Did Mary know her killer?

[Michael W Richards]

Not only did mary not venture out again after blotchy, she was never planning to.

And she knew her killer.

Although I obviously agree with introduction, and can only imagine what you might be alluding to in the secondary point, but since we often disagree I thought I support your position that Mary never left the room.

Cheers

[Errata]

Why did the ripper put one breast under Kelly's head and the other by her right foot? I'm going to go out on a limb here...and say it's fairly clear that torso killed Mary Kelly. Do the mutilations say he knew the victims? Were the dismemberments not done to hinder id, but because torso liked cutting people up? I feel that taking part of the body and placing them around the room show a very similar deranged mind to cutting up bodies and spreading them around London.

The thing to remember about Elizabeth Jackson is that what was done to her was not necessary. Which is a rather obvious statement, but we tend to divide such things up as either necessary or err... recreational. But we're wrong. There is a whole spectrum that we tend not to take into account. Nobody needs to cut up a body that small to get rid of it. But that doesn't mean he did it for fun. He may have needed the pieces that small to transport them to get rid of it. Say he needed to be able to tuck them under his arm to walk to the river. It's evidence of poor planning, because next time kill someone closer to the dump site, but not evidence of some sort of fetish. Or he may have had no idea that it's far easier to sink a body by tying the whole think to a rock. He may have thought smaller pieces would sink faster. Poor grasp of physics, but not fun for him. He certainly did not render the corpse the way one would expect if he had a dismemberment fantasy. Dividing the trunk doesn't go with that. That's pure disposal. And wrapping the limbs for transport makes sense, even though using her clothing was a bad idea. But that could equally be a bad idea or a sort of twisted joke.

And the organ removal may have been necessary as well. He can't very well walk around with an open chest cavity and hope that the contents don't slip out behind him like bread crumbs. Because so much of what was done to Liz Jackson was unnecessary, but possibly for a "good" reason, it's very hard to tell what exactly he was after when he killed her. The only thing that does not at all touch upon disposal is the removal of the fetus. And I admit from the description it sounds like her skinned her abdomen. Now it could just be because the description was vague and there might actually be a reason for that, but I doubt it. The only thing we know for sure he was after was the fetus.

Everything done to Mary Kelly was purposeful. The killer may not have completed some parts, but it was not out of necessity. It was out of desire. This was recreational. Nothing that was done to her was necessary for his escape, for disposal, etc.

We had a serial killer of truck stop prostitutes. We caught him, he implicated himself, he was convicted. Creepy guy. They were investigating him for 12 other prostitute deaths along his route. They were all raped, tortured, shot, and disposed of like trash. Well it turns out that we ruled him out of five of those murders. Murders that were on the surface identical to what he did. But he couldn't have done them. He wasn't in town when they happened. And two of the murders were cleared because DNA cleared him. Now they are still looking at him for about 7 other murders, but apparently beating truck stop prostitutes with a nightstick, cutting on them, wrapping a plastic bag around their faces, shooting them with a .22 and tossing them in a dumpster is more common than anyone thought. And that's a pretty specific way to kill. And apparently, it's not unusual for there to be up to 50 other deaths attributed to a serial killer that he had nothing to do with.

So unless we can figure out what the Torso Killer was actually after, and what was part of his fantasy and what he just perceived was necessary, we don't have a lot to on. Not like Kelly.

[RockySullivan]

Hi errata, I've read that one theory was liz Jackson might have been dismembered on the embankment to the river. Were there any secluded enough spots for this. She may have been dossing there.

How do we know Kelly wasnt going to be cut apart and packaged up in the clothes that were burned? If torso was the ripper does him throwing away the organs mean they weren't taken as trophies in rippings?

As for truck stop killer...maybe he had a partner ?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi errata, I've read that one theory was liz Jackson might have been dismembered on the embankment to the river. Were there any secluded enough spots for this. She may have been dossing there.

How do we know Kelly wasnt going to be cut apart and packaged up in the clothes that were burned? If torso was the ripper does him throwing away the organs mean they weren't taken as trophies in rippings?

As for truck stop killer...maybe he had a partner ?

One thing that has to be considered when looking at the Kelly murder is the possibility of a goal that includes an intention of dismemberment. The only other murders that fall into that arena are the Torso murders.

Marys right leg, her head, and her right arm at the shoulder are all severely wounded and in the first 2 cases, the wounds then allowed access to the joints.

This thread asks a question which can be addressed quite easily depending on your belief about a single question....if Mary allowed the person in at around 3:45, how could he not be known to her quite intimately?
After you ask yourself that, ask yourself what evidence there is to use in defense of a forced entry to the room? The windows and doors were all locked from the inside, no signs of forced entry, and there is no reason to believe that anyone aside from Mary, Barnett, Maria Harvey and it appears McCarthy knew of the window/latch access method. All of whom were well known to Mary.

Does the question seem a bit easier now?

Cheers

[RockySullivan]

Didn't Harvey originally claim to visited Kelly at her home only to change the story to Kelly visited her house?

[Vincenzo]

Does the time spent in the room indicate the ripper knew Kelly's schedule well enough to know no one would be coming in that time frame. Mary could have invited him yes, but he's taking a great risk if her boyfriend/roomate/landlord /friend could drop in at anytime. He's trapped in a lock room unlike some of the other ripper murders were he has some means of escape. If he had the key he might be sure no one could get inside (however the broken window pokes a hole in that somewhat). It's strange the McCarthy's guy came to check on Kelly when she hadn't paid rent in so long, they choose that morning to check up on her?

