Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;297901][QUOTE=Harry D;297875]For one, there1 is the 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?

That one seems to me the easiest to answer: he didn't change his MO . His MO was to find a prostitute and allow her to use her local knowledge to take him to a secluded spot to transact their business. In MJK's case he struck lucky and found himself in a location where he didn't have to keep an ear open for the sound of approaching footsteps.

MrB

I have a hunch that MJK's murder is the only one that JtR wasn't interrupted in some way, or felt he had enough time to do whatever he wanted to do for a while.

Yes, imo, MJK is his masterpiece.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Trial and error. He probably didnt know exactly what he wanted but obviously he had fantasies and those likely grew with each crime.

I like that. Time also.

I think he might have been a regular criminal, with a violent temper, and discovered something about himself during one of his crime. Maybe while killing Tabram...

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that the argument used for explaining the glut of debauchery seen in the room in Millers Court is nonsense, at least at this point in time there has been no single shred of evidence revealed that links Mary Kellys murderer to the man or men who killed Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman....the ONLY Canonicals that were conducted in virtually the same manner, with the same victimology, the same MO, the same unusual double throat cuts, and in the same place...which was a place where the victims would be found quickly. Not behind a locked door in a small insignificant courtyard.

The arguments that the killer exploded with his pent up fantasies, or suddenly developed new fantasies, wer created to explain away the many, many singular characteristics of this murder, so that,...based on some mistaken conviction that only Jack was killing women that Fall,...Mary can be part of an imaginary serial killers group.

Physical Evidence as well as Circumstantial Evidence says that Marys killer went to her private room, ...no outdoor liaison...then he was allowed in....and when he killed her he performed a plethora of bizarre and superfluous cuts upon her corpse. Many of which have no precedent within any Canonical Group and many, seemingly, without objective...unless one considers a killer who now stages a murder scene.

Anyone who believes that Mary Kellys murder matches any previous pattern established within the Canonical victims is mistaken.

Cheers

[Vincenzo]

I believe that the argument used for explaining the glut of debauchery seen in the room in Millers Court is nonsense, at least at this point in time there has been no single shred of evidence revealed that links Mary Kellys murderer to the man or men who killed Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman....the ONLY Canonicals that were conducted in virtually the same manner, with the same victimology, the same MO, the same unusual double throat cuts, and in the same place...which was a place where the victims would be found quickly. Not behind a locked door in a small insignificant courtyard.

The arguments that the killer exploded with his pent up fantasies, or suddenly developed new fantasies, wer created to explain away the many, many singular characteristics of this murder, so that,...based on some mistaken conviction that only Jack was killing women that Fall,...Mary can be part of an imaginary serial killers group.

Physical Evidence as well as Circumstantial Evidence says that Marys killer went to her private room, ...no outdoor liaison...then he was allowed in....and when he killed her he performed a plethora of bizarre and superfluous cuts upon her corpse. Many of which have no precedent within any Canonical Group and many, seemingly, without objective...unless one considers a killer who now stages a murder scene.

Anyone who believes that Mary Kellys murder matches any previous pattern established within the Canonical victims is mistaken.

Cheers

Ted Bundy (mostly) abducted his victims from the streets, and they were usually young women. But in the end, he went on a frenzy at Chi Omega at FSU, attacking four women, killing two, then attacking another woman in a duplex a short distance away and some days later abducted a 12 year old girl and murdered her. Kimberly Leach, the 12 yo, was much younger than any of his other victims. But he still raped and killed her. By that point in his 'career' he had reached his ultimate depravity in assaulting a child in such fashion.

The point is, we are talking about humans, not robots. Just because the exact M.O. is not there (double throat cut, killed indoors, etc) does not mean it was not the same person. In fact, I am hard pressed to believe that two men could be operating in such fashion in the same place at the same time.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I believe that the argument used for explaining the glut of debauchery seen in the room in Millers Court is nonsense, at least at this point in time there has been no single shred of evidence revealed that links Mary Kellys murderer to the man or men who killed Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman....the ONLY Canonicals that were conducted in virtually the same manner, with the same victimology, the same MO, the same unusual double throat cuts, and in the same place...which was a place where the victims would be found quickly. Not behind a locked door in a small insignificant courtyard.

The arguments that the killer exploded with his pent up fantasies, or suddenly developed new fantasies, wer created to explain away the many, many singular characteristics of this murder, so that,...based on some mistaken conviction that only Jack was killing women that Fall,...Mary can be part of an imaginary serial killers group.

