Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Batman]

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?

In today's world, possibly, by reason of copycatting, but as pointed out in my other reply, the copycat hypothesis has problems in that... well a copycat would have copycatted Eddowes or Chapman, but with Kelly there is not just escalation, but entirely new behaviour, such as hiding her breast under her head and placing the organs about the body by a much more controlled design.

Kelly's wounds are so extreme as to almost completely rule out that this was a first murder attempt. If we came across this today, we would ask, where else has this offender been? Copycatting is something that comes on the scene about a decade later, not during the Autumn of Terror, IMO.

By the way, with respect to sadism, JtR receives gratification from another person's suffering. That is sadism. However, he is not a torturer. He executes his victims quickly and often silently and it is important to him that they are dead before mutilations. If they are not dead, he would not be experiencing this odd postmortem behaviour he seems to require for sexual reasons. So sadist yes, but torturer, no.

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!

I think he didn't know what he needed to do to kill his victims and is not as medically aware as Philips would have him. I would be inclined to agree with Bond, that JtR isn't even experienced with butchering. I outline my reasons why, here.

If you want to link all the victims, then that would be done by the prostrate condition under which he cuts their throats. It is extremely unique. He has them down on the ground prostrate before an incision occurs. He is likely manually strangling them. Philips all but says strangulation in his autopsy report. The others had their neck so badly destroyed (except maybe Nichols, but it was bad enough all the same) they couldn't tell, but strangulation seems almost a certainty and nearly all the autopsy reports point at it (including Nichols). Even if it isn't, the absence of blood down their fronts means their necks had to be at a horizontal angle for gravity and spray not to cover their fronts. Lying on their back explains all of this and also the fact that Chapman had blood spray stains just above her head on the wall and very low down on the fence next to her.

In 1888, if you were to get your throat cut, it would be from behind, while you are standing up, or from the front in an assault. What JtR was doing even before mutilating, stands out.

[c.d.]

"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."

Hello Michael,

While I agree that in theory anyone is capable of doing what was done in that room, the reality is it is extremely uncommon otherwise the Ripper would have faded quickly into history and you and I would not be having this discussion in 2018.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

In today's world, possibly, by reason of copycatting, but as pointed out in my other reply, the copycat hypothesis has problems in that... well a copycat would have copycatted Eddowes or Chapman, but with Kelly there is not just escalation, but entirely new behaviour, such as hiding her breast under her head and placing the organs about the body by a much more controlled design.

Kelly's wounds are so extreme as to almost completely rule out that this was a first murder attempt. If we came across this today, we would ask, where else has this offender been? Copycatting is something that comes on the scene about a decade later, not during the Autumn of Terror, IMO.

By the way, with respect to sadism, JtR receives gratification from another person's suffering. That is sadism. However, he is not a torturer. He executes his victims quickly and often silently and it is important to him that they are dead before mutilations. If they are not dead, he would not be experiencing this odd postmortem behaviour he seems to require for sexual reasons. So sadist yes, but torturer, no.



I think he didn't know what he needed to do to kill his victims and is not as medically aware as Philips would have him. I would be inclined to agree with Bond, that JtR isn't even experienced with butchering. I outline my reasons why, here.

If you want to link all the victims, then that would be done by the prostrate condition under which he cuts their throats. It is extremely unique. He has them down on the ground prostrate before an incision occurs. He is likely manually strangling them. Philips all but says strangulation in his autopsy report. The others had their neck so badly destroyed (except maybe Nichols, but it was bad enough all the same) they couldn't tell, but strangulation seems almost a certainty and nearly all the autopsy reports point at it (including Nichols). Even if it isn't, the absence of blood down their fronts means their necks had to be at a horizontal angle for gravity and spray not to cover their fronts. Lying on their back explains all of this and also the fact that Chapman had blood spray stains just above her head on the wall and very low down on the fence next to her.

In 1888, if you were to get your throat cut, it would be from behind, while you are standing up, or from the front in an assault. What JtR was doing even before mutilating, stands out.

Hi batman
By definition a sadist is a torturer. There is no evidence that the the ripper was either. On the contrary everything points to he tried to kill them as swiftly and painlessly as possible. Everything is post mortem for the ripper.

[Batman]

Hi batman
By definition a sadist is a torturer. There is no evidence that the the ripper was either. On the contrary everything points to he tried to kill them as swiftly and painlessly as possible. Everything is post mortem for the ripper.

