Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[packers stem]

Richard, are you suggesting the British police would lock a suspect up without a trial?

They do to this day under certain circumstances
And after being charged dependent upon the crime , it's called held on remand

[Varqm]

I'm completely at ease with the level of realism
Everyday occurrences
You asked for reasons why someone would keep quiet .
Are you suggesting that those potential reasons have never been applied at any point through history ?

But we are talking about McCarthy and the ripper.If it was a gang sure.

---

[Wickerman]

They do to this day under certain circumstances
And after being charged dependent upon the crime , it's called held on remand

I took Richard to mean, no trial, no publicity, no-one would know the Ripper was ever caught.
That is not being held on remand, and you can't be held indefinitely on remand.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jon.
Exactly what I meant.
I am suggesting the police apprehended the culprit , on information received from Kelly's landlord, because of the hue and cry any public arrest would create, the authorities simply removed this person from society,and put him out of circulation.
Clearly if this was indeed the case, then McCarthy would be informed to not make this public , as it would cause harm to possible relatives, and no good cause would come of it.
Remember we are dealing with the most hunted man in Great Britain at the time, and clearly a danger to the public, and the most important thing would have been to remove him from society.
Those that knew of the detainment would have had to swear to secrecy obviously.and only certain reliable officers would have been involved,
We are left with a mystery 'Who was Jack the Ripper'' and all leads have been obliterated.especially that of the Millers court victim, who may have led us to the killer, if her real identity was revealed.
Regards Richard.

[AuroraSarintacos]

Where is this information provided? How can we be so sure of any empirical evidence that suggests this to be the case?

There is none. It is based off of hearsay, which, I am sorry to say seems to reinstate the overall idea that is prevalent in this case: Kelly, somehow, must have done something to deserve that. The main target all along.

What a load of hogwash.

Where do you find these stories? Focus on the facts because if you do not you'll just keep getting further and further from the truth, enmeshed in a world of fantasy, that correlates little to nothing of the actual facts of the case which is all you can go off of.

[Karl]

No, we will not reverse the argument, and for a good reason: differences are not as telling as similarities.

I'd say that all depends on the differences and similarities in question.

If we have a woman beaten to death in Belfast and a man shot in Edinburgh, they seem to be worlds (well) apart - but if they are both found with the text "God save the Queen" scribbled on their bums, all dissimilarities go out the wondow in terms of importance.

That's an awfully specific detail, though. How about if both had an organ removed instead? Are the similarities still more telling?

The abdominal flaps are extremely rare

Extremely rare in abdominal mutilations, or extremely rare in murders? If the latter, then that is hardly of relevance. If the former, well, I don't know that such is the case. If someone were to go to work on a corpse's abdomen, is it extremely rare that abdominal flaps are dealt with in such a fashion?

and they represent the bum-scribbling in these cases. However, we must not make the assumption that the scribbling must be there in all the killers cases - but when it IS, no doubt can be entertained. Same killer. Guaranteed.

Disagree on both counts. If a killer has a special signature, it is more reasonable to expect him to do it every time, than it is to assume every case where the same signature is present means it's the same killer. Or are we to entirely dismiss the possibility of copy-cats existing?

Why so specific? Because eviscerations and organ procurement IS highly specific and extremely rare.

Yes, but everybody knew about the victims being eviscerated and their organs removed. However, they were not removed the same way. Nor were the same organs removed. There is a lot of room for copy-cats, by people who wished to emulate the gruesome murders but didn't have all the details.

And although it was on everyones lips in Milwaukee, nobody copycatted Dahmer there. Although it was on everyones lips in Rostov-on-Don, noone copycatted Chikatilo there. It just don´t happen. And thats´not to say that it CAN not happen, only that it doesn´t. It´s fiction stuff, I´m afraid.

Except it does happen. You could at least have googled "copycat crime" before you wrote that paragraph. If you did, you might have found this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/oct/06/ukcrime

It's not just murders, but all sorts of crime. The key element is sensationalism, and this also explains why different cultures have different flavours of crime. Knife attacks are more popular some places than others, as are acid attacks. It's not that a crime necessarily inspires people to become criminals in the first place, but people already on the verge of turning to crime may take inspiration from people who trod the same path before. Just like the Nice attack in 2016, which I do believe I mentioned earlier. Had it not been such a devastating attack, and subsequently plastered all over the news, we might not have seen the slew of truck rammings that followed in the following year or so.

And - I almost forgot - what of the 13 non-canonical JtR murders, many of which included abdominal mutilations? Do you believe all of those were the work of Jack the Ripper as well?

[Karl]

Well there is only so much flesh on a human body and if someone has the time and motivation they will eventually get to the face. There doesn't need to be anything personal about it. What is it about the face that would be off limits to someone who cuts throats and takes out internal organs?

c.d.

Because the face identifies a person as human. That's what the blindfold is for, in traditional firing squads - so the executioners wouldn't have to look into the eyes of the condemned. It is also why "execution style" killings are from behind. Also common, whenever there are mutilations, is for the victim's face to have been turned to one side. This is for the killer's own peace of mind, because the reason he does it is so that he will not feel like the victim is watching him. Nothing else symbolises a person so much as the face. This is why facial mutilations are significant.

We see this in our chimpanzee cousins as well. When rivalry turns deadly, two types of mutilation are common: genital and facial. The genitals represent the gender, and the face represents the individual.

