Just Throwing This Out There...

[John G]

If Kelly was a "copy cat" killing, whomever killed her had certainly been reading the inquest reports in the papers, as Kelly`s murder almost mirrors the Chapman murder. In fact, the copy cat seems to have been aware of smaller details that have eluded today`s Ripperologists, who`ve had decades to peruse the gory details. Our copycat only had a couple of months.

If someone had it in for Mary Kelly they could have just bopped her on the head and chucked her in the Thames. Pretending to be Jack the Ripper and mutilating her in her own room would be a foolish thing to do, by drawing worldwide attention to her.

Hi Jon

Has there ever been a copycat serial killer? Apart from in works of fiction of course.

[wigngown]

Jon Guy,

You've summed up why I think Kelly was indeed one of JtR's victims.

Best regards.

[jerryd]

Several months back I posted a news clip of an assault that took place in Bishopsgate Railway Station. The two young men arrested were, Joseph Isaacs and John Adler. They entered the ladies waiting room with six other men and created a disturbance in which they were removed. They then assaulted a couple porters and were arrested.

This Joseph Isaacs, I believe, is the same Joseph Isaacs that has been speculated as being A-Man. It's also interesting that John Adler is reported as living in Hanbury Street. This assault was reported in the news on April 9th, 1888, which is only a few days after the attack on Emma Smith.

[Jon Guy]

I do sometimes wonder if Kelly wasn't a 'copy cat' killing. The mutilations to her were so horrific, it has occurred to me that they were the kind of thing that someone might do if they had heard exaggerated stories about what had happened to the other women, and then wanted to make it look like the Whitechapel Murderer killed her.

It would take an extremely cold heart and brutal individual to do that to someone just to cover their tracks or scare other prostitutes, though. Having said that, I've known latter day pimps in America, the UK and Europe to do truly appalling and awful things to the women they control, so perhaps the brutality isn't completely out of the question.

If Kelly was a "copy cat" killing, whomever killed her had certainly been reading the inquest reports in the papers, as Kelly`s murder almost mirrors the Chapman murder. In fact, the copy cat seems to have been aware of smaller details that have eluded today`s Ripperologists, who`ve had decades to peruse the gory details. Our copycat only had a couple of months.

If someone had it in for Mary Kelly they could have just bopped her on the head and chucked her in the Thames. Pretending to be Jack the Ripper and mutilating her in her own room would be a foolish thing to do, by drawing worldwide attention to her.

[MsWeatherwax]

I do sometimes wonder if Kelly wasn't a 'copy cat' killing. The mutilations to her were so horrific, it has occurred to me that they were the kind of thing that someone might do if they had heard exaggerated stories about what had happened to the other women, and then wanted to make it look like the Whitechapel Murderer killed her.

It would take an extremely cold heart and brutal individual to do that to someone just to cover their tracks or scare other prostitutes, though. Having said that, I've known latter day pimps in America, the UK and Europe to do truly appalling and awful things to the women they control, so perhaps the brutality isn't completely out of the question.

[Pcdunn]

I think we'd need more historical and sociological research into Victorian prostitution of that time and place, and consider how did the "casual" Unfortunates differ from the more organized prostitutes who might have had a pimp or madam.

Kelly, if she was an independent prostitue with her own room, might have fit the bill as being killed as a warning to other "uppity" streetwalkers by a protection gang.
Hmm... Thoughts?

[Rosella]

I'm sure that some of the Whitechapel women did get themselves a 'bully' or pimp for the duration. Better the devil that you know...!

[MsWeatherwax]

Very true. It just crossed my mind that the outraged headlines following her death might have prompted a few of the local unfortunates to come forward and actually volunteer for protection. From there, a couple of people could quite easily decide that prostitutes are expendable for profit, and that there is quicker and easier ways to kill them.

I don't really know why I'm arguing the point...I'm pretty certain that he was a sexually motivated serial killer. Just trying to stimulate discussion I suppose.

[Rosella]

Maybe Jack had been a gang member when he was younger. I don't know. But it's a huge leap between what happened to Emma and what occurred with Jack's victims.
Although the attack on Emma Smith was extremely nasty and disgusting and horrible it doesn't appear that murder was the intention there. It seems they wanted to rob her, beat her up and treat her cruelly and with disdain. However, I don't believe their intention was to murder her. That doesn't mean they were being merciful, (they probably couldn't have cared less if she lived or died) but they stopped short of murder and they didn't use a knife or knives in the attack. That's very different to the way Jack worked.

Surely if it was a gang they could have terrified local prostitutes without going to the extent Jack did. Beating up and threatening a few local unfortunates wouldn't take you to the gallows. The Ripper murders would.

[MsWeatherwax]

I know I've heard a few people in the past suggest that Emma Smith was murdered by a gang trying to extort 'protection' money from local prostitutes...it's just popped into my head that the succession of murders which followed could also have been committed by a gang, in order to terrify the local unfortunates and make them more likely to sign up for their 'services'.

I don't mean that each individual woman was murdered with the entire gang present...just that one, or maybe two, members of the gang were responsible for selecting and attacking women. Perhaps this was at random, or perhaps for refusing protection in the past.

Anyway, just a thought.