Mary Kelly's men

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Harry,

I responded within your quoted post;

1.No offence, Michael, but some of your reasoning in this thread is overly simplistic. For one, you said that because Eddowes' had her nose chopped off that must mean she knew too much or was prying into something she shouldn't have. It sounds like something out of an Agatha Christie novel.

I agree that some of what I suggest is simple Harry, perhaps thats what this area of study needs from time to time...a 10,000 ft view. Somethings become less clear when observed from too close a perspective, or with too many assumptions. In fact Harry its documented that some criminal murder victims before and after these murders had initials or words carved into their faces as a way to mark them as traitors, or stool pigeons. Although its only a suggestion that Kates nose was cut to mark her as someone who put their nose where it shouldnt have been, it does align with a supposed claim that she intended to accuse someone of murder, maybe someone she knew.

3.Notwithstanding the fact that this killer also hangs around a public thoroughfare patrolled by coppers to tear open Eddowes' guts and steal her organs so he can blame it on the Ripper... like that's something criminals just do.

Interesting that you mentioned the police, its odd that for the Mitre Square murder that the people closest to the scene of the crime were all Policemen, no? Pearce, Morris, Watkins, Harvey, Outram, Marriot, Halse...2 inside the square and regular patrols to, and through, the square. 3 city detectives nearby searching alleys for clues....clues to what I wonder. There had never been an incident in the actual city to that point, and its unclear if the city knew of Strides murder and just decided to patrol the city as a safeguard. What if that murder happened with the subtle nod of the police?

4. Yes, the Victorian East End was a rough place, and yes there were other murders, but you'll notice that only a small number of them involved extensive mutilation and organ removal. From the way you talk, it's like a woman couldn't step out of her front door without some dastardly fiend tearing out her insides.

No, Ive said that its factual that other murderers coexisted with the mythical Jack in that same area. As for organ removal, I agree, very rare. And just how many of the 5 alleged Ripper victims actually lost organs? Right..3.

5.Following on from that, you try to link Mary Kelly's murder to the possibility that she was in an abusive relationship with the 'other Joe'. I say 'possibility' because this story is purely anecdotal and has no factual basis. Assuming this was true, that doesn't mean it was a crime of passion. There have been plenty of killers who have committed horrifically brutal acts of violence without having any kind of personal connection to their victim. That doesn't mean that the 'other Joe', if he did exist, wasn't her killer, but it would mean in all likelihood that he also the Ripper.

What Ive done is present a premise that utilizes the second hand story that Julia relates to explain why there are physical actions taken in that room, and some circumstances, which almost always suggest a killer known to the victim in any modern murder investigation.

6.And if Mary Kelly's murderer was a copycat, why would he make it look so distinct from the others in the series? Why would he kill her indoors, completely butcher the body, and take none of the trademark organs? I thought it was the overkill of Mary Kelly's murder that made you rule it out in the first place?

Ive never said it was a copy cat Harry. I have said it was made to look as if done by the unknown killer at large. They are not the same thing. The second may be someone that happens organically, and logically.

7.Speaking for myself, I don't see that much anger displayed in Miller's Court. There was a pathological need to destroy and dehumanize the body, but little evidence of a rage killing. Mary Kelly was killed by one swift slash to the throat, and after that initial explosion of rage had subsided, he wouldn't remain for two hours inside the cramped, humid conditions to perform an elaborate dissection, not if he was fuelled by rage. You only have to examine the surgical method with which he removed the breasts to understand that this was the same morbid anatomical curiosity that was apparent in the other murders, only this time he had the time, privacy or the specimen to properly indulge his fantasy. The placing of the organs would also suggest that there was a ritualistic element to this murder.

Mary's face was slashed repeatedly with a knife, slicing a portion of her forehead which flops down to obscure her eyes...as seen, or rather not, in MJK1. She has wounds on her hand and arms which are consistent with defense wounds. She has her breasts cut off...a superfluous act for someone after internal organs, seemingly a spiteful act. As perhaps the taking of a heart was...from someone perceived as having "taken" the heart of the killer perhaps?

[Harry D]

No offence, Michael, but some of your reasoning in this thread is overly simplistic.

For one, you said that because Eddowes' had her nose chopped off that must mean she knew too much or was prying into something she shouldn't have. It sounds like something out of an Agatha Christie novel. Notwithstanding the fact that this killer also hangs around a public thoroughfare patrolled by coppers to tear open Eddowes' guts and steal her organs so he can blame it on the Ripper... like that's something criminals just do. Yes, the Victorian East End was a rough place, and yes there were other murders, but you'll notice that only a small number of them involved extensive mutilation and organ removal. From the way you talk, it's like a woman couldn't step out of her front door without some dastardly fiend tearing out her insides.

