Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Michael W Richards]

They are still facts about the body's positions. Tabram, Eddows and Kelly were certainly in this position. Nichols was disturbed by the witnesses who found her. Stride looks likely to have been somewhat disturbed.


Tabram was found slumped, Kate was spread eagle like you would expect when someone wanted to mutilate her abdomen, as was Kelly. Stride was on her side. You can create your own Ripper tally if youd like, many do, but almost all of them, including yours, are based entirely on presumptions not evidence.

https://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=12865&stc=1&d=1318589587

Tabram was semi-indoors.

That's a new one to me, "semi-indoors". Ive seen people grasp at straws, but "semi-indoors" is a new low.

Chapman was murdered in a dead end backyard. Eddows in a square which would have captured him if two entrances were blocked off.

Chapmans killer could have vaulted over any of the fences in that yard, whether he would be seen isn't the issue, whether he could escape is. Kate was found in a square with 3 entrances.

Yet still the same victimology except for age. The same type of alcoholic unfortunate. Time and location also fit.

Victimology includes age, so... no to the first part, and we have already established that Mary had not been soliciting lately, and that she was living with Joe until the end of Oct and Maria until the Tuesday of that week. Being out alone soliciting fits with the target and the MO of Annie and Pollys killer.

Each of the others is more violent than the last except for Stride. This is called escalation in criminology.

Guessing that victims with mutilations are linked with other more severely injured victims isnt escalation, its an unsubstantiated theory. Until you have proof one man committed a "series" then you cant very well assume escalation can you?

Or she was drinking away her rent money like most of them were doing.

Not according to Joe.

Probably with her murderer and quite drunk.

Perhaps, and that makes Blotchy Face the #1 suspect, not someone who sought women out alone so he could kill them and mutilate their abdomens.

Mary Jane Kelly opened the door for her clients. It locks when you close it. One reason for not harvesting is that he thought he might get caught with things this time or was nearly caught with them with Eddowes.

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.

Escalation can explain it.

No, escalation is a theory.

Yeah and then they wouldn't have escalated anything and taken away organs. They would have copied it, not escalated it

Again, simply your theory and opinion. I see acts that have no rational explanation and that serve no other purpose than to disfigure. I suggest you read about Annie again to see the clear and decisive differerences. The reason Annie had mutilations was so that her killer could obtain what he did. So, you suggest that kellys killer stripped flesh from her thigh to get at her heart?

You've made statements over and over again that are completely opinion based and without any substantive evidence. Maybe you better hedge your bets a bit.

[Sam Flynn]

That's a new one to me, "semi-indoors". Ive seen people grasp at straws, but "semi-indoors" is a new low.

Don't forget, Batman classifies boobs as "upper sex organs".

[Batman]

Don't forget, Batman classifies boobs as "upper sex organs".

So do these professionals and for obvious reasons. They are not just used for feeding babies. They have more functions that this. Also culturally attacks on a woman's breasts are very much a male focus of many sex attacks.

1. Komisaruk, B. R., et al. (2011). Women’s clitoris, vagina, and cervix mapped on the sensory cortex: fMRI evidence. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8, 2822-2830.

2. Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395-424.

3. Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper.

4. Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little Brown.

5. Uvnas-Moberg, K. (1998). Oxytocin may mediate the benefits of positive social interaction and emotions. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23: 819-835.

I see you have abandoned pretending that's her knee what with the overwhelming evidence against that "100% certainty". You can't even be certain her bed wasn't moved and we are certain your lines are wrong because they don't incorporate her right leg.

[Batman]

Tabram was found slumped

PC Barrett said she was sexually posed.

Kate was spread eagle like you would expect when someone wanted to mutilate her abdomen, as was Kelly. Stride was on her side. You can create your own Ripper tally if youd like, many do, but almost all of them, including yours, are based entirely on presumptions not evidence.

This claim that all abdomen mutilators leave their victims in spread eagle positions is not supported by the criminal historical record.

Tabram was semi-indoors.

That's a new one to me, "semi-indoors". Ive seen people grasp at straws, but "semi-indoors" is a new low.

The stairwell in George Yard had open balconies on it.

I just want to stop here before going on. Do you agree or disagree with the above? We can look at each if you wish.

[Sam Flynn]

So do these professionals and for obvious reasons. They are not just used for feeding babies. They have more functions that this. Also culturally attacks on a woman's breasts are very much a male focus of many sex attacks.

1. Komisaruk, B. R., et al. (2011). Women’s clitoris, vagina, and cervix mapped on the sensory cortex: fMRI evidence. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8, 2822-2830.

2. Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395-424.

3. Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper.

4. Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little Brown.

5. Uvnas-Moberg, K. (1998). Oxytocin may mediate the benefits of positive social interaction and emotions. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23: 819-835.

I know what the breasts do, and I'm fully aware that they've been sexualused, thank you. But that doesn't mean that they're "upper sex organs".

I see you have abandoned pretending that's her knee what with the overwhelming evidence against that "100% certainty". You can't even be certain her bed wasn't moved and we are certain your lines are wrong because they don't incorporate her right leg.

I wasn't "pretending", and I haven't abandoned anything. That's not her knee, and there is no reason to suppose that the bed was moved. I'm 100% certain of both.

[Sam Flynn]

we are certain your lines are wrong because they don't incorporate her right leg.

Eh? My lines START on her right leg, so it's included by default. Besides, those lines merely connect elements of both photos along a line of sight; they don't encompass the fields of view. You simply CAN'T get her left knee to align with the garter, the table and the viscera on the table, nor can you get the knee into the frame of MJK3. I wish you'd think things through.

