Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mary-Go-Round - How Necessary Is An Alternative Murderer?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mary-Go-Round - How Necessary Is An Alternative Murderer?

    Hello everyone,

    I'm Cazard, active here since relatively recently.

    I'm going to be a bit of a dick, sticking my head into Mary's place here, by 1st posting another of my completely unasked for, self-indulgent thought-collections here, before joining other Mary-threads.
    6 pages and a bit, so I better attach it.

    It's my take on hypotheses involving alternative perpetrators vs Mary Kelly having been a victim of the same man, who'd killed several if not all of the women before her.
    I'm coming out in favour for the latter.

    The topics discussed in this effort include the indoor location posing absolutely no problem when considering the simplest and most convincing explanation for it, the problems with a copycat-killer murdering for a different motive and masking this as a JtR-crime as displaying signs of equal disturbance and also rather unconvincing both psychological and physiological forensic expertise, and generally, with this and other factors treated assembling, the necessity for such an alternative perpetrator becoming vanishingly small.

    Comments, thoughts, critique, additions, accusations of blasphemy are very welcome.

    Have a great week, everybody!
    Attached Files

  • #2
    I´ll point out the two matters that are the most significant bits involved in the Kelly murder, in my opinion. One of them, you nailed:

    And these insides all had significance. The part of Mary on the table probably less than what had been placed around her, and under her head. And I’m fairly certain they had been placed, not accidentally dropped there, any doubt being removed by uterus and kidneys placed under her head along with one of her breasts. This isn’t hate or fury alone. This had significance for the murderer, even if the murderer, sobered up in an interrogation room, would not have been able to clearly state what precise significance. This purpose eluding us is not reason enough for dismissing it altogether in search for answers that sit much better and more comfortable with our experience.

    This is quite correct, as far as I´m concerned. There was siginificance in the things the killer chose to do.
    I disagree, however, when you say that the killer may not have been able to clearly state what the significance was. I think he was quite aware of it, and worked to sort of a schedule.

    The part I think you missed is how Kellys´ abdominal wall, all of it, was removed in a few large sections, including the subcutaneous tissue. This is more or less unique among serial killers (and indeed among any sort of killers). If you want to find a parallel, you need to look at Annie Chapman. The exact same thing happened to her - the abdomen was cut away in a few large sections, subcutaneous tissue included.

    Of course, there is no logical reason to suggest that these murders could have had separate originators, given this detail.

    Interestingly, Elizabeth Jackson, who fell prey to the Thames Torso killer, ALSO had her abdomen cut away in a few large sections, subcutaneous tissue included. That was after she had had her abdomen cut open from sternum to pubes. And she had her heart removed, together with her lungs. And her uterus too - it was found wrapped inside the abdominal flaps, together with the cord and placenta, floated down the Thames.

    If that reminds you of another killer that you are familiar with, then I bid you welcome to the club.

    In each case, there was intention behind the removal of the abdominal wall, just as there was with the organs placed under Kelly´s head. And it happend for the exact same reason, and had the exact same inspiration grounds.

    That is to say, if I am correct.

    PS. A thought-evoking essay on Kelly - congratulations!
    "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
      I´ll point out the two matters that are the most significant bits involved in the Kelly murder, in my opinion. One of them, you nailed:

      And these insides all had significance. The part of Mary on the table probably less than what had been placed around her, and under her head. And I’m fairly certain they had been placed, not accidentally dropped there, any doubt being removed by uterus and kidneys placed under her head along with one of her breasts. This isn’t hate or fury alone. This had significance for the murderer, even if the murderer, sobered up in an interrogation room, would not have been able to clearly state what precise significance. This purpose eluding us is not reason enough for dismissing it altogether in search for answers that sit much better and more comfortable with our experience.

      This is quite correct, as far as I´m concerned. There was siginificance in the things the killer chose to do.
      I disagree, however, when you say that the killer may not have been able to clearly state what the significance was. I think he was quite aware of it, and worked to sort of a schedule.

      The part I think you missed is how Kellys´ abdominal wall, all of it, was removed in a few large sections, including the subcutaneous tissue. This is more or less unique among serial killers (and indeed among any sort of killers). If you want to find a parallel, you need to look at Annie Chapman. The exact same thing happened to her - the abdomen was cut away in a few large sections, subcutaneous tissue included.

