the last one

[Karl]

Well, if you say so - and how do you think the height of the victims could help us to find the killer?

Regards Pierre

It couldn't help us find the killer, no - the point in victim profiling is more to establish whether two or more victims were killed by the same hand, and to predict what sort of people will be targeted next. In this case, of course, I think we are all agreed that the killer is long dead, and so only the former applies. And indeed, there is no consensus that the canonical five victims were either all victims of the same murderer, nor necessarily the only ones. For me, there are two big question marks over Stride and Kelly. I recognize arguments for both these victims being slain by the Ripper, as well as not. I have no firm conviction here. Victim profile is not a small part of the question mark over Mary Jean Kelly.

The chances of figuring out Jack the Ripper's identity are almost as promising as a snowball's chance in hell anyway, so practically no Ripper-related research is going to help us there. Aside from the particularly optimistic among us, I do not think anyone delves into research related to Jack the Ripper hoping to solve the mystery. Nor would such a feat have any practical application today. Instead, I think all of us are engaged in this topic for our own recreation.

[Karl]

Chances are she approached an experienced,confident killer and took him to a secluded spot.Whether by chance or design it was indoors is a moot point.He had options,he could have bailed if he lost his bottle at any time and I think it was probably more a case of Ms Right Now rather than Ms Right.He knew his own capabilities,I don't see a slightly taller victim being a problem
,he had stealth and surprise in his armoury,I doubt any great struggle took place.

I agree that the indoor/outdoor thing is completely incidental. As I have said elsewhere, MJK was approached from the street same as the others, and the killer might not even have known she was an indoor girl. The difference between Mary Jean and the others in this regard, is the difference between "Let's go around the corner and have some fun" and "Come on in, and we'll have some fun."

The victim's height is directly relevant to the chance of being chosen as a victim in the first place. Serial killers never kill at random, not even if there is no stalking involved. Even with random killings, the killer will pick someone he thinks he can easily kill. They assess potential victims in terms of vulnerability. What many do not realize is that some people are more likely to be victims of violent crime than others. While there is of course a possibility that the killer was confident enough to take on a taller victim, it does nevertheless represent a break from the previously established pattern, which is in turn directly relevant for establishing whether MJK was a Ripper victim or not. You can only write the pattern off if you have established that it was the same killer, and so far opinions differ. I am on the fence myself.

[c.d.]

Hello Karl,

My understanding is that the Ripper's height was around 5'6" or 5'7" based upon a comparison to the victim he was seen with.

I don't see why he would take the victim's height into consideration since he had no intention of engaging in a fair fight. He had a knife and could swiftly subdue his victim by choking if they were caught off guard. Also, as has been pointed out, his victims might have been intoxicated.

I just don't see the height of a potential victim to be relevant.

c.d.

[Karl]

Hello Karl,

My understanding is that the Ripper's height was around 5'6" or 5'7" based upon a comparison to the victim he was seen with.

That would make him significantly taller - we have witness statements which have him as slightly taller than his victims. But not all victim statements corroborate each other.

I don't see why he would take the victim's height into consideration since he had no intention of engaging in a fair fight.

Which is precisely why he would take height into consideration.

He had a knife and could swiftly subdue his victim by choking if they were caught off guard.

Subduing by choking requires one to be significantly stronger. The choke has to be maintained for 1-3 minutes, after all, which is a long time. And in that time, she is going to try to fend him off. He wants to make sure that his target is not strong enough to wrestle out of his grip, nor strong enough for her strikes or kicks to have significant impact. With at least one hand to the throat (and it does look like it was the classic if amateurish hand-to-the-throat grip), he will only have one hand free to fend off her hands, which she will use however she can to break free. She is fighting for her life, after all, and she knows it.

Also, as has been pointed out, his victims might have been intoxicated.

I just don't see the height of a potential victim to be relevant.

c.d.

Unless the killer has had significant and successful experience fighting taller opponents (which is possible), he isn't going to choose a taller victim. He always goes for the easy kill, and psychologically speaking, tall victims are not associated with easy victims. Short victims, on the other hand, are. Or to put it another way: the taller the prospective victim, the slimmer the chance of the killer thinking, "she looks easy". Irrespective of what other factors might also contribute, such as intoxication.

[c.d.]

I am sorry, Karl. You have lost me on all of this. What point are you making exactly with respect to height? Are you trying to eliminate some of the C5 based on height or are you speculating as to the actual height of the Ripper? Or something else?

c.d.

[Karl]

I am sorry, Karl. You have lost me on all of this. What point are you making exactly with respect to height? Are you trying to eliminate some of the C5 based on height or are you speculating as to the actual height of the Ripper? Or something else?

c.d.

What I am saying is that Mary Jean Kelly does not fit the pattern of the other women, on account of her physical attributes. She could still be the victim of the same killer, but in that case it necessitates a strong man who is confident in his strength and fighting ability (been in quite a few scraps), but likely an amateur - not trained.

As to the height of the ripper, I would place him between 5'3-5'5. Remember, at 5'7, Mary Jean Kelly would not only be tall for a woman, she would also be taller than the average man - the average of which was 5'5 as of 1875. In addition to her height, MJK was described as butch, and that - along with her height - would make most men think twice about picking a fight.

[c.d.]

Sorry, Karl. You may be right but I just don't see any significance to it. It is hard to see a pattern in only five killings.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi Karl,

As to the height of the ripper, I would place him between 5'3-5'5. Remember, at 5'7, Mary Jean Kelly would not only be tall for a woman, she would also be taller than the average man - the average of which was 5'5 as of 1875. In addition to her height, MJK was described as butch, and that - along with her height - would make most men think twice about picking a fight.

This would have been far less of a problem if the ripper struck while Kelly slept.

[Robert St Devil]

{Recreation is something that i do on the weekends. This, however, has become Hotel California ("you can check out any time you like..."). Also. You' e played CLUE, I'm sure. Its not all about who did it. For me its the mysterys of how.}

Hello KARL.
The relevance of signature is that Mary Jane Kelly was murdered by (ugh!) Jack the Ripper. In all of London only Jack the Ripper has this signature or this kick or this special fantasy. There were others who shared similarities but they were not overall identical. He refines his signature with each murder but he does not change it.
There couldnt have been a copycat because he would need better resources than the newspaper to mimic Jack the Ripper properly. In fact, by November, he would need Jack the Ripper himself.

We know that height is not a factor because he murders a woman taller than him. Age range may have been a factor but not age. However i am ignorant to how many "50 to 70-year old" prostitutes were walking the Whitechapel streets after midnite.

I will have to consider your assertion that Jack the Ripper stopped his murders after Catherine Eddowes and he was content to read in the newspapers about another killer murdering Mary Jane Kelley. After all he would not have been out on that November night so her height would have been a factor for another murderer who kills like he does. Another killer who turned out to be one-and-done.

[Rosella]

I think we're losing track of the fact that the height of the men seen with several of the victims was estimated by only a quick glance by passing witnesses. The only exceptions are Hutchinson's detailed description of A. Man, and perhaps PC Smith's as he was at least trained to be observant.

In general, and of course there are many exceptions, but in general a strong man of around the same height or a little shorter, would be able to overpower a woman, however strong she was believed to be. This would be even more so if he possessed strong shoulders, wrists and forearms and made a sudden attack.If Mary was in a nice sozzled sleep in bed it would be even easier.

[Karl]

{Recreation is something that i do on the weekends. This, however, has become Hotel California ("you can check out any time you like..."). Also. You' e played CLUE, I'm sure. Its not all about who did it. For me its the mysterys of how.}

Hello KARL.
The relevance of signature is that Mary Jane Kelly was murdered by (ugh!) Jack the Ripper. In all of London only Jack the Ripper has this signature or this kick or this special fantasy. There were others who shared similarities but they were not overall identical. He refines his signature with each murder but he does not change it.
There couldnt have been a copycat because he would need better resources than the newspaper to mimic Jack the Ripper properly. In fact, by November, he would need Jack the Ripper himself.

We know that height is not a factor because he murders a woman taller than him. Age range may have been a factor but not age. However i am ignorant to how many "50 to 70-year old" prostitutes were walking the Whitechapel streets after midnite.

I will have to consider your assertion that Jack the Ripper stopped his murders after Catherine Eddowes and he was content to read in the newspapers about another killer murdering Mary Jane Kelley. After all he would not have been out on that November night so her height would have been a factor for another murderer who kills like he does. Another killer who turned out to be one-and-done.[/QUOTE]
If MJK was killed by another man, the motive would in all likelihood be different. Vulnerability is a factor for serial killers, but not so much if the murder is a crime of passion, for example. If killed by another man, MJK was nevertheless mutilated to make her look like a Ripper-victim, but this line of reasoning has problems of its own. First of all, this would take a particularly cold mind: not only did he mutilate the victim to match Ripper mutilations, but he went further than the Ripper did in previous killings. MJK's mutilations were made by someone who had joy of his work.

A different killer would fit better with Maxwell's testimony, though. The argument that she would somehow be mistaken of the date she saw Mary doesn't make sense. She would have thought of it the moment she learned of the discovery: "but I only spoke with her a few hours ago". Memory is indeed an unreliable thing, especially when dealing with traumatic events, but I see her testimony as reliable as any other. The cry of "murder!" can be dismissed for the same reason the witnesses dismissed them. Bond's estimate of time of death (02:00-0800 am) is based on rigor mortis, which made him think that the murder took place 14 hours before examination. But modern estimates of rigor mortis (rigor was increasing as he examined the body) allows for full rigor to have set in by 6-12 hours after death, depending on several factors. This would give a later time of death than suggested by Bond and Phillips.

