Why Mary had to die.

[Pierre]

I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this. It has not been established that MJK's murder was that of a copycat. If you ask me it has not been established that it was JtR's work, either, but it seems you are arguing that what Pierre is hinting at is false because JtR was not the perpetrator - which would itself be a fallacious line of reasoning as it assumes facts not in evidence, as it were.

Hi,

There are a lot of different views on who Jack the Ripper was. Depending on the evidence you believe you have, you get different theories. Those who think it was a copycat have other sources than mine. Sometime we have the same sources but interpret them differently.

I belive that his motive and MO makes it clear that this was the same killer.

Even if the MO in the case of Kelly seems different, we can compare it to the dismemeberment murders and find even more differences.

But the common thing for all of the murders including the C-5 and the three dismemberment murders is that he made sure that there was a fast discovery of the bodies as well as of the body parts.

He did not hide his victims.

According to my data, this is a very important thing.

Regards Pierre

[Mayerling]

In a forest of bodies - a battlefield.

Regards Pierre

Thank you finally. Perhaps you read the story.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Interesting answer, Pierre. One might also say, in a morgue, or in a graveyard...

I wonder if the better question isn't : "how do you hide a murder?"

In which case, you'd only need to committ a murder at the same general time and in the same general place as a string of other murders credited to a brutal, unknown killer.

Hi Pat,

Or you intentionally kill four or so others like the intended victim - leading to her.

But including her. So one who is uncertain can think that sheer chance led to that one getting special treatment.

I might add this variation too: how does one hide an intentional mutilation?

How about by gradually worsening the mutilations on all the victims to the intended one, because you wish the final victim's mutilations are such that they hide the actual mutilation wanted - the face!

Just a guess.

Chesterton can be such an interesting stimulating writer.

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

Back to why MJK differs-- if she does?

I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this. It has not been established that MJK's murder was that of a copycat. If you ask me it has not been established that it was JtR's work, either, but it seems you are arguing that what Pierre is hinting at is false because JtR was not the perpetrator - which would itself be a fallacious line of reasoning as it assumes facts not in evidence, as it were.

Hi, Karl. I'm just thinking aloud, I guess. Mayerling mentioned "hiding a body", and I said maybe it is more of "hiding a murder". I gather some Ripperologists don't think MJK's murder matches the preceding ones, while the police at the time, and other Ripperologists obviously do believe she was killed by the Ripper.

I'll admit I have been away from reading about these cases, and am trying to catch up with new developments, but why couldn't someone like Barnett, the "other Joe" , an ex-husband of Kelly, an ex-lover, etc... Why couldn't he have attacked her with such passion and apparent hate? We don't know enough about her past to rule such connections out. Yes, these "facts are not in evidence", as you told me, but surely the extreme aspects of this murder set it apart from the others?
(I'm not saying Mary's killer also killed all the others, only that he happened to kill her following a string of unusual murders in the area.)

[Karl]

Hi Pat,

Or you intentionally kill four or so others like the intended victim - leading to her.

But including her. So one who is uncertain can think that sheer chance led to that one getting special treatment.

I might add this variation too: how does one hide an intentional mutilation?

How about by gradually worsening the mutilations on all the victims to the intended one, because you wish the final victim's mutilations are such that they hide the actual mutilation wanted - the face!

Just a guess.

Chesterton can be such an interesting stimulating writer.

Jeff

This is starting to sound very Agatha Christie-y. She had a Poirot story (the ABC murders) where the killer did just that: killed several people with a specific pattern so that the one victim he intended to kill would not point to him. Of course, he had a delusional scapegoat to pin it on.

While this does make for an interesting plot twist in a whodunnit, I do not see it as realistic. After all, each murder entails a risk of getting caught, either red handed or by leaving clues behind. And also, for the plan to work, he would want to make sure that there was no question that the murders were committed by the same perpetrator. He would therefore not stray too far from his original MO. It is also unlikely he would choose such a grizzly MO, when he could choose anything between heaven and earth.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Karl.

I think you are missing the legitimate question to be asked of Pierre now.

If his MO is high risk locations ensuring fast discoveries
And he wants to interfere with Lord Mayors pageant...

Then how did Jack the Ripper know No. 13 Miller's Court was going to be a high traffic area on this November morning?

Its not a row or a yard or a square where any passerby can easily discover. Her bedroom is not on the beat of any constable. Her body didnt need to be found until, the most likely, Barnett visits her that evening. How can Jack the Ripper be absolutely certain of two things:

1. An outstanding rent was going to be collected by Tom Bowyer that very morning.
2. Tom Bowyer will do something debatably uncommon. It will not suffice to merely knock on her door and receive no answer. He will go to her window and peep her.

[Karl]

Hello Karl.

I think you are missing the legitimate question to be asked of Pierre now.

If his MO is high risk locations ensuring fast discoveries
And he wants to interfere with Lord Mayors pageant...

Then how did Jack the Ripper know No. 13 Miller's Court was going to be a high traffic area on this November morning?

Its not a row or a yard or a square where any passerby can easily discover. Her bedroom is not on the beat of any constable. Her body didnt need to be found until, the most likely, Barnett visits her that evening. How can Jack the Ripper be absolutely certain of two things:

1. An outstanding rent was going to be collected by Tom Bowyer that very morning.
2. Tom Bowyer will do something debatably uncommon. It will not suffice to merely knock on her door and receive no answer. He will go to her window and peep her.

I am totally confused as to what you are responding to here. I have not said anything in objection to these issues or questions. What I objected to were two things, and two things only:

1) In an earlier post, to a counter-argument to Pierre was made which in turn relied on the assumption that MJK was not a Ripper-victim.
2) In a separate post, to the idea that MJK was the intended victim all along and the previous victims were killed simply to camouflage the motive of the fifth.

[Mayerling]

This is starting to sound very Agatha Christie-y. She had a Poirot story (the ABC murders) where the killer did just that: killed several people with a specific pattern so that the one victim he intended to kill would not point to him. Of course, he had a delusional scapegoat to pin it on.

While this does make for an interesting plot twist in a whodunnit, I do not see it as realistic. After all, each murder entails a risk of getting caught, either red handed or by leaving clues behind. And also, for the plan to work, he would want to make sure that there was no question that the murders were committed by the same perpetrator. He would therefore not stray too far from his original MO. It is also unlikely he would choose such a grizzly MO, when he could choose anything between heaven and earth.

Well I have given some thought for some time, and it is not as much a mystery novel twist as it seems. You compare it to Agatha Christie's "The Alphabet Murders" (or "The ABC Murders") and there is a similarity in that the same randomness of the victims is balanced by the double initials they have ("A.A.", "B.B.", "C.C", "D.D.") as well as the stooge the killer is pinning the murders on has the initials "A. B. C.". Nothing so outlandish here, but I noted when I read the novel that the key mistake for the reader is that the actual target for the murder is the only one in the bunch who is a multi-millionaire. If one took the idea I kicked about the five or so victims were all prostitutes. There was no economic uniqueness of one to make that victim stand out like a sore thumb.

Jeff

[Robert St Devil]

I was trying to understand why her bedroom would have been considiered a high-traffic area that November morning, and you generally tend to answer my questions, is all.

[Karl]

Well I have given some thought for some time, and it is not as much a mystery novel twist as it seems. You compare it to Agatha Christie's "The Alphabet Murders" (or "The ABC Murders") and there is a similarity in that the same randomness of the victims is balanced by the double initials they have ("A.A.", "B.B.", "C.C", "D.D.") as well as the stooge the killer is pinning the murders on has the initials "A. B. C.". Nothing so outlandish here, but I noted when I read the novel that the key mistake for the reader is that the actual target for the murder is the only one in the bunch who is a multi-millionaire. If one took the idea I kicked about the five or so victims were all prostitutes. There was no economic uniqueness of one to make that victim stand out like a sore thumb.

Jeff

No, but then in the Agatha Christie story the economic uniqueness was not intentional on the part of the killer. I think the killer would much have preferred there not to be any distinguishing factor at all. And I do not see how this discrepancy invalidates the comparison.

[Mayerling]

I meant that Sir Cuthbert's huge fortune makes him stand out from the other four victims, all being middle class - but stand out to the reader of the Christie novel. Karl, haven't you ever noticed that if you read Dame Agatha's novels enough (or see the television and motion picture versions of them) after awhile you notice things in the plot that most of the fictional characters (except of course Poirot or Mrs. Marple ) don't notice? In one of her novels, "The Boomerang Clue" (a.k.a. "Why Didn't They Ask Evans?") if you follow the story a "suicide" victim's young son and heir was only just saved a few months earlier by his uncle, when the two were in an isolated spot (before one or two other characters happened to stumble into it - then the uncle saved the boy in front of the unexpected witnesses). When I saw a dramatization of that story years ago I realized that had the boy died, the uncle would have been the chief heir of the character who (supposedly) committed suicide. And the "suicide" was by shooting himself in the head, and (of course) there was a fire in the fire place - convenient for placing a gun bullet in so the killer could establish his whereabouts outside the room when the "shot" is heard from inside. Mystery writers love that bullet trick. This frequently happens reading Christie or other mystery writers. Their abilities as writers overcomes the recurrence of such plot failures from ending our enjoyment of their writing.

Anyway, I felt that in the real life Whitechapel murders, the fact that all the victims were prostitutes removed a similar "sore thumb" for the onlooking public reading or learning the details of the murders. Again it's only my opinion.

In the interest of the rest of the users of this thread we ought to get away from further comments of a literary nature here. Although you can reply to what I just wrote.

Jeff

[Karl]

I meant that Sir Cuthbert's huge fortune makes him stand out from the other four victims, all being middle class - but stand out to the reader of the Christie novel.

I know that's what you meant, I just don't know how that flaws the comparison.

Karl, haven't you ever noticed that if you read Dame Agatha's novels enough (or see the television and motion picture versions of them) after awhile you notice things in the plot that most of the fictional characters (except of course Poirot or Mrs. Marple ) don't notice? In one of her novels, "The Boomerang Clue" (a.k.a. "Why Didn't They Ask Evans?") if you follow the story a "suicide" victim's young son and heir was only just saved a few months earlier by his uncle, when the two were in an isolated spot (before one or two other characters happened to stumble into it - then the uncle saved the boy in front of the unexpected witnesses). When I saw a dramatization of that story years ago I realized that had the boy died, the uncle would have been the chief heir of the character who (supposedly) committed suicide. And the "suicide" was by shooting himself in the head, and (of course) there was a fire in the fire place - convenient for placing a gun bullet in so the killer could establish his whereabouts outside the room when the "shot" is heard from inside. Mystery writers love that bullet trick. This frequently happens reading Christie or other mystery writers. Their abilities as writers overcomes the recurrence of such plot failures from ending our enjoyment of their writing.

Yes, but what I notice most of all, not just Agatha Christie but whodunnits in general, is that the killer is 1) always known to us (ie. it is never someone who is just barely presented to us), 2) almost always someone we are meant to like, or at least not suspect, and 3) never someone we are meant to suspect. In Agatha Christie stories, there is very often someone who openly threatens the victim some time before the victim is killed - you can rest assured that this character will be completely innocent. Much as I like run-of-the-mill crime stories, I am rarely surprised by the ending.

Anyway, I felt that in the real life Whitechapel murders, the fact that all the victims were prostitutes removed a similar "sore thumb" for the onlooking public reading or learning the details of the murders. Again it's only my opinion.

But there are more fingers than just the thumb. You might say the same for the Alphabet murders: the fact that all characters had initials which conformed to the pattern removed that potential sore thumb. The alphabet murders all conformed to the initials, and the Whitechapel murders all conformed to prostitutes. I see this as similar rather than dissimilar. And with the Whitechapel murders, there are other sore digits to consider: Elizabeth Stride, completely different MO. Interrupted or not, the MO doesn't match. Mary Jean Kelly: completely different victim profile. The others had been in their 40s (with Polly Nichols looking like she was in her mid 30s), and none of them taller than 5'2, but here is Mary Jean Kelly in her early 20s, butch and taller than the average man. And, unlike the others, her clothes had been removed. So whether Alphabet murders or Whitechapel murders, there was conformity as well as sore thumbs.

Either way, like I said, I do not see how the sore thumb of economical background in Agatha Christie's fiction relates to anything. My entire point was that the hypothesis put forward was very much like the plot in "The Alphabet Murders", ie. several people killed in order to camouflage the motive of the actual intended victim. This remains unaffected by any sore thumbs one might find.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello ALL.

Does anybody have any idea why Mary Janes bedroom would have been considered a high traffic area ensuring the fast discovery of her body that morning? Or, how does Jack the Ripper know for certain that her body will be discovered that morning?

[curious4]

Hello ALL.

Does anybody have any idea why Mary Janes bedroom would have been considered a high traffic area ensuring the fast discovery of her body that morning? Or, how does Jack the Ripper know for certain that her body will be discovered that morning?

Mary planned to go to the Lord Mayor's show which I believe started at ten. There was to be a free meal for the poorest. I would have thought there would be fewer people around, many not wishing to miss the free food and the spectacle and leaving early.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

I know that's what you meant, I just don't know how that flaws the comparison.



Yes, but what I notice most of all, not just Agatha Christie but whodunnits in general, is that the killer is 1) always known to us (ie. it is never someone who is just barely presented to us), 2) almost always someone we are meant to like, or at least not suspect, and 3) never someone we are meant to suspect. In Agatha Christie stories, there is very often someone who openly threatens the victim some time before the victim is killed - you can rest assured that this character will be completely innocent. Much as I like run-of-the-mill crime stories, I am rarely surprised by the ending.



But there are more fingers than just the thumb. You might say the same for the Alphabet murders: the fact that all characters had initials which conformed to the pattern removed that potential sore thumb. The alphabet murders all conformed to the initials, and the Whitechapel murders all conformed to prostitutes. I see this as similar rather than dissimilar. And with the Whitechapel murders, there are other sore digits to consider: Elizabeth Stride, completely different MO. Interrupted or not, the MO doesn't match. Mary Jean Kelly: completely different victim profile. The others had been in their 40s (with Polly Nichols looking like she was in her mid 30s), and none of them taller than 5'2, but here is Mary Jean Kelly in her early 20s, butch and taller than the average man. And, unlike the others, her clothes had been removed. So whether Alphabet murders or Whitechapel murders, there was conformity as well as sore thumbs.

Either way, like I said, I do not see how the sore thumb of economical background in Agatha Christie's fiction relates to anything. My entire point was that the hypothesis put forward was very much like the plot in "The Alphabet Murders", ie. several people killed in order to camouflage the motive of the actual intended victim. This remains unaffected by any sore thumbs one might find.

Hello Karl

Do you mean "pricking of thumbs". There was an old superstition that in the presence of evil (usually a witch) your thumbs would "prick", that is tingle or get pins and needles.

Best wishes
C4