      Of course, there is no logical reason to suggest that these murders could have had separate originators, given this detail.

      Interestingly, Elizabeth Jackson, who fell prey to the Thames Torso killer, ALSO had her abdomen cut away in a few large sections, subcutaneous tissue included. That was after she had had her abdomen cut open from sternum to pubes. And she had her heart removed, together with her lungs. And her uterus too - it was found wrapped inside the abdominal flaps, together with the cord and placenta, floated down the Thames.

      If that reminds you of another killer that you are familiar with, then I bid you welcome to the club.

      In each case, there was intention behind the removal of the abdominal wall, just as there was with the organs placed under Kelly´s head. And it happend for the exact same reason, and had the exact same inspiration grounds.

      That is to say, if I am correct.

      PS. A thought-evoking essay on Kelly - congratulations!
      And you're real quick, Christer
      Thank you.

      No reason to disagree, in fact. I included the possibility of the murderer not being able to state the significance in exact terms as an attempt to leave out as little as possible in terms of possible counter-arguments, as well as in regards to our difficulties following him down this rabbit hole of specific significance ('what would this significance have been, precisely?') Hence the 'even if...'
      But I'm with you, I think this was very much with him, and he had a clear idea of it.
      All this then to end up leaving out the abdominal wall, so thank you for bringing that up.

      Purely instinctively I'd still guess this to be of less personal concern to him, the heap on the table, than the organs handled, but I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly why.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Daniel Cazard View Post
        And you're real quick, Christer
        Thank you.

        No reason to disagree, in fact. I included the possibility of the murderer not being able to state the significance in exact terms as an attempt to leave out as little as possible in terms of possible counter-arguments, as well as in regards to our difficulties following him down this rabbit hole of specific significance ('what would this significance have been, precisely?') Hence the 'even if...'
        But I'm with you, I think this was very much with him, and he had a clear idea of it.
        All this then to end up leaving out the abdominal wall, so thank you for bringing that up.

        Purely instinctively I'd still guess this to be of less personal concern to him, the heap on the table, than the organs handled, but I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly why.
        I am working with this very issue nowadays, and I do not feel at ease to state all my thoughts on it today. Therefore, although I think I know the exact significance, I cannot share it right now.

        What I can say - although it may seem like speaking in riddles - is that the heap on the table as well as the specific handling of the organs are all part of the same scenario, and therefore actually equally important. In my world, and with my take on things, that is to say! They both give away what he was up to.
        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
          I am working with this very issue nowadays, and I do not feel at ease to state all my thoughts on it today. Therefore, although I think I know the exact significance, I cannot share it right now.

          What I can say - although it may seem like speaking in riddles - is that the heap on the table as well as the specific handling of the organs are all part of the same scenario, and therefore actually equally important. In my world, and with my take on things, that is to say! They both give away what he was up to.
          I think I understand this.
          I'm having 3 problems trying this myself, a) distrust in my instincts there, b) difficulties in expressing, i.e. conveying this rather amorph reasoning and c) concerns about why I feel I even can access this (if I can).

          When you're ready I'd really like to hear.

          Comment


          • #6
            Actually, it occured to over-zealous me that I might have posted this on the wrong forum, that it should be on the method/madness-forum.

            I hope I will be forgiven...

            Comment


            • #7
              I think the killer of Mary Kelly wanted to both possess and destroy her.

              Throughout history men in general have thought of women as something near witches. (Consider for example Philip II Augustus of France who demanded an annulment after one wedding night with Ingeborg of Denmark. Apparently he could not perform sexually and claimed the cause was witchcraft. Henry VIII accused Anne Boleyn of similar.)

              I ponder if the killer of 4 of the C-5 did have a grudge against women which led to an obsession to handle, touch, own various body parts. Did women reject him? Had he caught a disease from a woman? Was there some other perversion?

              What did the various body parts mean to the killer? To him was the uterus the source of procreation or the base of womanhood itself, the organ that caused bewitchment or destruction? Think for a moment that a number of men have dismembered women but few women have dismembered male victims in similar ways. What has driven other killers to dissect parts of women connected to sexual experience?

              What did female breasts mean to Jack? Were they a sexual turn on to him or a total mystery?

              We believe the killer took Mary's heart. There are millennia of thoughts on the heart as the seat of the soul and many other profound notions. Did the killer want her heart, to be loved by her? Etc.