Physical Evidence as well as Circumstantial Evidence says that Marys killer went to her private room, ...no outdoor liaison...then he was allowed in....and when he killed her he performed a plethora of bizarre and superfluous cuts upon her corpse. Many of which have no precedent within any Canonical Group and many, seemingly, without objective...unless one considers a killer who now stages a murder scene.

Anyone who believes that Mary Kellys murder matches any previous pattern established within the Canonical victims is mistaken.

Cheers

If I understand you correctly, my fellow Canadian, you believe that there is a strong possibility that there was a motive for the MJK killing (meaning, she was specifically targeted) and it was covered up as a potential JtR murder. The savagery of the scene also covering the killer's potential clue?

It's very interesting. That could also explain the month long hiatus.

So, what happened to him after Eddowes? Do you have any pet theory? Who's your favorite suspect? Are there others outside the C5 you're willing to include in the JtR victims?

[Harry D]

Would a copy-cat killer who wanted MJK rubbed out resort to such overkill? Surely a sliced throat and some abdominal slashing would be enough to pass this off as the Ripper's work? If MJK was murdered by a pimp, angry punter, or someone else unrelated to the Ripper, then they just happened to have the same morbid interest in dissecting women that Jack did. And what are the chances of that happening?

[John Wheat]

If MJK was murdered by a pimp, angry punter, or someone else unrelated to the Ripper, then they just happened to have the same morbid interest in dissecting women that Jack did. And what are the chances of that happening?

To Harry

The chances would be astronomical. Which is why I don't subscribe to the multiple killer theory. I believe there was some other reason for the overkill on MJK.

Cheers John

[c.d.]

Would a copy-cat killer who wanted MJK rubbed out resort to such overkill? Surely a sliced throat and some abdominal slashing would be enough to pass this off as the Ripper's work? If MJK was murdered by a pimp, angry punter, or someone else unrelated to the Ripper, then they just happened to have the same morbid interest in dissecting women that Jack did. And what are the chances of that happening?

Hello Harry,

I would just like to compliment you on your posts. I always find them well reasoned, free of nonsense and right on point.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

rum job

Hello Harry. IF "MJK" was a copy cat, whom did he copy? 'Twas a rum job.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

When I read some posts I almost start to believe that there is a serial killer union which enforces strict rules and regulations upon its members. Union members can only work indoors or outdoors with absolutely no switching back and forth allowed. Only one internal organ per union member is allowed to be targeted. Absolutely no switching is permitted. Face cuts are completely off limits because they are yucky and sick. Killing and mutilating on the streets is completely acceptable but should the lady in question invite you indoors you must politely decline. In addition, all throat cuts have to be completely identical in both depth and number. It is recommended that all members carry a small notebook to record the characteristics of the previous cut. Gentlemen, remember that we strive for consistency above all else.

Any deviation from these rules will be dealt with severely up to and including expulsion from the union.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

math

Hello CD. Thanks.

I note the serial killers here--pluralised.

Let's do a quick math test. Given that, by definition, a serial killer must have a tally of at least three, and given the C5, at most, how many serial killers would there have been in Whitechapel ca 1888?

Now, subtract one from that figure and you will see how many serial killers I think were out and about then.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

I note the serial killers here--pluralised.

Let's do a quick math test. Given that, by definition, a serial killer must have a tally of at least three, and given the C5, at most, how many serial killers would there have been in Whitechapel ca 1888?

Now, subtract one from that figure and you will see how many serial killers I think were out and about then.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Boy you got me on that one. Nothing slips by you does it? I would hate to have to hand in my term paper to you.

c.d.

[Harry D]

Hello Harry,

I would just like to compliment you on your posts. I always find them well reasoned, free of nonsense and right on point.

You flatter me, sir.

Hello Harry. IF "MJK" was a copy cat, whom did he copy? 'Twas a rum job.

Hello, Lynn. How's it going?

My sentiment exactly. So we're either left with the Ripper escalating in violence or someone else who got his jollies butchering women beyond recognition.

[John Wheat]

Let's do a quick math test. Given that, by definition, a serial killer must have a tally of at least three, and given the C5, at most, how many serial killers would there have been in Whitechapel ca 1888?Now, subtract one from that figure and you will see how many serial killers I think were out and about then.

To Lynn

Exactly where is the evidence that there were multiple violent killers in London in 1888 with similar M.O.s?

Cheers John

[lynn cates]

lectures

Hello CD. Thanks.

Actually, my students get lots of lecture time before the due date. Funny, my wife gets those free. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC