Mary Kelly's men

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Well, there you are. As Maria and Barnett had just moved out it suddenly became far more practical for Kelly to entertain clients in her room.

It should also be noted that serial killers are quite capable of adapting their MO if the opportunity arises. Thus, Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, started off by attacking prostitutes in red light districts. However, one of his earlier victims, Patricia Atkinson, told him, "I've got a flat we can go there". He therefore drove her to her flat, parked outside and went in. He then hung up his coat on the back of the door before attacking her from behind with a hammer.

And, as I've noted before, another of Sutcliffe's victims was a 14 year old schoolgirl, who he attacked down a quiet country lane after engaging her on conversation.

I'm afraid serial killers are no where near as predictable as you seem to think.

Hi John,

With due respect, the killer of Mary Kelly has not been determined to have been a serial killer at all, in fact there is nothing but repetitive circumstances and actions taken that can be used to logically link just 2 or perhaps 3 of the Canonical victims to one killer. Mary is not in that group....for obvious reasons.

As for the solicitation argument, as I noted, you need only find proof or suggestion of that for the 2 nights she was alone in the room to substantiate a further exploration of that notion. To my knowledge, its doesnt exist.

Marys murder differs from the aforementioned Canonical Group in location, in actions taken, and with suggestion of voluntary admittance to her own private room while she was in a state of undress...circumstantially, the intimacy implied is opposite of what is suggested by the evidence in the first two Canonical victims,...who, coincidentally, are the ONLY Canonicals that told others they were "earning" or soliciting, on the night they were killed. Which paints a portrait of a killer whose MO is to accompany unknown street whores to a quiet location outdoors then cut their throats twice and mutilate their abdomens. That MO portrait need not change for that killer if we have other killers within the five Canonical victims. Something which is still as plausible today as it was in 1888.

[c.d.]

Even if Kelly had not previously used her room for solicitation what was there to stop her from doing so? If she was in need of money and a client/her killer showed up at her door is it unreasonable to believe that she might have let him in even if that was not her regular practice?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

As usual, I am going to disagree with you.

I do agree that the most likely scenario is that she allowed her killer to enter her room. But simply knowing her killer does not automatically imply an intimate relationship.

As for intimate clothing, well that is something that customers are paying for are they not?

As for the face slashing being an indication of a personal relationship it could also simply be a result of more time alone with the victim. There is only so much flesh on a human body. But if we do conclude that it indicates a personal relationship, what are we to conclude by the fact that Kate had her face brutally slashed as well?

The missing heart? As Sam Flynn first noted there is a world of difference between the heart in poetry and song lyrics and as depicted on Valentine's Day cards or a locket and the slimy, stinking, blood covered actual organ. Hard to see the actual organ being symbolic of stealing her love.

I just don't see a personal relationship in her killing.

c.d.

Of course which is your prerogative cd. However I think you dismiss some red flags that indicate the contrary...for one, customers of street whore were NOT accustomed to seeing flesh at all, most transactions would be while fully dressed, outdoors, with the skirts thrown up at the back. We know that Mary was now of that ilk, having left her bordello days behind her. Barnett said he objected to Mary "working the streets", which if accurate, answers where she did her business. When she chose to...remember we have evidence she hadnt been paying rent, which implies her income hadnt been sufficient to do so. She was afraid of the ongoing terror scare through the area, which likely means she worked outdoors after midnight infrequently, at best.

Kates facial injuries resulted from cuts, not slashes, anger is implied by the slashing action. Not neccesarily anger towards the victim, but often it is.

And a jilted, violent lover might well choose a heart based on some emotional driver...like a thought that she was heartless for example.

And there is no ignoring that the ONLY organ taken twice previously, full and partially, is left under Marys head.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Obviously red flags are in the eye of the beholder.

Why compare what customers would be getting in the usual outdoor transaction when Mary was inside? Were there hard and fast rules on what prostitutes would or would not do and would Mary have provided extra services if you will if the price was right and she thought this client could be a potential sugar daddy?

