Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
You make a good case, and I agree it is the most likely solution. it has all the hallmarks of a serial killers escalation.
But we are all playing ''Who was Jack The Ripper'' on this site, and surely debating ones ideas, factual/speculation ,fuels interesting debate amongst our members.
Regards Richard.

[Busy Beaver]

Not sure if it's been mentioned before, but what if Kelly met the Ripper, whilst she was collecting water from the outside tap? Could the Ripper have been passing Miller's Court and looked up to see a lady (wouldn't know how young or old) at the tap area, or at least coming back to the room at 3-00 to 3.30am on the morning of the 9th November? Now not to look at gift horse in the face, did Mary Jane invite him in after he, the Ripper casually walked up the court to "investigate"? In this scenario MJK would not have met the Ripper in the street.
The Ripper in my opinion would not have gone and knocked on her door. If he was someone she knew and did not want to see, I would have expected her to scream the court down, no matter what time, especially if she had been drinking.

[AuroraSarintacos]

My opinion is quite simple.

She was walking the streets and picked up, what she though as a client and brought him to her room. She undressed, folded her clothes on the bed, and laid down. He than attacked her from the front and quickly overpowered her. The cut on the sheets suggest he, the killer, either threw the sheets over her head before cutting her throat - or Ms. Kelly lifted the sheets up, like a child afraid of a monster, to which than the swift death blow was delivered.

He may not have waited for her to die before mutilating her, though I personally feel he was not interested in the torture/pain aspect of his victim, the goal was the mutilations.

Given the evidence which suggests that Jack was a blitz killer - unorganized, opportunistic, etc. he worked quick, given the evidence that most victims were found 15 - 30 minutes later dead. He may have only taken 15 minutes to disembowel her and than moved on.

Poor woman.

[c.d.]

"The reason I don't buy MJK as the work of the same killer is what I have already outlined. Had MJK been a middle-aged woman of average size, like the others, I would not hesitate to agree she was the victim of the same killer. But from all accounts, Mary must have been significantly taller than the killer, and she was young. This is not a trivial difference."

Hello Karl,

I don't see the significance of this. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"The Ripper in my opinion would not have gone and knocked on her door. If he was someone she knew and did not want to see, I would have expected her to scream the court down, no matter what time, especially if she had been drinking."

Hello B.B.,

But what if it was someone she did know (even if only casually) and someone she would have been glad to see? Perhaps someone she thought was a client and perhaps someone who had spent money on her previously? Perhaps someone who had made an appointment to come by.

c.d.

[Karl]

Other than her supposed youth there is nothing that differs this poor woman from the rest. This opinion is of seemingly extreme sexism and it makes me quite upset that this seems to be a continuing opinion because the underlining assumption is that she must have done something to deserve that.

Come again?

Jack, whoever he was, was a little bloke who hated women and enjoyed mutilating them. The violence escalates, as it tends to do in most serial killers who lose the first initial "high" of their first killings, and I really do not know how one could be of the opinion that that was not the case

Who has suggested otherwise?
Oh, and just to latch onto one detail of what you said: little blokes do not take on big women. MJK was big. Very big. The others were not.

or how the mutilation of his victims didn't really match all together and therefore must have been a copy-cat killer or what have you.

No one has said it MUST be a copy-cat killer. I have expressed my opinion as to why I believe such is the case, and if you think that opinion stems from sexism on my part, then you haven't read my posts very well.

Once again, and last time, focus on the proof.

Of which there is none, either way.

There is no empirical evidence that suggest any of these fantastical suggestions. Stop blaming the victims. Seriously.

Stop.

No one has even started. Suggesting it was a different killer does not in any conceivable way, shape or form suggest that killer #2 had a better reason for killing than killer #1.

[Karl]

"The reason I don't buy MJK as the work of the same killer is what I have already outlined. Had MJK been a middle-aged woman of average size, like the others, I would not hesitate to agree she was the victim of the same killer. But from all accounts, Mary must have been significantly taller than the killer, and she was young. This is not a trivial difference."