              I think JtR felt rejected or had been rejected by women. I personally believe that when he killed, he had had a night in the pubs and enough to drink to turn his mind from twisted to violently depraved. Around closing time or so he entered the streets. Perhaps he asked women for sex or other favours. Maybe he asked for something they did not want to grant. I think he asked Liz to go with him and she said no. Perhaps she was not soliciting that night or perhaps she did not want to go with him.

              All of the C-5 were said to be occasional prostitutes. Perhaps Jack asked for sex when they did not want to participate. Yes, Polly and Annie needed money, but maybe it was late and they decided to spend the rest of the nights doing something other than prostitution.

              We have discussed in depth what MUST have happened between Mary and Jack. She must have let him in and undressed to her chemise. (Other women like her, Elizabeth Prater for example, slept in their clothes.) One sheet and one blanket would not be enough to keep Mary warm through the night if she wore only her chemise. Women stripping to chemise and men stripping to shirt (or undershirt) was said to be the norm for prostitute and client using an actual room with an actual bed.

              Jack must have known Mary did not have a bully, boy friend or other to protect her if things got rough. To what extent did he know her? Or was Millers Court just another careless act of murder which could end with the noose if he was caught?

              There are so many things that make Jack different from other killers.
              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                I think the killer of Mary Kelly wanted to both possess and destroy her.

                Throughout history men in general have thought of women as something near witches. (Consider for example Philip II Augustus of France who demanded an annulment after one wedding night with Ingeborg of Denmark. Apparently he could not perform sexually and claimed the cause was witchcraft. Henry VIII accused Anne Boleyn of similar.)

                I ponder if the killer of 4 of the C-5 did have a grudge against women which led to an obsession to handle, touch, own various body parts. Did women reject him? Had he caught a disease from a woman? Was there some other perversion?

                What did the various body parts mean to the killer? To him was the uterus the source of procreation or the base of womanhood itself, the organ that caused bewitchment or destruction? Think for a moment that a number of men have dismembered women but few women have dismembered male victims in similar ways. What has driven other killers to dissect parts of women connected to sexual experience?

                What did female breasts mean to Jack? Were they a sexual turn on to him or a total mystery?

                We believe the killer took Mary's heart. There are millennia of thoughts on the heart as the seat of the soul and many other profound notions. Did the killer want her heart, to be loved by her? Etc.

                I think JtR felt rejected or had been rejected by women. I personally believe that when he killed, he had had a night in the pubs and enough to drink to turn his mind from twisted to violently depraved. Around closing time or so he entered the streets. Perhaps he asked women for sex or other favours. Maybe he asked for something they did not want to grant. I think he asked Liz to go with him and she said no. Perhaps she was not soliciting that night or perhaps she did not want to go with him.

                All of the C-5 were said to be occasional prostitutes. Perhaps Jack asked for sex when they did not want to participate. Yes, Polly and Annie needed money, but maybe it was late and they decided to spend the rest of the nights doing something other than prostitution.

                We have discussed in depth what MUST have happened between Mary and Jack. She must have let him in and undressed to her chemise. (Other women like her, Elizabeth Prater for example, slept in their clothes.) One sheet and one blanket would not be enough to keep Mary warm through the night if she wore only her chemise. Women stripping to chemise and men stripping to shirt (or undershirt) was said to be the norm for prostitute and client using an actual room with an actual bed.

                Jack must have known Mary did not have a bully, boy friend or other to protect her if things got rough. To what extent did he know her? Or was Millers Court just another careless act of murder which could end with the noose if he was caught?

                There are so many things that make Jack different from other killers.
                It all makes sense, and it is all well thought out.

                But I think it is wrong nevertheless.

                Mind you, it may of course be right, and then I am wrong. But I can only call it as I see it.

                You propose that Jack had been rejected by women, or that he had aquired a disease from a woman or something such.

                This has happened often enough. Men are rejected and they find they do not like it one bit. They are angered by it, and they are so angered that they ultimately decide to retaliate and kill women for it. It is a bit illogical, since the ones who deserve to die are of course the woman/women who did the rejecting, but it is fully acceptable to reason that the rejected man may decide that all womanhood is responsible for his anger. It has happened more than once, God knows!

                But when such men go to work, and begin to exact their revenge, why would they kill the women blitz-style? Why would they not let the woman know that she was going to die as a result of their rejecting him? Why would these men not rape their victims and take what they believe they had coming to them? Why would they not torture their victims and let them suffer?