Dr. Bond stated that Kate's face "was very much mutilated." Arguing cuts versus slashes seems to be splitting hairs.

If taking the heart was symbolic what did cutting off her breasts and slashing the flesh from her thigh symbolize? Or ripping out her intestines? To focus on just one thing is cherry picking.

"And there is no ignoring that the ONLY organ taken twice previously, full and partially, is left under Marys head."

And we can conclude from that what exactly?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hey cd,

Hello Michael,

Obviously red flags are in the eye of the beholder.

What if I were to say that statistically the slashing of a victims face indicates a connection of victim and killer more than any other scenario?

Why compare what customers would be getting in the usual outdoor transaction when Mary was inside? Were there hard and fast rules on what prostitutes would or would not do and would Mary have provided extra services if you will if the price was right and she thought this client could be a potential sugar daddy?

Why suggest, without evidence or precedent, that a woman who had been working the streets whenever she chose to solicit would suddenly use her own room to perform her transactions?

Dr. Bond stated that Kate's face "was very much mutilated." Arguing cuts versus slashes seems to be splitting hairs.

Slashing, again, is indicative of rage, or lack of self control due to emotional factors, something not evident in the cuts to Kates face.

If taking the heart was symbolic what did cutting off her breasts and slashing the flesh from her thigh symbolize? Or ripping out her intestines? To focus on just one thing is cherry picking.

I dont need to cherry pick here cd...what you just cited are all valid reasons to view this murder as unlike the previous ones.

"And there is no ignoring that the ONLY organ taken twice previously, full and partially, is left under Marys head."

And we can conclude from that what exactly?

Something rather extraordinary if this was the same killer who killed Annie Chapman. If it wasnt, then who knows what motivated this action.

c.d.

[John G]

Hi John,

With due respect, the killer of Mary Kelly has not been determined to have been a serial killer at all, in fact there is nothing but repetitive circumstances and actions taken that can be used to logically link just 2 or perhaps 3 of the Canonical victims to one killer. Mary is not in that group....for obvious reasons.

As for the solicitation argument, as I noted, you need only find proof or suggestion of that for the 2 nights she was alone in the room to substantiate a further exploration of that notion. To my knowledge, its doesnt exist.

Marys murder differs from the aforementioned Canonical Group in location, in actions taken, and with suggestion of voluntary admittance to her own private room while she was in a state of undress...circumstantially, the intimacy implied is opposite of what is suggested by the evidence in the first two Canonical victims,...who, coincidentally, are the ONLY Canonicals that told others they were "earning" or soliciting, on the night they were killed. Which paints a portrait of a killer whose MO is to accompany unknown street whores to a quiet location outdoors then cut their throats twice and mutilate their abdomens. That MO portrait need not change for that killer if we have other killers within the five Canonical victims. Something which is still as plausible today as it was in 1888.

Hello Michael,

The combination of severe mutilation the the abdomen and neck, removal of organs, as well as lack of evidence of the victim being raped, are so incredibly rare so as to make it virtually inevitable that Kelly was killed by JtR.

Whether she was soliciting or not is incidental, as we are not entitled to assume they JtR targeted only prostitutes: Sutcliffe certainly didn't.

As for Kelly being attacked on her own room, I have already given an example of when a serial killer deviated from his normal MO in a similar fashion.

In fact, the MO of Kiernan Kelly deviated far more significantly. His first victim was stabbed repeatedly in the neck and head; his second victim was seriously mutilated. However, he then radically altered his MO by targeting vagrants and pushing them in from of tube trains.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

"What if I were to say that statistically the slashing of a victims face indicates a connection of victim and killer more than any other scenario?"

Do these statistics that you are citing include numerous cases where the face slashing was also accompanied by organ removal? Why focus on that aspect of the killing and disregard everything else that took place? Obviously her killer had sufficient time alone with her. If you start cutting a human body to pieces eventually you will get to the face.

