Mary Kelly's Killer

[Melissa McMahan]

First sorry I have not been here a lot but bad stuff has been going on with me. :eek:

Now as for Mary Kelly and her killer. There's been a debate about her being a JTR victim. There are people who feel she and Stride were killed by someone else, for all sorts of reasons. A copy cat killer? I doubt it! I believe JTR killed these five hookers and likely killed most if not all of the other females he's suspected of killing before and after them too. I mean what are the odds a copy cat killer would strike at the same time as the already legendary Jack the Ripper? People tend to forget that many serial killers change their M.O.'s for unknown reasons. The Zodiac changed his M.O. from killing couples to killing a taxi driver. Zodiac also put on a black outfit with a hood with his "symbol" in white thread for one of his couple killings. Before and after this he was just dressed as a normal person. Many of Zodiac's movements mirror the Ripper's too. Both wrote letters and both had hoax letter writers as well. Both were never caught and both had no remorse for their crimes. That's why I think the Ripper may have changed his M.O. as well and why he too was never caught. Any ideas about any of this would be helpful, so please share what you think about any of this. Thank you, M.Mc.

[WTM]

From Murder Most Foul in Ripper Notes:

“Typologies based on motivation assume that serial killers always act according to a plan. In real life, random, unpredictable environmental factors come into play. For example, David Berkowitz ran away after his first victim screamed and bled. He had not anticipated this and so bought a gun for future attacks. Moreover, serial killers may have different motives for different victims. Their motives may change over time, and there may be a progression in the killings (personality degeneration, less and less planning, time between episodes decreases, violence increases). For example, Dennis Nilsen killed a man in the middle of his killing sequence simply because the man was annoying and in his way.”

The preceding summary is really profound, for it may explain much about the Whitechapel Murders that has baffled Ripperologists for decades. Does this simple paragraph explain why the Ripper’s methods changed so drastically after the murder of Polly Nichols and continued to evolve through the rest of the Canonical Five? Does it help explain the peculiarities of the murder of Elizabeth Stride and possibly those of Catherine Eddowes and Mary Kelly? Does it explain the out-of-character destruction of Mary Kelly? While it is generally agreed that the Ripper had to start somewhere, and one's methods would certainly evolve during that kind of work, as an artist’s might with continued ‘practice’, there remains general disagreement on the characterizations of the murders themselves. Most believe them to be all the work of one man, regardless of the differences observed in methodology. Some believe that, because of these same differences, that there were multiple killers working in parallel. Likewise, conspiracy theorists believe that there were multiple killers working in series. This confusion is easily understood, but it should be evident that a single killer with multiple motives or reasons for committing these murders could do so in an evolutionary style, whereby the last could scarcely resemble the first of the series. That may be exactly the case here.

[Melissa McMahan]

It's so wrong to think that a killer such a Jack the Ripper or any of them really, would work off just a plan he/she worked on for hours in the still of a night. Due to police being in the streets and other people looking for a killer, the killers would have to change whatever plan they had come up with just on that fact alone. If you put yourself in the roll of a killer such as Jack the Ripper, it would not take you long to figure out nothing would be that cut and dry. A plan for escape is one thing but what if there are cops in your path? Then you would want to get out of there some other way, right? Duh! That's why I laugh when people say these things are so black and white, there are too many gray areas to cope with. I still believe the reason JTR cut apart Mary Kelly like she was is very simple indeed. The other kills being outside he had to worry more about someone bothering him while he was at his work. This was the case with Stride, the guy in the buggie rode upon the crime scene. JTR had to leave or risk being caught with the bloddy knife in his hand. With Mary Kelly, she was inside so JTR would not be as worried about someone bothering him while he cut her to pieces.

[admin tim]

Some serial killers such as Albert Fish have admitted to committing their murders and dismemberments while naked - this to prevent tell-tale staining of clothing and to facilitate cleanup afterwards.