That's part of his MO. He took great risks in just about all of his murders. Chapman and Eddowes were extremely risky. Israel Schwartz and the guy with the pipe likely saw him attacking Stride. I think the risk was part of what got him going.

[Wickerman]

Didn't Harvey originally claim to visited Kelly at her home only to change the story to Kelly visited her house?

I wouldn't be too eager to blame Mrs Harvey, what may have happened is that the press had the wrong time.
The telegraphed report (the same in every newspaper) gave "seven thirty" as the time she was with Kelly, but there is a Star report that gives us "shortly after eleven o'clock".
Seven thirty could be a misprint for eleven thirty.

"As far as has been at present ascertained, the murdered woman was last seen alive shortly after eleven o'clock on Thursday night by Mrs. Harvey, a young woman who was on intimate terms with her, and who lives in New-court, Dorset-street. Mrs. Harvey says Kelly was at that time going home alone."
Star, 10 Nov.

We don't have to assume every mistake is due to a witness lying!
There are often other causes

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

You say that 3:45 is significant and that it indicates that Mary knew her killer intimately. What are the normal established hours for prostitution?

c.d.

[Rosella]

I wouldn't be too eager to blame Mrs Harvey, what may have happened is that the press had the wrong time.
The telegraphed report (the same in every newspaper) gave "seven thirty" as the time she was with Kelly, but there is a Star report that gives us "shortly after eleven o'clock".
Seven thirty could be a misprint for eleven thirty.

"As far as has been at present ascertained, the murdered woman was last seen alive shortly after eleven o'clock on Thursday night by Mrs. Harvey, a young woman who was on intimate terms with her, and who lives in New-court, Dorset-street. Mrs. Harvey says Kelly was at that time going home alone."
Star, 10 Nov.

We don't have to assume every mistake is due to a witness lying!
There are often other causes

Yes innocent mistakes are often made by witnesses. However, at the inquest Maria Harvey (who seems to have amused the court) doesn't mention any sighting of Mary Kelly after eleven pm, just that she had spent the afternoon with Mary and was in her room when Joe Barnett called, at around 7:30ish. (Could have been lying about seeing Joe.) She then left.

If she did see her after 11pm Mary seems to have popped back to her room several times in the hours before she was killed; alone, with Blotchy face, with A.M. Maybe she went out by herself to get fish and potatoes at eleven?

[Azarna]

Regarding the cry of "oh, murder".

Back in the 90s I was close friends with an old lady who lived near me. One day she was visiting and noticed my little collection of Ripper books.

She the "confessed" to me that she had worked as a prostitute in the East End in the 1930s and 40s.

She told me how she often had clients who wanted to "play ripper". Basically they would say a lot of things like "I am gonna rip you good, you whore", in a bad "Victorian cockney" voice, and she would dutifully reply "Oh, murder, oh you fiend". Then the punter would "rape" her and go back to his normal life.

She said that many of her clients had similar fantasies and asking her to pretend she was being raped or murdered was surprisingly common.

Is it possible that Kelly said "oh, murder" to please her client during their coupling? This could also be why there are claims that such cries were common around the area.

Obviously the Ripper was causing much fear at the time, and surely all prostitutes (and indeed most of the women in the area!) must have been very on-edge and aware of the potential danger. But the street-walkers had no choice but to walk the streets anyway. Whether they would have been prepared to play along with rape and murder fantasies during the height of the Ripper scare is perhaps unlikely. I don't know if such exchanges were even part of the Victorian prostitutes repertoire, especially as the majority would have had to perform whatever was required as quickly as possible.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

You say that 3:45 is significant and that it indicates that Mary knew her killer intimately. What are the normal established hours for prostitution?

c.d.

3:45 is approximately the time 2 witnesses hear a cry that sounded to them as if from the courtyard, no witness we know of claimed to be that voice. That's almost certainly a sleepy Mary answering her door....since she is the only person we know of that could not claim that call the next day. No sound followed, hence no attack began with that call.

Logic suggests that a drunk Mary, with a known and established pattern of rent arrears in Millers court and in prior living quarters, came home piss drunk at 11:45 with company, she sang to him off and on until just after 1am, when her light, and the sounds, ended. Suggesting that the visitor was let out without being seen, or stayed in with Mary.

If you want to suggest Mary went out with a hangover in the rain to prostitute herself, surely you would expect to be required to provide some evidence that is within the parameters of her known history? In fact, the opposite behaviour is within that evidence.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

If you want to suggest Mary went out with a hangover in the rain to prostitute herself, surely you would expect to be required to provide some evidence that is within the parameters of her known history? In fact, the opposite behaviour is within that evidence.

Well Michael, if you did not choose to reject the evidence, you would not need to ask the question.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I don't think Mary went out to solicit customers. I was just wondering how the time equates to Mary knowing her killer intimately as opposed to just knowing him casually.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

I don't think Mary went out to solicit customers. I was just wondering how the time equates to Mary knowing her killer intimately as opposed to just knowing him casually.

c.d.

If Mary answered her door at 3:45, exclaimed "oh-murder" in annoyance at being woken in the middle of the night, and still let the person enter the room, how could they not be someone known well to her? Remember how she was dressed and where she was when found cd...that kind of intimacy = knowledge.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Well Michael, if you did not choose to reject the evidence, you would not need to ask the question.

Just pointing out Jon that we have hard evidence that Mary ran arrears before Millers Court, causing her eviction. She is obviously not the kind of person who meets her responsibilities, hence, not the type to work hungover in the rain to earn money she owes to someone else.

Cheers