Hello Karl,

I don't see the significance of this. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

c.d.

It is a natural instinct to respect height. And for good reason: height advantage also means reach advantage, which means leverage, and usually (and would be in the case of MJK, by all accounts) more mass. Mass and reach contribute to the output of force you are able to exert. Even though men do on average have an upper body strength much superior to that of women, women can and often do fight off male assailants. Some people are more likely to be victims than others, and that is because they are perceived as more vulnerable. Tall people are rarely perceived as vulnerable.

The opposite is also true: shorter people are generally perceived as physically weaker. If, additionally, they exude an air of insecurity, that will make them stand out as one of the slower antelopes on the Serengeti.

Size advantage is going to be especially important to an assailant who uses his bare hands. Predators, whether human or animal, prey on weakness. You don't seek a fight unless you feel confident you are going to win. A disadvantage in height is a potent deterrant.

[Karl]

I just came across a very pertinent question I asked long ago in a different thread: what sources have we for MJK's height, anyway? It seems we all take 5'7 for granted, but neither the inquest nor the post mortem make any mention of it. It is also commonly assumed that "Long Leg" Liz Stride was tall - 5'5, tall for a woman at that time. Where that figure stems from, however, I have no idea - Stride's inquest quite plainly states she was 5'2. So could Mary's tall height be another spurious piece of received wisdom?

[richardnunweek]

Hi
Mrs Maxwell describes her as a little woman.
Others have described her as powerfully built. that stood no nonsense .
Take your pick?
But most describe her as quite attractive, most likely helped by her age.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

I just came across a very pertinent question I asked long ago in a different thread: what sources have we for MJK's height, anyway? It seems we all take 5'7 for granted

Good point, Karl. I don't know off the top of my head what the source (if any) of that nugget of info is; perhaps someone will enlighten us.

[Sam Flynn]

Mrs Maxwell describes her as a little woman.

Well, she described someone as a little woman; whether she was "our" Mary Kelly is another matter. Interestingly, the East London Observer of 17th November 1888 describes Kelly as a "blonde, of medium height", although it has to be said that this report isn't entirely error-free (e.g. it says that Kelly lived in the front ground floor room).

[Varqm]

Height and age did not matter.Nov 8-9 was the first time since October
they did not have patrols,Dorset St in particular,because of the Mayor's show.She was "available".Mary was killed lying down, Phillips:"cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner. "
Harvey left,Kelly was alone Nov. 7-8 at night.

---

[Abby Normal]

I think her descriptions/height/size varies widely-but the one thing that seems in common she was attractive and had red hair.

from the horrendous photos to me though she does not look like a big women.
Especially If you notice her wrists, arm and ankle looks pretty skinny-to me anyway.

[AuroraSarintacos]

Ok, Karl, what part of my post confuses you? I think I stated my opinion in a reasonable and understandable way.

So, your assumption is that because she was "taller" and "younger" the killer must have been hesitant to attack her or not even bother?

This is a disorganized, opportunistic killer. I do not think he would have cared that much had Ms. Kelly been of a larger size; he wanted a woman to kill. She is a woman, was possibly drunk, and the description of the killer, if it was the killer, was described as "stout" - either he was well built or strong looking.

It doesn't take much to overpower an unexpected woman, especially in a very sudden, quick, violent fashion which is, in my opinion, how he attacked. Also, where is your evidence that she was "very big" ? Was Annie Chapman not also a "big" woman? What do you mean by this? She was described as being "rather stout" which I believe, in this case, means rather fat.

There is no defining correlation between height, age, or weight between the majority of the victims. The thing that ties them together is the fact that they were readily available.

Jack, perhaps, did not have to solicit conversation. The prostitutes possibly did that for him.

