelly was killed indoors.

WHY did Jack take to killing indoors when before he was targeting prostitutes on the backstreets?
WHY did Jack leave behind the uterus (...)?
WHY did such a clean killer who was able to disembowel his victims in the dark without damaging any other organs and avoid blood splatter then create such a wild bloodbath with Kelly?

Hi Harry D,

my answer in the poll: yes.

shouldn't be taken for granted: that I agree with. Nothing just should be.

mutilations in comparison: I'm an 'escalationist': the mutilations increased in severity from one victim to the next - whether the exception Liz Stride is explained by her not having been a JtR victim or by him having been interrupted, Eddowes being a 2nd victim that night giving it then credence as for a possibly unsatisfied urge, both explanations serve well. The jump from the already very severe mutilations on Eddowes to the excess at Miller's Court are feasible because of -

handwaved change in MO: indeed, the relative security and time is quite sufficient for answering this.

why take to killing indoors: 1st question would be, was this a premeditated decision or a spontaneous one? Did he plan it in advance or did the opportunity present itself to him?
If the latter is the case, could it be that out in the streets he was only able to do what he wanted to a limited extent, and this being something he was quite conscious about? Also, did the increasing police presence play into it?
Be it as it may, having the opportunity indoors must have been liberating. Hence this explosion. To me it perfectly corresponds with what I would expect from a killer mutilating in the way as with Eddowes.
It is also my answer to your bloodbath-question.

uterus left behind: it wasn't merely left behind. He'd done something with it. He'd left it under the head.
I think this is a vital detail. The question has been asked a million times: what did he do with the organs he took with him? I'd suggest that there is perhaps only little, or incidental difference here: that what he did with the uterus in Kelly's room was in some way equal to what he did in the other cases - that the placing it under her head was a version, and that what he did with any of the organs - the parts of her in so close a vicinity of the whole of her - in the room was on the whole something he could only do there.
The heart, if it was somehow like this, he took as a novelty, or as an instead, or to prelong/repeat the tactile sensation of this very significant 'thing' [what dead matter is more attractive to him than the dead matter that once lived, belonged to someone living?], or any of the other possibilities suggested [eating, trophy keep...]. But the uterus being an 'object' of particular significance.
Those differences may be distracting; perhaps they essentially aren't differences.

It goes without saying that I'm spinning speculations here. It's what I suspect to have been the most likely, however.

[markmorey5]

Then this someone else was far worse than the real killer if he could spend and hour or more in a room with a dead girl dismantling her body in ways most of us couldn't imagine. This would mean that there are two serial killers here, because the second one certainly didn't just decide to denude bones, flay a face, and throw meat on a table without some earlier practice and a bit of a mental issue.

Mike

I believe the mutilations of Mary Kelly didn't take that long, but I'm not sure of the estimated timing. But certainly much less than an hour, because really they don't amount to much more than the butchery you would see in a slaughter house. If someone wanted to kill Mary Kelly for a specific reason and make it seem like a Ripper murder (and not the Royal Conspiracy Theory), then that person need not have killed before, and unlike the surgical precision of some of the other murders, Kelly's mutilations could have been done by a slaughterman or someone of that ilk. Prostitutes of the time ran the risk of murder, and Emma Smith is one who seems to have been caught up in some sort of territorial or gang dispute.

My own hypothesis based upon the variances of Kelly's murder is that she was tracked down by a person unknown acting as a client, murdered and mutilated in her room, and Hutchinson was the lookout man. Hutchinson then admitted to being there because he knew he had been seen. Alternatively Hutchinson's story was true and Kelly's murderer was the well-dressed man, who was a different man to the other reported sightings of the Ripper.

In both scenarios the murderer accompanies Kelly to her room, maybe paying to spend the rest of the night with her, she undresses for sex, and at some time she falls asleep and he murders her.

The real problem I have is Jack the Ripper getting into Kelly's room. Most likely he had to know the door was able to be opened through the broken window, and I don't think the Ripper planned things that far in advance. And certainly the Ripper did not proposition Kelly for sex, accompany her to her room, wait for her to undress and then get into bed.

[The Good Michael]

The real problem I have is Jack the Ripper getting into Kelly's room. Most likely he had to know the door was able to be opened through the broken window, and I don't think the Ripper planned things that far in advance. And certainly the Ripper did not proposition Kelly for sex, accompany her to her room, wait for her to undress and then get into bed.

In general I agree. We don't know if Kelly's door was latched by her. We don't know the state of mind of the killer (assuming it was the same one) that evening when presented with a different scenario than say Nichols or Chapman. Each murder was different with different circumstances confronting the killer. Eddowes and Nichols were killed in similar open areas, but with different levels of mutilation. Stride was killed in perhaps the most hurried situation (if she was a JTR victim) and in somewhat confined space. Chapman was killed in a backyard with one way out, so perhaps the most confined of the outdoor killings. Kelly was killed in a place that could be secluded and subject to the best lighting, and the latch and possibly a table or chair against the door could have given him some sense of security coupled with the late hour. So all scenarios are very different, and yet, the murderer adapted just fine. So... do we have 1 JTR and a one-off that could do this kind of damage coincidentally at the same time of the year and coincidentally, without either murderer committing another murder? I don't think so.

