Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - by Simon Wood 1 minute ago.
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - by cjmorley 9 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - by cjmorley 32 minutes ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by rjpalmer 53 minutes ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Batman 2 hours ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Fisherman 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - (56 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - (19 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (10 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - (6 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic - (5 posts)
Abberline, Inspector Frederick: Hinting at something? - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Jane Kelly

View Poll Results: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?
Yes 59 83.10%
No 8 11.27%
Undecided 4 5.63%
Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #451  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:56 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl View Post
Suggesting it was a different killer does not in any conceivable way, shape or form suggest that killer #2 had a better reason for killing than killer #1.
No, Karl, but arguing for a different killer - for no good reason I have ever seen - inevitably suggests some personal reason for wanting to destroy a particular individual, in this case the woman known as Mary Kelly.

Nobody has come up with a shred of decent evidence for this because, let's face it, how could they? Sod all is known about the poor woman, not even her real name, and everything we think we might know has come from Barnett, or from other witnesses who only claimed to know, or to have heard, certain stuff about her.

Somebody wanted to destroy Ms Anonymous, and there has only ever been one likely suspect in my view - the Mister Nobody who went round destroying women who meant absolutely nothing to him alive.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 09-19-2018, 08:09 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl View Post
I just came across a very pertinent question I asked long ago in a different thread: what sources have we for MJK's height, anyway? It seems we all take 5'7 for granted, but neither the inquest nor the post mortem make any mention of it. It is also commonly assumed that "Long Leg" Liz Stride was tall - 5'5, tall for a woman at that time. Where that figure stems from, however, I have no idea - Stride's inquest quite plainly states she was 5'2. So could Mary's tall height be another spurious piece of received wisdom?
Assuming the nickname Long Liz came from her surname, as in "Long Stride", it had nothing to do with the lady's height.

Another apparent myth that often crops up is that Mary Kelly's clothes were found 'neatly folded'. I don't recall anyone finding a contemporary reference to this detail [or even a sketch clearly indicating it?], but it seems to have been introduced at some point in the mid 20th century.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 09-19-2018, 10:37 AM
Busy Beaver Busy Beaver is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West Lothian
Posts: 106
Default

Another apparent myth that often crops up is that Mary Kelly's clothes were found 'neatly folded'. I don't recall anyone finding a contemporary reference to this detail [or even a sketch clearly indicating it?], but it seems to have been introduced at some point in the mid 20th century.

Caz, you know it's references like these that have become so misleading to Ripperologists. Could the admins not weed out all the c**p and keep the real facts? The neatly folded clothes has always led me to believe that she never left her room and in saying that she could not have met the Ripper, but I think she did meet the Ripper.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 09-19-2018, 10:59 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
. Another apparent myth that often crops up is that Mary Kelly's clothes were found 'neatly folded'. I don't recall anyone finding a contemporary reference to this detail [or even a sketch clearly indicating it?], but it seems to have been introduced at some point in the mid 20th century.
I think this "myth" can be traced to the Daily Telegraph, Nov 10th, 1888:

"That the woman had had no struggle with her betrayer was shown by her position and the way in which her garments, including a velvet bodice, were arranged by the fireplace."


As you say, Caz, they are not necessarily 'folded,' but they are arranged in an organized manner instead of being cut to pieces or thrown onto the floor or the bedside table in a heap. I think many find this puzzling; it is a little too cozy in comparison to the impatient lunatic we sense was at work in Hanbury Street, Buck's Row, etc.

Personally, I believe it is the same man, but something seems slightly 'amiss' to me.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 09-19-2018, 11:05 AM
Karl Karl is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
No, Karl, but arguing for a different killer - for no good reason I have ever seen - inevitably suggests some personal reason for wanting to destroy a particular individual, in this case the woman known as Mary Kelly.
Yes, which such ghastly facial mutilations would suggest. I do not see why the killer having some personal motive should be so controversial, though.


Quote:
Nobody has come up with a shred of decent evidence for this because, let's face it, how could they? Sod all is known about the poor woman, not even her real name, and everything we think we might know has come from Barnett, or from other witnesses who only claimed to know, or to have heard, certain stuff about her.
There is no more evidence for Kelly being a Ripper victim, either. After all, the exact same evidence is being used both for and against - it's all down to interpretation, and different people emphasising different pieces of evidence - and downplaying anything which doesn't fit. Because no matter how you try to categorise MJK, she's a square peg in a round hole.


Quote:
Somebody wanted to destroy Ms Anonymous, and there has only ever been one likely suspect in my view - the Mister Nobody who went round destroying women who meant absolutely nothing to him alive.
Yes, in your view. But that isn't a suspect - that's a person or persons unknown. These Casebook pages contain no fewer than 31 suspects, most of whom are fervently believed to be the one by some, and all of whom are confidently dismissed by most. Personally I believe there are at most three Ripper victims, and at least two killers for the canonical five - though I'm leaning towards three.