Since it was relatively warm in Mary's room, with a roaring fire at some point, what do you think the chances are that Jack did his deeds there in the naked altogether? Surely there must have been a real mess to contend with at the end of Mary's mutilation, and I can think of no compelling reason why not, other than such a notion is against the strict dogma of the case.

Being naked could also have some other advantage, such as if he were to be interrupted unexpectedly, whereupon he could simply play the part of lustful and indignant punter.

If valid, this surmise could have some bearing on the case, so I will be interested in hearing your thoughts and opinions.

[How Brown]

Timmers:

The concept that Kelly's killer was in the buff while performing the crimes isn't a bad one.

Fish is an example of a s.k. who operated in the buff,for sure....especially in dismemberment cases.

Fish operated out of his own digs,however.

Just from a "feeling" that I have...putting myself in the shoes of her killer for a moment....I think that he performed them in the regular clothes he had underneath an overcoat. After the deed was done,he put the overcoat back on,which naturally covered his bloody clothes. There's no way he didn't get bloody from this crime.

Why this feeling? Well...there is in my opinion....despite the carnage present....a modicum of "organized" behavior in this particular crime.

I know Glenn Andersson feels that the killer of Kelly HAD to place the innards of Kelly somewhere..I don't.

The mayhem present would be uncharacteristic of someone completely out of control to then PLACE the innards on the table aside her bed....IF he was on a wanton demolition of a human being. There's no rules to abide by...no decorum or concern for trivialities such as getting innards on the floor and the like...

But in the photo,the innards are somewhat placed in a neater fashion than what one would expect from a killer with no concern for HIS welfare. At least...thats how I see it.

Thanks Tim for resuccitating this thread.

Anyone else?

[SirRobertAnderson]

But in the photo,the innards are somewhat placed in a neater fashion than what one would expect from a killer with no concern for HIS welfare. At least...thats how I see it.

Anyone else?

Jack took the time to pose the victim.....so it is not unreasonable to think he had a vignette of sorts in mind with the innards. Don't forget we don't know how the rest of the room looked. My guess - it was organized in a way we're fortunate not to have seen.

[Glenn L Andersson]

I know Glenn Andersson feels that the killer of Kelly HAD to place the innards of Kelly somewhere..I don't.

The mayhem present would be uncharacteristic of someone completely out of control to then PLACE the innards on the table aside her bed....IF he was on a wanton demolition of a human being. There's no rules to abide by...no decorum or concern for trivialities such as getting innards on the floor and the like...

Aaaaah ah ah, hold on.
I think I only referred to the stuff on the table and some on the bed. In fact some of the stuff could be placed randomly, but not all of it.
If you place one breast under the head, for example, that is definitely a deliberate arrangement and not an accident. So as far as I am concerned, there are arranged elements in there, although I am not sure all of them are deliberately placed. If I have said anything else, then I stand corrected and haven't made myself clear.

However, according to criminologists we must remember that arranging elements on the crime scene is usually one of the typical signs of disorganization, since it reveals a bizarre thought process. Killers who for example stuff a bottle into the dead woman's vagina for shock value or for some symbolic purpose are often considered disorganized. It is a mistake to think that disorganized killers don't have ideas of what they want to do, because they often do. They just have their own way of doing it. Same thing with extreme overkill and postmortem mutilation; the more extreme, the more disorganized (according to people like Geberth, among others). if the experts are right on this is of course another question.

[How Brown]

Hi Glenn...

Actually,you only mentioned that the killer had to place the innards somewhere..which of course could be anywhere...and in the context of the previous discussion,this meant that table.

What I had "countered" with was that the killer really didn't have to put them anywhere specifically...and within this thought,was the intention to point out that the killer could have tossed them over his shoulder,thrown them on the floor,etc...

In the context of what Tim mentioned ( a nude killer ), I "re-used" our old two-post repartee....to merely point out that I felt the killer put the innards on the table ONLY because I don't believe he "operated" in the nude. I think that this manuever ...as I did in our two post repartee....stemmed from the killer's desire to try and keep as much blood and innards off of his person because ( and I did not state this back then,because it was not in the context of that thread ) I think he had clothes on. He didn't have to put them anywhere specifically if he was naked...but I feel that he did because he wasn't naked. Yet it didn't have to be the table. Just an opinion.