Cheers,

Mike

[c.d.]

"The real problem I have is Jack the Ripper getting into Kelly's room. Most likely he had to know the door was able to be opened through the broken window, and I don't think the Ripper planned things that far in advance. And certainly the Ripper did not proposition Kelly for sex, accompany her to her room, wait for her to undress and then get into bed."

How do you know she did not invite her killer into her room?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

The Yorkshire Ripper killed one of his victims in her room, because he was invited in.

A killer prowling the streets resorting to burglary?, ...'Jack' was invited in, unless Kelly wasn't killed by 'Jack', but that would be another tough argument to sell.

[Stephen Lee]

I've always thought there was a possibility of the killer sneaking into MJKs bedroom rather than be invited in. Whether she left the door ajar with being so drunk, or he reached in the broken window and entered.
It's possible the gap between the 30th of September and the 9th of November happened because JTR thought he was under suspicion. Whether it was door to door enquiries or he thought some witness had a good look at him. Schwartz or Lawende possibly.

Rather than using his usual method to get victims he was more cautious. He may have even resorted to voyeurism. He came across Kelly lying half naked, drunk and asleep and grabbed the opportunity.
I'm not saying this happened, it's just a possibility.

Serial killers will move indoors if the chance arises, Bundy (who was also a big voyeur) did it at the sorority house. The Yorkshire ripper also, as was already mentioned.

[markmorey5]

"The real problem I have is Jack the Ripper getting into Kelly's room. Most likely he had to know the door was able to be opened through the broken window, and I don't think the Ripper planned things that far in advance. And certainly the Ripper did not proposition Kelly for sex, accompany her to her room, wait for her to undress and then get into bed."

How do you know she did not invite her killer into her room?

c.d.

Because the man who killed the other women did not go to her room, wait for her to undress and wait for her to get into bed. He was very calm and methodical or else he would have been caught at some time prior, so if he accompanied Kelly to her room, as soon as the door was shut he would have cut her throat, fully dressed. As soon as it was safe for him to murder her, that is when the door was closed, he would have done so.

For sure the Ripper could have propositioned Kelly for sex as he did with the other women, and it would have been his good fortune that she took him to her room. But the killer of those other women wouldn't have waited for her to undress.

[Barnaby]

Using the previous murders to speculate on his specific method in a very different situation is somewhat problematic to me. He had the time in this case to wait till she was undressed. Why? Maybe he figured she would be more vulnerable in bed lying down semi-nude. And pragmatically, he wouldn't have to cut through all the clothing as well. Which is rather morbid.

[The Good Michael]

Using the previous murders to speculate on his specific method in a very different situation is somewhat problematic to me. He had the time in this case to wait till she was undressed. Why? Maybe he figured she would be more vulnerable in bed lying down semi-nude. And pragmatically, he wouldn't have to cut through all the clothing as well. Which is rather morbid.

Right. My point was, there was no specific method. Opportunity knocks. What is the old saying....luck is when preparedness meets opportunity. He may have had some luck that evening. His dreams may have come true. He may even have undressed her himself. In all other cases, there was no time for any of this.

Mike

[markmorey5]

Right. My point was, there was no specific method. Opportunity knocks. What is the old saying....luck is when preparedness meets opportunity. He may have had some luck that evening. His dreams may have come true. He may even have undressed her himself. In all other cases, there was no time for any of this.

Mike

There was a very, specific method. He struck suddenly in all cases but one standing behind, and he immediately grabbed the victim's head and pressed it down to prevent blood spray over himself (something he didn't do with Kelly). In the front on attack he also struck suddenly, and he also pressed the victim's head to prevent blood spray. He struck when they reached the prostitutes 'patch', which might have been Dutfield's Yard or the back yard of Berner Street. It was very sudden because no sound was heard by people close by.

Even though Kelly was indoors Millers Court was crowded, and Julia Venturney's door was less than two metres from Kelly's door, and McCarthy's shop was less than two metres opposite. Any sound from Kelly's room would be heard around the court and also heard upstairs. At the far end of the court and upstairs, they were kept awake by Kelly singing songs earlier that night. Given the Rippers risk-aversion, it's extremely unlikely that he would have waited, rather he would have struck in much the same way as if they would have been outside together. As far as the carrying of sound goes, given the close proximity of the other dwellings in Millers Court, Kelly's room was about as dangerous as Dutfield's Yard or the back yard of Berner Street. This is why I believe if the Ripper killed Kelly, then he didn't go to her room and wait for her to undress. It was a risk if he did that, and he must have been risk averse to do what he did without being caught.

Even if she were partly undressed, Kelly would have worn a chemise, probably drawers, probably a corset, bodice, skirt, underskirt, petticoat, vest or jacket, and on that night a pellorine. Her clothes were removed and reported as being folded (they were not folded but 'placed in the usual fashion'), and there was no reported blood staining. They were unlikely to have been removed by the killer after her death. It would take some minutes to remove those items, except for her chemise which she still wore.

There are three items that point to Kelly being murdered by the Ripper. One is that her throat was cut, although we don't know from what direction and it was cut differently because there was considerable blood spray. Second is that she was mutilated, although mutilated differently to the other women. Third is that she appeared on a list of Ripper murder victims. The first two items were easily ascertained from newspapers of the time.