You say it's the same killer because "look at all the similarities". That's interpretation. Me, I say MJK had a different killer because "look at all the differences". That, too, is interpretation. Personally, I find my own interpretation to be much more compelling than yours. You say you haven't seen a "good" reason for my interpretation, nor a shred of "decent" evidence for it. What constitutes "good" and "decent"? Because the reasons argued for the Ripper in MJK's case are, in my view, not good reasons at all. And I have explained why. And no doubt you will see me as dismissing vital pieces of evidence simply because they do not fit my theory, but how do you think the theory you subscribe to looks to me? I have pointed out how MJK was completely different from the other victims in terms of victimology, and those who disagree with me not only trivialise those differences, but completely sweep them under the rug. "They're not important". Why are they not important? Because it doesn't fit the theory. Had the other victims been like MJK, you would take that as evidence in your favour, as well you should. And you know you would. When it doesn't fit, it should be counted as just as significant.

I try not to be biased. And if I may place a feather in my own cap, I ask you to note that Kelly's height was one of the two main arguments (in fact the most important one of the two) that I had for dismissing her as a Ripper victim - and I was also the one to express doubts concerning Kelly's height. If I may be so forward, I haven't seen a similar degree of scepticism from those who are adamant that Mary was a Ripper victim - who indeed refuse to acknowledge even a shred of evidence for an alternative explanation.


Quote:
I don't think anyone is intentionally blaming any of the victims, but I do agree with much of your post, Aurora.
Not unintentionally, either.


Quote:
With both Mary Kelly and Liz Stride I have read many theories involving a separate killer, which would necessarily involve a specific motive for wanting this specific female destroyed and out of his life. Revenge? Sexual jealousy? A sudden fit of temper? This would tend to imply the woman herself had done or said something to provoke a male associate into committing - for the first and only time in his life - this most extreme of crimes.
It implies nothing of the kind. If we say that OJ Simpson murdered his wife, does this suggest she was at fault somehow? Should OJ have been acquitted for no better reason than this would make his wife look better? Should we assume murder victims were always victims of random acts of psychotic violence, so as to be very very careful to avoid accidentally blaming the victim? Maybe a man kills a woman because she rejected him - how can anyone say or even suggest that she brought it on herself? Instead, she was just unfortunate enough to be the object of attention of a man who was not right in the head. A personal motive does not imply anything at all, unless you define what that motive was.

Last edited by Karl : 09-19-2018 at 11:16 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 09-19-2018, 05:22 PM
AuroraSarintacos AuroraSarintacos is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 33
Default

Have you been able to define what that motive is, Karl?

While your opinion on Kelly being different within the victimology of the case does have supporting evidence to suggest such i.e her 'height'; 'youth' and such - this does not offer much evidence to the contrary of her not being a victim of the same killer, either.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 09-19-2018, 10:59 PM
Karl Karl is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuroraSarintacos View Post
Have you been able to define what that motive is, Karl?
Certainly not. Motive can only be discussed once we have specific suspects we can examine. Different suspects may be assigned different motives. If it was suspect A, his motive was probably such and such. If it was suspect B, then he probably did it for these reasons. Personally, I have no suspects.


Quote:
While your opinion on Kelly being different within the victimology of the case does have supporting evidence to suggest such i.e her 'height'; 'youth' and such - this does not offer much evidence to the contrary of her not being a victim of the same killer, either.
Those things do constitute evidence to the contrary, as anything which deviates from a pattern is evidence of an architect different from the maker of that pattern. It's not conclusive by any means, but what is conclusive in these murder cases anyway? It's still evidence, though.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 09-20-2018, 01:10 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,243
Default

Mary Kelly was a bit younger and a bit taller than the other victims.

Ergo, she wasn't slain by the same knife-wielding lunatic butchering women in Whitechapel.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 09-20-2018, 01:44 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,718
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
Mary Kelly was a bit younger and a bit taller than the other victims.

Ergo, she wasn't slain by the same knife-wielding lunatic butchering women in Whitechapel.
Lynette Culver and Kimberly Leach were pre-teens, ergo they weren't killed by Ted Bundy, who killed girls in their teens or twenties. (Similar things could be said of Shawcross and Sutcliffe, among others.)
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 09-20-2018, 01:56 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Lynette Culver and Kimberly Leach were pre-teens, ergo they weren't killed by Ted Bundy, who killed girls in their teens or twenties. (Similar things could be said of Shawcross and Sutcliffe, among others.)
I should've added a wink wink.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.