[Karl]

Hi.
If the Ripper was caught, and the authorities decided to simply incarcerate that person, and spare his family any repercussions should he be named. it would be suggested to McCarthy that he should remain tight lipped .
He would not want to fall foul of the police would he?
Realistic. to me possible.
Regards Richard.

Yes, certainly possible - but are there any other instances where a culprit's identity has been kept secret for the sake of the family? And you said earlier that the secret has been kept in the family all this time, but wouldn't the need for secrecy go away after a generation or two? Certainly after more than a century, there would be no conceivable reason.

That said, there are still certain documents which are still sealed, which our own Mr. Marriott has been fighting to get access to. The reason why Scotland Yard refuses to release these documents are, I must say, tenuous at best. They are worried that the descendants of named informants in those documents could be at risk from someone (the descendants of criminals back then, presumably, I don't know) wanting to exacting revenge on them. Much as I disagree with Mr. Marriott's conclusions, I really must applaud his efforts here. Though I do not share his confidence that these documents provide the answers we are looking for.

[Robert St Devil]

Because the face identifies a person as human. That's what the blindfold is for, in traditional firing squads - so the executioners wouldn't have to look into the eyes of the condemned. It is also why "execution style" killings are from behind. Also common, whenever there are mutilations, is for the victim's face to have been turned to one side. This is for the killer's own peace of mind, because the reason he does it is so that he will not feel like the victim is watching him. Nothing else symbolises a person so much as the face. This is why facial mutilations are significant.

We see this in our chimpanzee cousins as well. When rivalry turns deadly, two types of mutilation are common: genital and facial. The genitals represent the gender, and the face represents the individual.

This idea may apply more to Catherine Eddowes rather than Mary Jane Kelly (since she was found in her own apartment), but two days after Annie Chapman's death, press reports are already commenting on the peculiar shape of Chapman's nose - large & flat; I would have to dig through the reports to find the one that claims the police were using her nose as an identifiable feature of the victim. With Eddowes, Jack the Ripper may have cut her nose away as a method of delaying her identification.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Peter Sutcliffe stabbed one of his victims in the eye even though the poor woman was dead because he thought she was giving him a reproachful stare. I can imagine a frenzied serial killer [especially if he was bordering on paranoia], would attack the face for any number of reasons - He didn't like the way she looked, she reminded him of someone he hates etc

[Abby Normal]

Peter Sutcliffe stabbed one of his victims in the eye even though the poor woman was dead because he thought she was giving him a reproachful stare. I can imagine a frenzied serial killer [especially if he was bordering on paranoia], would attack the face for any number of reasons - He didn't like the way she looked, she reminded him of someone he hates etc

yup-or simply escalation. we see the beginning of it with Eddowes.

Personally I think the main thing with the ripper is he loved seeing what he and his knife could do to the female anatomy.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, certainly possible - but are there any other instances where a culprit's identity has been kept secret for the sake of the family? And you said earlier that the secret has been kept in the family all this time, but wouldn't the need for secrecy go away after a generation or two? Certainly after more than a century, there would be no conceivable reason.

That said, there are still certain documents which are still sealed, which our own Mr. Marriott has been fighting to get access to. The reason why Scotland Yard refuses to release these documents are, I must say, tenuous at best. They are worried that the descendants of named informants in those documents could be at risk from someone (the descendants of criminals back then, presumably, I don't know) wanting to exacting revenge on them. Much as I disagree with Mr. Marriott's conclusions, I really must applaud his efforts here. Though I do not share his confidence that these documents provide the answers we are looking for.

Just in case you are not aware. according to Scotland Yard, all of the documents and records referred to have now been destroyed, or so they say.

From what I have seen and researched on them before total destruction you are right, and I dont belive they contained the answers to the mystery, nor do I believe they revealed the identity of the killer or killers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Karl]

Just in case you are not aware. according to Scotland Yard, all of the documents and records referred to have now been destroyed, or so they say.

From what I have seen and researched on them before total destruction you are right, and I dont belive they contained the answers to the mystery, nor do I believe they revealed the identity of the killer or killers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I wasn't aware. Hm. I am half tempted to think they destroyed the documents out of spite. After all, they could have destroyed them ten or twenty years ago if they were so inclined.

[Paddy]

I am sure if documents were being destroyed there would have been a few people helping themselves to a bit of history ?
Pat...

[c.d.]

Because the face identifies a person as human. That's what the blindfold is for, in traditional firing squads - so the executioners wouldn't have to look into the eyes of the condemned. It is also why "execution style" killings are from behind. Also common, whenever there are mutilations, is for the victim's face to have been turned to one side. This is for the killer's own peace of mind, because the reason he does it is so that he will not feel like the victim is watching him. Nothing else symbolises a person so much as the face. This is why facial mutilations are significant.

We see this in our chimpanzee cousins as well. When rivalry turns deadly, two types of mutilation are common: genital and facial. The genitals represent the gender, and the face represents the individual.

Hello Karl,

If this was the only murder of women in Whitechapel that Fall I might be inclined to give the cutting of the face more significance. The autopsy report for Eddowes says "the face was very much mutilated" so if we want to assign significance to Kelly's facial mutilation it would seem we would have to do so for Eddowes as well.

I think a much simpler explanation is that the Ripper was the killer of both women and that he simply liked cutting female flesh. It doesn't need to get more complicated than that.

c.d.