Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[c.d.]

If she had a definite appointment for him to come by that night then there would have been no need for her to go out.

Do you have a scenario to propose that is problem free?

c.d.

[Batman]

So you don't know the difference between an alcoholic and someone who shares a quart of beer.

You're 'plenty of' doesn't strike me as very scientific.

That's not the full content of what I said. Also I never said it was scientific.

[MrBarnett]

If she had a definite appointment for him to come by that night then there would have been no need for her to go out.

Do you have a scenario to propose that is problem free?

c.d.

C.D.,

There is no scenario that is remotely problem free. Which is why 'most likely' doesn't work.

What we do know about MJK, largely via Barnett, but to a certain extent confirmed by modern research, is that MJK worked the docks at the western end of the Highway. And we have some idea of how the sex trade there worked. Why would she have changed her way of doing business when she found herself in possession of a single room in Spitalfields?

[MrBarnett]

That's not the full content of what I said. Also I never said it was scientific.

I didn't say you said (yawn) it was scientific, did I?

But that's your thing, isn't it? You refer to Euclid to show how clever you are, and quote Tom Wescott and Casebook dissertations as your sources.

[Batman]

I didn't say you said (yawn) it was scientific, did I?

But that's your thing, isn't it? You refer to Euclid to show how clever you are, and quote Tom Wescott and Casebook dissertations as your sources.

Talking about me has absolutely no bearing on the facts of this case at all, nor that many lust murders are alcoholics and that alcohol is what often fuels what you describe as 'nerve' with these offenders.

I can reference cases of such individuals who also do recon. Being an alcoholic is no barrier to serial offenders, even those who are both organized and disorganized serial killers. Plenty of them are.

Schwartz has a drunk JtR. Cox has a blotchy with beer and a drunk singing MJK. Plus the pubs are always hot spots for JtR related activity given his victims.

If JtR knows the streets there is no reason why he shouldn't have experienced being with a woman in the very places he murdered later in either.

[MrBarnett]

Talking about me has absolutely no bearing on the facts of this case at all, nor that many lust murders are alcoholics and that alcohol is what often fuels what you describe as 'nerve' with these offenders.

I can reference cases of such individuals who also do recon. Being an alcoholic is no barrier to serial offenders, even those who are both organized and disorganized serial killers. Plenty of them are.

Schwartz has a drunk JtR. Cox has a blotchy with beer and a drunk singing MJK. Plus the pubs are always hot spots for JtR related activity given his victims.

If JtR knows the streets there is no reason why he shouldn't have experienced being with a woman in the very places he murdered later in either.

Pubs are always hot spots for JTR related activity?

What on earth does that mean? You do know that there was a pub on practically every street corner in London at the time? It would have been impossible to commit a crime of any kind in the East End more than a short walk from a pub.

A few posts back you were telling us Jack was familiar with specific murder sites, and had recce'd them, now it's if. Make up your mind and give us a chance to consider your words of wisdom.

[Batman]

Pubs are always hot spots for JTR related activity?

What on earth does that mean? You do know that there was a pub on practically every street corner in London at the time? It would have been impossible to commit a crime of any kind in the East End more than a short walk from a pub.

A few posts back you were telling us Jack was familiar with specific murder sites, and had recce'd them, now it's if. Make up your mind and give us a chance to consider your words of wisdom.

No, not pubs near where he murdered. Pubs where victims were last seen of course.

You misquoted me. The full sentence says... "Pubs are always hot spots for JTR related activity... given his victims."

[MrBarnett]

No, not pubs near where he murdered. Pubs where victims were last seen of course.

You misquoted me. The full sentence says... "Pubs are always hot spots for JTR related activity... given his victims."

Ah, so JTR's victims were unusual in that they drank in pubs?

Blimey, you're narrowing it down. I wonder what % of the adult population of Spitalfields had ever walked through the door of a public house.

What do you think?

[MrBarnett]

In which pubs were the C5 last seen before they were killed? And which of them would have still been open when the women were killed?

Help us out here, Bats.