Following on from that, you try to link Mary Kelly's murder to the possibility that she was in an abusive relationship with the 'other Joe'. I say 'possibility' because this story is purely anecdotal and has no factual basis. Assuming this was true, that doesn't mean it was a crime of passion. There have been plenty of killers who have committed horrifically brutal acts of violence without having any kind of personal connection to their victim. That doesn't mean that the 'other Joe', if he did exist, wasn't her killer, but it would mean in all likelihood that he also the Ripper.

And if Mary Kelly's murderer was a copycat, why would he make it look so distinct from the others in the series? Why would he kill her indoors, completely butcher the body, and take none of the trademark organs? I thought it was the overkill of Mary Kelly's murder that made you rule it out in the first place?

Speaking for myself, I don't see that much anger displayed in Miller's Court. There was a pathological need to destroy and dehumanize the body, but little evidence of a rage killing. Mary Kelly was killed by one swift slash to the throat, and after that initial explosion of rage had subsided, he wouldn't remain for two hours inside the cramped, humid conditions to perform an elaborate dissection, not if he was fuelled by rage. You only have to examine the surgical method with which he removed the breasts to understand that this was the same morbid anatomical curiosity that was apparent in the other murders, only this time he had the time, privacy or the specimen to properly indulge his fantasy. The placing of the organs would also suggest that there was a ritualistic element to this murder.

[Michael W Richards]

Back to the thread for a moment.......Mary Kelly told Julia that she was seeing another "Joe". That other Joe has never been outed. She said she was seeing him while seeing still seeing Barnet, portraying Barnett as "being nice to her" and the other Joe as sometimes "treating her ill".

Isnt it obvious that there is the potential for a murder motive there? Jealous of Barnett....jilted when Mary doesnt let him move in after Barnett leaves...

The room was a slaughterhouse, she was slashed at and taken apart. There is evidence of anger, and defense wounds.

If people would withdraw the cranium from the hole that is the "could only be one mutilator at a time" argument, then they could see that possible motives are the way to differentiate these murders, not knife cuts. Anyone can cut someone up with a knife, anyone. Why they do makes all the differences. Polly and Annies killer, as the evidence indicates, desired to kill and mutilate strange street prostitutes. Since those are the only 2 that reveal essentially what is defective wiring on the part of the killer, they are the only 2 where a motive, or really a lack of one, can be determined.

[Michael W Richards]

Could someone give me an example of a string of similar murders, that turned out to be committed by more than one killer (not working together)? In the overwhelming number of cases, they end up being tied to one guy. Take the small geographical area and the distinctive nature of the murders themselves, and I don't see how anyone can seriously propose that these were the work of multiple killers.

There are some murders within the Unsolved Murders file that resemble each other, and some that do not Harry. That applies to the Canonical Group. So which "string", and how long a "string" are you referring to? The broad strokes which are used to characterize these murders is misleading.....Polly and Annie were killed and mutilated while soliciting, Liz Stride had her throat cut once while doing?, Kate Eddowes murder resembles the 2 aforementioned murders, and was killed while?, and Mary Kelly has no comparable with the entire file of over a dozen women, slaughtered undressed and in bed. The skill and knowledge varies over just those five murders, from high-level to non-existent by the fifth.

How anyone can suggest these are similar murders is beyond me, but its certainly not an accurate representation of the facts. Yes they all took place in the most depressed and crime ridden part of the city, and over 2 1/2 months, but just geography and timing do not validate any assimilation. And we have, in the midst of it all, a murder that is almost certainly unrelated to the killer of the Canonicals, an act that also precedeed the Fall of Terror.

That Torso tells us that someone other than this Jack fellow was in that area, at that time. So blinkers off...there is already evidence that more than one mutilator existed and worked simultaneously. The "what are the chances" argument has just been dealt with.

[Pcdunn]

Thank you for your examples, C.D. That does help me figure out the line of thought others have on this scenario.

Okay, so if the cops decide Kelly's murderer knew her, they would of course investigate her known friends, acquaintances, lovers, former husbands-- assuming they can find them. In that case, Barnett, Hutchinson, Davies, Blotchy (whoever they track down from helpful neighbors and friends) would indeed be in the situation you describe.

But what I'm imagining is that a) it isn't a deliberate attempt to imitate the Ripper's work, but something that is influenced by it, all the same and
b) the killer is and remains anonymous. So he wouldn't worry so much about Jack also being anonymous, then.

[c.d.]

I knew what you meant, CD, and it's a valid point.

If anybody would understood what I meant, it would be you, Harry.

c.d.

[Harry D]

I knew what you meant, CD, and it's a valid point.

[c.d.]

Hi, C.D-- Thanks for the explanation. I still don't see it (perhaps too left-handed and right-brained), but as an amateur at this sort of thing, I'll bow to your expert opinion. Anyway, I don't believe in a deliberate copycat killing or frame, so I suppose this is all academic, anyway.