And Karl, while you may not believe it does not stem from sexism, this opinion of Kelly being the main target is none the less biased and unwarranted. Please correct me if I am wrong but has someone on this chat previously mentioned that they believe Ms. Kelly was murdered and mutilated beyond recognition so that she wouldn't be able to be identified and therefore "traced" back to her killer? That she was the "main" target all along? And, please correct me once again, but did they also not state that Mr. McCarthy, her landlord, apparently knew who the killer was, and that he was walking around the court of something? Yeah. Ok.

So, please, excuse me, but that seems to be placing a lot of blame on the poor dead woman to which I can not abide by.

[Karl]

Ok, Karl, what part of my post confuses you? I think I stated my opinion in a reasonable and understandable way.

How odd, that's precisely what I thought when I read your previous post.

So, your assumption is that because she was "taller" and "younger" the killer must have been hesitant to attack her or not even bother?

It would mean she'd be much less likely to be targeted by someone who had hitherto consistently gone for middle-aged women who were shorter than himself.

This is a disorganized, opportunistic killer. I do not think he would have cared that much had Ms. Kelly been of a larger size;

Of course he would - precisely because he was opportunistic. Predators always are. Weak prey means opportunity. Strong prey, not so much. Moreover, Mary was described as a woman of beauty - such could not be said for any of the other victims, which itself suggests that their killer was of such an appearance or countenance that fairer women - who had the luxury of being more picky with their clients - didn't trust.

Also, if by "disorganised" you mean to say he would be less discerning of what victims he chose, then that strengthens my argument. Because in those cases, he picks his victims not by planning, but by instinct - and instinct would drive him towards targets which would appear to be easily overcome.

he wanted a woman to kill. She is a woman, was possibly drunk, and the description of the killer, if it was the killer, was described as "stout" - either he was well built or strong looking.

He was also described as not very tall.

It doesn't take much to overpower an unexpected woman, especially in a very sudden, quick, violent fashion which is, in my opinion, how he attacked. Also, where is your evidence that she was "very big" ? Was Annie Chapman not also a "big" woman?

No she wasn't. She was shorter than her killer. A big waistline, maybe, but here's the thing about height advantage: if you choke someone from the front, you can use your own body weight to push them down if you are taller. If you are shorter, you cannot - you would then have to rely on getting them off balance first. If you go for the throat the first thing you do, from the front, you are not likely to succeed even against a weaker victim if you are significantly shorter.

What do you mean by this? She was described as being "rather stout" which I believe, in this case, means rather fat.

Yes, but with shorter height she has less leverage with which to use that to her advantage.

There is no defining correlation between height, age, or weight between the majority of the victims.

Yes there is. If we accept all five canonicals as the work of the same killer, then four out of five certainly constitutes a majority. All except Mary were middle-aged women who were shorter than their attacker.

The thing that ties them together is the fact that they were readily available.

Even that doesn't fit. We don't even know when Mary was killed, or if she indeed was readily available. That is just an assumption on your part. She could just as easily have been killed by someone she knew, and might not have been hooking at all that night.

And Karl, while you may not believe it does not stem from sexism, this opinion of Kelly being the main target is none the less biased and unwarranted. Please correct me if I am wrong but has someone on this chat previously mentioned that they believe Ms. Kelly was murdered and mutilated beyond recognition so that she wouldn't be able to be identified and therefore "traced" back to her killer? That she was the "main" target all along?

I believe that's richardnunweek's hypothesis, but I do not buy into that at all myself. Don't know why you bring it up, really.

And, please correct me once again, but did they also not state that Mr. McCarthy, her landlord, apparently knew who the killer was, and that he was walking around the court of something? Yeah. Ok.

That would be richardnunweek again. Nothing to do with what I believe.

So, please, excuse me, but that seems to be placing a lot of blame on the poor dead woman to which I can not abide by.

Even with richardnunweek's hypothesis, I fail to see how MJK is in any way, shape or form being blamed. He just said she was targeted, but has not said anything suggesting she deserved it somehow.