I don't have a problem with this. If we don't want to say there is sadism involved as per physical torture, then fine, but I find the sadistic part of his crime was in the humiliation of leaving them open and displayed. It's still postmortem.

[J6123]

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.

Hello Michael. I believe the word 'lust' in the 'lust murderer' sense mostly means that the killer attacks the genitalia (and breasts) of the victim, and probably gains some psychosexual gratification doing it. Most likely, with Kelly, we see utter destruction due to him having a secure location and more time.

I think it has also been suggested by experts that the chances of two disorganised lust murderers/post-morten mutilators operating in the same small area at the same time would be exceedingly slim.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael. I believe the word 'lust' in the 'lust murderer' sense mostly means that the killer attacks the genitalia (and breasts) of the victim, and probably gains some psychosexual gratification doing it. Most likely, with Kelly, we see utter destruction due to him having a secure location and more time.

I think it has also been suggested by experts that the chances of two disorganised lust murderers/post-morten mutilators operating in the same small area at the same time would be exceedingly slim.

I understand that many would see the 2 individuals Im talking about as similarly motivated, but that's not necessary. I can easily see someone brutal that Mary knows killing her, for whatever reason, in a brutal fashion. that's not a psychosexual event, its just sheer uncontrolled savagery. It does have its moments, perhaps the defleshing of her leg, removing her heart, where that might come into play. I don't believe that the severity of the injuries are simply because the same killer had more time, because that killer to my eye kills women who are strangers to him , working the streets alone early in the morning, and he eviscerates them outdoors with specific abdominal focus...thereby getting his "thrills".

3 women meet that criteria within the Canonical Group. Kelly is not among them.

Elizabeth Stride could very well have just met someone she shouldn't mess with and messed with him. There were lots of men carrying knives, and Id imagine around midnight on the streets, some would be drunk and without the ability to judge right from wrong. One mistaken act in anger, that could be all that was. Why fit a specialized killer, as you along with others here seem to feel this Ripper chap was, and then assume he was interrupted to explain away the distinctive lack of interest the killer seemed to have after the throat cut. Why not see Stride and Kelly for what they really may have been, savage acts committed in a fairly savage environment by savage men. We have plenty of evidence they were around. And there is no evidence that there was an interruption.

We have little or no evidence this was actually 1 savage man.

[Jon Guy]

And there is no evidence that there was an interruption.

Apart from the eye witness who saw a man assaulting a woman at about that time, where the body was later found.

[Fisherman]

If only it were that simple!

It is. There is absolutely no need for inventing any difficulties. Same killer. End of.

[Fisherman]

I don't have a problem with this. If we don't want to say there is sadism involved as per physical torture, then fine, but I find the sadistic part of his crime was in the humiliation of leaving them open and displayed. It's still postmortem.

But that is not sadism. It is a complete disregard for fellow human beings, which is a very different matter.

If there was sadism involved at all, then it was necrosadism. There is no place for any other type.

[Fisherman]

I think it has also been suggested by experts that the chances of two disorganised lust murderers/post-morten mutilators operating in the same small area at the same time would be exceedingly slim.

...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.

[Abby Normal]

...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.

yes very different methods. lol ; )

[Michael W Richards]

Apart from the eye witness who saw a man assaulting a woman at about that time, where the body was later found.

Oh, the other "believed" witness whose statement isn't on any Inquest records, in any form Jon? There is no corroborating account of what Israel Schwartz says he saw and heard, and there is evidence that a witness very near to that spot likely would have at least heard something. She stated she heard bootsteps while indoors...she wouldnt hear Lipski being shouted out? In just a few minutes she will be at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1am....during which time she hears or sees no-one, other than Leon Goldstein. Not even Louis. Who was vehement he arrived at precisely 1am.

[Jon Guy]

Oh, the other "believed" witness whose statement isn't on any Inquest records, in any form Jon? There is no corroborating account of what Israel Schwartz says he saw and heard, and there is evidence that a witness very near to that spot likely would have at least heard something. She stated she heard bootsteps while indoors...she wouldnt hear Lipski being shouted out? In just a few minutes she will be at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1am....during which time she hears or sees no-one, other than Leon Goldstein. Not even Louis. Who was vehement he arrived at precisely 1am.

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. :-)

[caz]

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.

Holy posting, Batman!

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Love,

Robin
X

[caz]

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