Hello Pat,

It is probably more the result of my poor explanation rather than the shortcomings of your brain. Let me try again with two different scenarios.

First example - The police report in the papers that they believe Aaron Kosminski is the Ripper and they are trying to track down his whereabouts. Barnett kills Mary and makes it look like a Ripper murder. He is questioned by the police as a result of being her ex-lover. He tells the police it wasn't me, doesn't this look like the work of the Ripper, you know that hairdresser guy? The police say hey you are right it does look like Kosminkski's work. You are off the hook as a suspect.

Second example - It is reported in the papers that the police have no idea who the Ripper is. Barnett kills Mary as above making it look like a Ripper murder. He is questioned by the police. He says it wasn't me, doesn't this look like the work of the Ripper? The police say yes it does but how do we know YOU are not the Ripper?

Hope this helps.

c.d.

[Ozzy]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;371873]

Hi Pierre
I see you have finally learned how to use the quote function.

But not the bold function it seems. Therefore I skip his posts. Same goes with any post with Capslock on.

[Pcdunn]

Hi, C.D-- Thanks for the explanation. I still don't see it (perhaps too left-handed and right-brained), but as an amateur at this sort of thing, I'll bow to your expert opinion. Anyway, I don't believe in a deliberate copycat killing or frame, so I suppose this is all academic, anyway.

[Rosella]

To Rosella

Taking all that into account what do you make of WH Bury?

Cheers John

Well, Bury was/is of course a long term suspect for our Jack. However Abberline reportedly thought him a domestic murderer who had had a troubled marital relationship (quarrels, alcoholism) that ended in the death of his wife. I think that's about right.

[c.d.]

Hello Pat, ...oops, sorry, I mean Mr. Dunn,

I am not talking about a copycat in the sense of someone (other than Jack) reading about the murders and thinking hey, taking out organs sounds kind of cool, I think maybe I'll give it a try.

I am talking about someone deliberately committing a Ripper-like murder in the hopes that it will get blamed on the Ripper and not him. Let's take Barnett as an example as this motive is sometimes ascribed to him. In order for this strategy to work, the police would have to have an extremely strong suspect for the Ripper who they know by name. Let's call him Bill Jones. It is now just a question of trying to catch that individual. This individual is also known to the public by name. So Barnett kills Mary but the police never really consider him a suspect since this is clearly a Ripper-like murder and they are convinced that Bill Jones has struck again. Thus Barnett avoids suspicion. But if the police have no idea who the Ripper is then it literally could be anybody and Barnett would fall into that category as well and is thus a suspect.

I probably didn't make that as clear as I could be but I hope it helps.

c.d.

P.S. I said know his name but that really is not necessary.What is necessary is the public be aware that they police are looking for a specific individual and are trying to find his whereabouts. In other words they have zeroed in on their man.

[Pcdunn]

Puzzled

In order for a copycat killer to hope that his murder will be blamed on Jack, the police would first have to know who the Ripper was, i.e., Bill Jones. Without a name attached to the Ripper the Ripper could be anyone in the eyes of the police so being a copycat in that instance would be of zero use in possibly throwing off the suspicions of the police.

c.d.

I have heard this argument once before, and I don't really understand it, C.D.
Does "copycat" mean "frame"? I mean, if I read your post from that perspective, that he wants the cops to arrest a particular person, sure, it makes sense. But I don't quite understand why the police must already know who Jack is?

Oh, wait, are you saying the copy-cat killer would need to dress like one of the suspects the police were observing? Why? Jack is anonymous. So, presumably, is the second killer. What is one more mulitation murder among all the others in the area? They're all being ascribed to The Ripper, so why wouldn't one more fall into that category? Hide a tree in a forest, after all...

[John Wheat]

A murderer killing someone they had always wanted to in the hope that it would be regarded as a Ripper killing would have to make darned sure that they did get away with it. Being caught in the act or traced later could very well end not just at the end of a hangman's rope but being charged with four or more other killings.

To Rosella

Taking all that into account what do you make of WH Bury?

Cheers John

[Harry D]

A murderer killing someone they had always wanted to in the hope that it would be regarded as a Ripper killing would have to make darned sure that they did get away with it. Being caught in the act or traced later could very well end not just at the end of a hangman's rope but being charged with four or more other killings.

Exactly. As if some guy is going to hang around in the middle of a public street, mutilating a woman and tearing her organs out because he wants to throw-off the police. No, if he's doing that, it's because he's a violent deviant who gets his jollies from butchering women. And like you said, if this copycat gets caught, which he could at any moment, then in all likelihood he's going to the gallows for the other murders as well.

Me doth think Mr. Richards has been watching too many movies.