Why was a late time of death dismissed? Because of two main things, I think: first the cry of "murder". But, as the witnesses said, they were used to cries of that kind and paid it no mind. Which means it could very well be just a coincidence. Second: because a murder in broad daylight scarcely fit the established pattern. And indeed, even though the killer was cutting it really close - no pun intended, honestly - with Annie Chapman (killed as the day was beginning), to kill in broad daylight nevertheless does not fit with our preconceived notions of the murder and the murderer. Better to dismiss it, so we don't have to deal with it.

The notion that victim profiling in MJK's case is irrelevant because we know who the killer is putting the cart before the horse. In essence, the argument is that evidence which points to a different killer may be ignored because we know it was not a different killer. But we don't know. That is to be established after reviewing the evidence. One must review the conclusion in light of the evidence, not the other way around. And victim profiling is indeed most relevant when determining whether two or more victims were killed by the same person, as I have said before. For example, consider this:

The body of a severely mutilated man is found in a poorly lit street. His spleen is missing, his liver is lying next to him, his testes have been cut off, the throat is slit, the nose is missing and worst of all, half the beard is cut. Is this a Ripper victim? I am going to hazard a guess and say you would think no, probably not. And why wouldn't you think him a Ripper victim? Would it not be because the victim did not fit the usual victim profile?

I also think you have misread what I have said at one point, Robert, as you seem to think that I have suggested signature is not relevant. That is not what I said at all. What I asked was how signature could possibly render victimology moot. In essence, why we should dismiss evidence once we have found the evidence we want.

[Karl]

I think we're losing track of the fact that the height of the men seen with several of the victims was estimated by only a quick glance by passing witnesses. The only exceptions are Hutchinson's detailed description of A. Man, and perhaps PC Smith's as he was at least trained to be observant.

In general, and of course there are many exceptions, but in general a strong man of around the same height or a little shorter, would be able to overpower a woman, however strong she was believed to be. This would be even more so if he possessed strong shoulders, wrists and forearms and made a sudden attack.If Mary was in a nice sozzled sleep in bed it would be even easier.

Yes, in general this is true. But exceptions do exist, and a killer of women would in all likelihood be very aware of that. Which is why a serial killer will secure any advantage he can, by selecting victims he knows with certainty he can beat. And height is important. Men and women alike have a great deal of respect for height when it comes to a physical confrontation. Mary Jean did not fit the typical victim profile, past or present. It should be noted that neither did Jack's previous victims, as serial killers who go after women tend to go after young women who lack confidence. Which leads me to suspect that Jack's looks or behaviour might have been too intimidating for the younger prostitutes, and he only had luck with the ones who really needed the money.

I do not believe MJK was attacked in her sleep. If you live in a neighbourhood like that, you do not forget to lock the door (and burglary would definitely not fit Jack's profile). Someone claimed, in a different thread, that the door had a self-lock anyway, which would explain why the door was locked after the killer left. I have not been able to verify this, however.

[Rosella]

You don't believe Mary was entertaining a gentleman caller, as they used to say, Karl? That he was not there in the room with her as a client?

It would have been mighty cold for Mary, lying there naked or in a thin chemise in that freezing room with holes in the window panes had she been alone and not stripped for business purposes.The women tenanting these rooms certainly would have shoved a chair or table in front of the door when they were home alone, but I don't believe Jack was a burglar.

[curious4]

Yes, in general this is true. But exceptions do exist, and a killer of women would in all likelihood be very aware of that. Which is why a serial killer will secure any advantage he can, by selecting victims he knows with certainty he can beat. And height is important. Men and women alike have a great deal of respect for height when it comes to a physical confrontation. Mary Jean did not fit the typical victim profile, past or present. It should be noted that neither did Jack's previous victims, as serial killers who go after women tend to go after young women who lack confidence. Which leads me to suspect that Jack's looks or behaviour might have been too intimidating for the younger prostitutes, and he only had luck with the ones who really needed the money.

I do not believe MJK was attacked in her sleep. If you live in a neighbourhood like that, you do not forget to lock the door (and burglary would definitely not fit Jack's profile). Someone claimed, in a different thread, that the door had a self-lock anyway, which would explain why the door was locked after the killer left. I have not been able to verify this, however.

Hello Karl

I posted a link to the information about the lock (with photos) recently. If you use the search function and type in Bob Hinton and Mary Kelly's lock, you should find it.

Best wishes
C4

[Karl]

You don't believe Mary was entertaining a gentleman caller, as they used to say, Karl? That he was not there in the room with her as a client?

I believe that is exactly what took place. What I objected to was the notion that she was sleeping, in which case she would not be entertaining (and I doubt she allowed clients to sleep over).

It would have been mighty cold for Mary, lying there naked or in a thin chemise in that freezing room with holes in the window panes had she been alone and not stripped for business purposes.The women tenanting these rooms certainly would have shoved a chair or table in front of the door when they were home alone, but I don't believe Jack was a burglar.

I believe that is what I said.