So it seems that are choices are limited to a killer who killed before and took VARIOUS ORGANS for reasons that we simply don't know or that in the Fall of 1888 the streets of Whitechapel had numerous killers roaming the streets some intent on removing uteri from women, others intent on taking kidneys and the occasional heart man here and there.

c.d.

[Harry D]

I still like the idea that because Eddowes & Kelly were more attractive than the previous victims, it dictated the extent of the facial mutilations they each received. If the Ripper was driven by a violent desire to dehumanize his victims, this could be a plausible explanation. Polly & Annie weren't exactly lookers by any stretch of the imagination, and Stride is ever the grey area, so it could be that the killer didn't have the same stimuli with these victims.

Or not? Who knows?

[Abby Normal]

Even if Kelly had not previously used her room for solicitation what was there to stop her from doing so? If she was in need of money and a client/her killer showed up at her door is it unreasonable to believe that she might have let him in even if that was not her regular practice?

c.d.

if she knew him, no it woudnt be unreasonable. if she didn't know him-yes it would be.

[Abby Normal]

I still like the idea that because Eddowes & Kelly were more attractive than the previous victims, it dictated the extent of the facial mutilations they each received. If the Ripper was driven by a violent desire to dehumanize his victims, this could be a plausible explanation. Polly & Annie weren't exactly lookers by any stretch of the imagination, and Stride is ever the grey area, so it could be that the killer didn't have the same stimuli with these victims.

Or not? Who knows?

That's a good point Harry D!

Ive never thought about that angle before.

If the Ripper was driven by a violent desire to dehumanize his victims, this could be a plausible explanation

and/or if their attractive face stimulated sexual desire. hence cutting desire.

[c.d.]

if she knew him, no it woudnt be unreasonable. if she didn't know him-yes it would be.

Hello Abby,

Then it appears that we are in agreement. But when we say "knew him" what exactly does that mean?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Then it appears that we are in agreement. But when we say "knew him" what exactly does that mean?

c.d.

met him before. maybe knew his name.

[c.d.]

met him before. maybe knew his name.

Yeah, I'll buy that. Especially if we assume that the Ripper didn't have two heads and foamed at the mouth. Having a client come to your door would certainly beat going out in the cold rain to find one.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

The combination of severe mutilation the the abdomen and neck, removal of organs, as well as lack of evidence of the victim being raped, are so incredibly rare so as to make it virtually inevitable that Kelly was killed by JtR.

Whether she was soliciting or not is incidental, as we are not entitled to assume they JtR targeted only prostitutes: Sutcliffe certainly didn't.

As for Kelly being attacked on her own room, I have already given an example of when a serial killer deviated from his normal MO in a similar fashion.

In fact, the MO of Kiernan Kelly deviated far more significantly. His first victim was stabbed repeatedly in the neck and head; his second victim was seriously mutilated. However, he then radically altered his MO by targeting vagrants and pushing them in from of tube trains.

John,

There is only 2 reasons to suspect that more than 2 or 3 of the Canonical Group were killed by the same killer, and thats because modern theorists enjoy trying to match the deviant behaviours exhibitted within those 5 murders with known and identified serial killers and their morphing of their own MO to evade capture, and because contemporary investigators guessed that these 5 were linked by killer....doing so obviously without ANY of the modern day serial killer profiling data. Simply put...it was their guess.

In actuality there is no evidence that the killer of Polly and Annie changed either the motive or the methods, there is only that assumption based on theories that the killer must have changed. Just like assuming the same killer stabbed, then suddenly moved to cutting throats and mutilating abdomens within a month. Baseless...relying on an end game premise to be accurate.

[Michael W Richards]

Yeah, I'll buy that. Especially if we assume that the Ripper didn't have two heads and foamed at the mouth. Having a client come to your door would certainly beat going out in the cold rain to find one.

c.d.

So... you disagree with my statement that the killer was known to the victim based on the evidence, then you agree with Abby when he says the same thing? Gotcha. Seems to be a revealing moment for you and your oh-so-often contrary posts to mine cd.