Believe me,buddy...I wasn't trying to insinuate that you felt that the placement of the organs was relative to the disorganized or organized argument. I meant it in terms of his disrobed versus robed state . Sorry for any confusion. I can be confusing at times.

[Kim Ross]

Gday.

It's an interesting thought that Jack killed MJK in the nude but it reminds me a lot of Lizzie Borden wandering in the nude and whacking her father to death with an axe. The obvious answer to that one was that she hid the dress inside another one when the police searched.

by the time Jack did MJK in he was a mature killer. He'd done not quite as much but almost to Eddowes in the dark. He didn't need to strip jack naked (forgive the pun).

[Stan Reid]

Hi all,

The nude killer idea is a frequent conjecture in other cases mainly because it would work.

It was also posited in the Wallace Case from 1931.

In the Borden Case, I don't think it was brought up until later. If it had been mentioned by the prosecution in Lizzie's trial, perhaps she wouldn't have been acquitted.:tape:

Stan

[Mags]

I know I've heard the theory that Lizzie kept wearing the dress she did the murders in and put another on top of it-which I always found revolting to think of in a sweltring humid northest summer! Then she was seen burning something in the kitchen stove the next day that was thought o be the originl dress.

[ferret]

Hi Mags-
Yes the Lizzie frock is a rather disturbing image...especially when layered up day after day and could explain the burning at the end.....God can you imagine!!!...That's without the concept of the fact that the original probably stood up by then!

Now a naked Jack is a mildly amusing concept but I guess in Miller's Ct he may have hacked away in the buff and then dressed himself in something left by laundresses various to lurk off into the morning.........sorry still a mildly amusing image...unless people dressed in random laundry was the norm!

Failing that he brought something else with him lit a fire and did for the kettle!!!

Suz

[Mags]

You know, that fire has always nagged at me. Of all the "if onlys" in this case, mine is --if only we knew exactlyWHAT was burned in that fireplace.

[Dougie]

Im probabley the odd one out here (nothing unusual in that).....but ive never been even the slightest convinced that kelly was a ripper victim.To go from throat cutting and a bit of kidney surgery to mass carnage on the level inflicted on kelly seems too big a leap for me.People might say ah yes but on that occasion he (the ripper) had the time to indulge himself. maybe, but he was the master of his own destiny,im sure he could have "arranged" the same situation with other women if that was his desire.....progression? possibly,but i dont believe so. the murder was attributed to jack ,same as most likely if a cat had been eviscerated locally ,some would suspect naughty jack had turned his attention to the animal population.There are most likely several suspects who have been eliminated because they didnt "fit in" with the kelly murder particularly,and maybe thats why he was never caught......although we all know druitt dunnit dont we?
regards

[tel]

Hi Mags-


Now a naked Jack is a mildly amusing concept but I guess in Miller's Ct he may have hacked away in the buff and then dressed himself in something left by laundresses various to lurk off into the morning.........sorry still a mildly amusing image...unless people dressed in random laundry was the norm!


Suz

Why do I keep getting this mental image of Mr. Toad escaping from prison.

[ferret]

Heeeeeee he Tel- 1st-Planning the murderous attacks3801

3802
Of course in the 2nd one he's wearing his Hutch kit!!!
LOL

Suz x

[ferret]

You know, that fire has always nagged at me. Of all the "if onlys" in this case, mine is --if only we knew exactlyWHAT was burned in that fireplace.

Exactly Mags- It's not what was found in the fireplace I suppose- but what went up the chimney!

[Kim Ross]

Gday. Was there definite evidence that the fire was lit that night? Did the police find embers or coals? I have read that 2 doctors went back to sift through the ashes, inferring they were looking for her heart. Is there proof that the fire was lit by Jack or Kelly?

Cheers