[Wickerman]

If she had a definite appointment for him to come by that night then there would have been no need for her to go out.

Do you have a scenario to propose that is problem free?

c.d.

When reports do exist that Kelly was seen out on the streets after her liaison with Blotchy, why reject them in favor of speculation?

[Michael W Richards]

"There is NOT ONE scintilla of information that is known to exist that Mary EVER brought clients to her room, and seranding someone for over an hour doesnt count as a sex act."

Hello Michael,

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true what conclusion can we draw from it? It appears that you are trying to argue that this means that she COULDN'T have ever brought a client home. But if we follow that logic it would also mean that if her killer was not Jack, and that a better suspect was someone who had never killed before, could we not simply dismiss that suspect for the simple reason that he had actually never killed before? As a further example of that type of reasoning, Mary could never have engaged in prostitution because there was a time when she had never done so.

So it would seem that all we can conclude is that based on past evidence that she was unlikely to have brought a client back to her room but we can not rule out the possibility that she did so.

c.d.

The conclusion of my statement cd is that without any evidence that she ever did, including that last night, its just wasting time speculating to suggest otherwise. Its like saying that the earth may one day crash into the sun. No, there is no evidence that the Earth is on a path like that, and no, something like that has never happened, but for the sake of argument lets just pretend that it could and extrapolate on that? You see the futility of exploring the improbable when faced with historical data that denys its possibility?

[Michael W Richards]

When we have evidence that suggests Mary was very drunk when she arrived home with a man, to whom she sang for over an hour off and on, at which point the room became quiet and dark....seems pretty obvious that one of 2 things happened. Blotchy faced stayed in that dark and silent room with Mary, or he left without anyone seeing him. In either case Mary remains in that room, and since its dark and quiet, and she entertained for over and hour, in bed undressed seems probable. Alone or with Blotchy.

That precisely where her killer first strikes. She isnt found outdoors soliciting..as is the most relevant feature of ALL the previous kills...(which by the by is just assumed in 2 previous Canonical cases.)

In most of the data that exists about multiple killers, "stranger" victims are almost always the case. They dont kill people they know. Thats how they elude investigators.

In Marys case its almost certain she knew him. She was attacked while her back was turned to the room and her orientation was on the right hand side of the bed. She was waiting for someone to join her in bed. Thats almost certainly the guy who causes the call out at near 4am. One that is heard by 2 people, and is preceded by a cat upstairs being stirred to wake the owner. he tapped on the window or door, and Mary, hung over and half asleep opens the door and in annoyance says, "oh-murder.........which was likely followed by, .."what are you doing here", or "you woke me"? Nevertheless, she lets him in.

Man known to Mary...its the only logical interpretation of the known data.

[c.d.]

"Man known to Mary...its the only logical interpretation of the known data."


Hello Michael,

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is the only logical interpretation but I do think she knew her killer. And while that may sound extremely important as a clue it could also mean it was someone she had only known a day or two which would remove any personal aspect to her killing.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"There is obviously a discrepancy between Kelly's murder and the other 'canonical' four, the others 'only' suffered slight mutilations in comparison to Kelly's utter annihilation."

Hello Harry,

"Slight mutilations." Isn't that a contradiction in terms? When is any mutilation slight? And couldn't it simply be a matter of having more time alone with his victim?

"WHY did Jack take to killing indoors when before he was targeting prostitutes on the backstreets?"

We can only speculate but I would think it was because of increased police presence on the streets and because he had decided that he wanted more time alone with his victim.

"WHY did Jack leave behind the uterus when he had removed Chapman's, Eddowe's (and was probably going for Nichols' until he was put off)?"

Why focus on a slight deviation from the previous killings? I think it much more important to focus on the fact that like the previous killings he removed internal organs from his victim.

c.d.

[Batman]

"WHY did Jack leave behind the uterus when he had removed Chapman's, Eddowe's (and was probably going for Nichols' until he was put off)?"

What this tells us is that the organ harvesting in Chapman and Eddowes wasn't what he wanted all along and was experimental in itself.