[Batman]

Eh? My lines START on her right leg, so it's included by default.

How can a single point in space include a leg? That makes no sense mathematically or logically. You either capture what's in the image with your lines or you don't at all. You haven't (her right leg isn't within your angles), meaning it can't explain the image, ever.

Besides, those lines merely connect elements of both photos along a line of sight; they don't encompass the fields of view.

You are contradicting yourself here instead of just admitting you have been talking about using it as a field of view all along.

Your own words...

They are not. And it's not an "estimate", but an extrapolation of the field of view of MJK3 onto MJK1, incorporating the analogous landmarks in either photograph, where the frame cuts off, etc.That was a mere slip; .....You can see hardly any of her left leg in the second photo, if you can see any part of it at all.

Your whole argument here is that you have a field of view, with her knee not in your view. Now you want to claim that this wasn't what you were doing all along? Seems to me the error of not having her leg in your field of view is now causing you to claim your lines mean something else. Oh dear.

You simply CAN'T get her left knee to align with the garter, the table and the viscera on the table, nor can you get the knee into the frame of MJK3. I wish you'd think things through.

That's entirely rebutted here.

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=461575&postcount=595

You couldn't reply to any of it.

[AuroraSarintacos]

Ms. Kelly is obviously posed. The legs are spread apart; the head is placed on the pillow, her hand was placed in her emptied viscera.

What you're looking at his the wrist of her left hand. What you're also looking at is his pelvis area/hip area in the other photo.

The whole lower part of that region is mutilated to a pulp. It's pretty obvious.

Do all Ripperologist's obsess over such minute detail due to the fact that they really have nothing new to go off of?

[c.d.]

"Do all Ripperologist's obsess over such minute detail due to the fact that they really have nothing new to go off of?"

Yes. Poor social skills and lack of a sex life will do that to you.

c.d.

[Batman]

Do all Ripperologist's obsess over such minute detail due to the fact that they really have nothing new to go off of?

I have no problem with people obsessing over minutia and correcting stuff, but when the minutia is just left in pieces without considering the overarching theory holding them together, a lot of those pieces can end up being contradictory, which often finds the holder saying one thing and then contradicting themselves in another argument. Then you get cherry picking and positions are easily undermined when these are exposed.

It's easier to hold a lot of little details than to hold a larger explanation which covers them all.

[Sam Flynn]

The whole lower part of that region is mutilated to a pulp. It's pretty obvious.

Indeed. However, it's the mistaken attribution of the prominence to the right of that region as her "knee" that's the issue.

Do all Ripperologist's obsess over such minute detail due to the fact that they really have nothing new to go off of?

Afraid so. However, the mistaken perception of the bolt of cloth as a knee can morph (in the minds of certain ripperologists) into the incorrect belief that the body or bed was moved, and/or that the photograph was faked. This in turn will lead to loopy conspiracy theories, police cover-ups, etc. It is very important, therefore, to establish the truth of what we're looking at.

[Michael W Richards]

Its in the minutia that the crucial information can be found, but its when a point of view is established with the prior intent being to link in some fashion some or all of these women to one killer, it gets muddied.

Many believe that a man who was part of a gang started his "spree" outdoors in April, progressed to working alone outdoors in August and adopting frenzied stabbing while carrying 2 weapons, both of which get used,..., transformed to a competent silent killer who has a defined technique and preference for working outdoors and slicing into the female abdomen after the woman is incapacitated by throat cuts in September, carried on that new format less than a week later, still outdoors, in Sept,... then abandons all his prior signatures and slices a womans throat once outdoors in a passageway and leaves her untouched, then returns to the general format seen in the Sept murders in Oct, only to lose his format, focus... and his mind, with the only young female in the series, while she was in bed undressed.

At that point he is either taken into custody and institutionalized, he goes on and changes to poisoning wives from that point, he stops completely and remains unknown, or he continues on the next year, perhaps as late as 1896. The authorities assure us that he is known to them but they cant arrest him, that he is unknown to them, that he is in custody in an institution but a witness wont identify someone of the same ethnicity, that he committed suicide, and that he fled to the states.

Hope that clarifies the study a bit.
The original Transformer.

In the case of Mary Kelly all the minutia points away from a man who silently kills women while they solicited alone outdoors and had a predisposition for abdominal mutilation with an ultimate goal of obtaining organs from that region.

[Jon Guy]

Do all Ripperologist's obsess over such minute detail due to the fact that they really have nothing new to go off of?

No, I think it`s because a photo of the scene of the crime is important.

[AuroraSarintacos]

While I agree over the importance of this being one the first examples of crime scene photography, I still believe that the importance of it more or less can only lie within the realm of (somewhat small) historical importance.

Other then that, all questions and inquiries about Ms. Kelly's surroundings during such violence would just be educated speculation due to the fact that, yes, we have nothing new to come off of. We're studying a case that happened more then a hundred years ago.

Besides all that I will say that, now that I am older, I try to not look too much at the photos of these women in death. It makes me terribly sad, and I am sure most can agree, that the fact that another human being could do something like this to another person, especially a poor, vulnerable (poverty, alone) woman.

While I understand some of the theories and romanticism with the victims, Ms. Kelly being one in particular, I personally (and perhaps this is biased) find her more relatable if one were to just view her as a rather smelly, dowdy, filthy woman with snot,the stink of uncleanliness, and a rather rough voice and attitude then what she is generally thought of as a 'comely' young woman. An actual human being grounded within the reality of her time.

Cheers.

[c.d.]

"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.