                The Ripper did neither.
                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                  I think the killer of Mary Kelly wanted to both possess and destroy her.

                  Throughout history men in general have thought of women as something near witches. (Consider for example Philip II Augustus of France who demanded an annulment after one wedding night with Ingeborg of Denmark. Apparently he could not perform sexually and claimed the cause was witchcraft. Henry VIII accused Anne Boleyn of similar.)

                  I ponder if the killer of 4 of the C-5 did have a grudge against women which led to an obsession to handle, touch, own various body parts. Did women reject him? Had he caught a disease from a woman? Was there some other perversion?

                  What did the various body parts mean to the killer? To him was the uterus the source of procreation or the base of womanhood itself, the organ that caused bewitchment or destruction? Think for a moment that a number of men have dismembered women but few women have dismembered male victims in similar ways. What has driven other killers to dissect parts of women connected to sexual experience?

                  What did female breasts mean to Jack? Were they a sexual turn on to him or a total mystery?

                  We believe the killer took Mary's heart. There are millennia of thoughts on the heart as the seat of the soul and many other profound notions. Did the killer want her heart, to be loved by her? Etc.

                  I think JtR felt rejected or had been rejected by women. I personally believe that when he killed, he had had a night in the pubs and enough to drink to turn his mind from twisted to violently depraved. Around closing time or so he entered the streets. Perhaps he asked women for sex or other favours. Maybe he asked for something they did not want to grant. I think he asked Liz to go with him and she said no. Perhaps she was not soliciting that night or perhaps she did not want to go with him.

                  All of the C-5 were said to be occasional prostitutes. Perhaps Jack asked for sex when they did not want to participate. Yes, Polly and Annie needed money, but maybe it was late and they decided to spend the rest of the nights doing something other than prostitution.

                  We have discussed in depth what MUST have happened between Mary and Jack. She must have let him in and undressed to her chemise. (Other women like her, Elizabeth Prater for example, slept in their clothes.) One sheet and one blanket would not be enough to keep Mary warm through the night if she wore only her chemise. Women stripping to chemise and men stripping to shirt (or undershirt) was said to be the norm for prostitute and client using an actual room with an actual bed.

                  Jack must have known Mary did not have a bully, boy friend or other to protect her if things got rough. To what extent did he know her? Or was Millers Court just another careless act of murder which could end with the noose if he was caught?

                  There are so many things that make Jack different from other killers.
                  I think an important question is how far we can get with finding solutions by means of what appears rational to us. That's not to say that what you propose wouldn't have been, it very well might - for me with the exception of the women rejecting business that moment; there's nothing that suggests this to me, not only because of the respective victims' situation at that moment, but also because of the repetition: despite the differences in detail there appears to be overall consistency, the proverbial method to the madness. And especially Annie Chapman having been found in a place known for being used for this conduct would support this, not to mention the over-heard dialogue before.

                  There is a problem with nowadays' psychiatry in terms of what illness is, and there is a corresponding aspect reflecting in the extreme of serial killers. I'm not anti-psychiatry, but I've seen things being a little better in the late 80s and early 90s (depending on the country). Today there seems to be a positio that defines illness by whether one can treat it with medication. If you can't then it's 'problems'. This neglects the fact that these vaguely named 'problems' can be just as severe than, say, schizophrenia, albeit on the surface not as apparent in disrupting a social environment, and, also on the surface, not as disabling.
                  The extreme of serial killers comes in with a frequent misuse of terms: you can often hear the phrase 'psychotic killer', where the speaker might actually have a psychopathic killer in mind. A psychotic serial killer is actually quite a rare thing. I believe David Berkowitz might belong into this category, I think he genuinely heard voices.
                  But being psychotic, a psychosis, that's very specific termina. It's generally something quite disabling. This is, btw., a problem I have with Druitt's candidacy, when connections to his mother are drawn, suggesting that he suffered from the same kind of malady. But Druitt was a very active person. 2 jobs, plus a career in cricket. Just to close this thought, to me all points to depression in Druitt's case, that can be disabling, but not necessarily so, but can also be kept a secret by some, and which is in fact a potential brutal killer of the person suffering from it.

                  But these 'problems' that defy medical treatment. More diffuse, not only in terms of specifying, but also their evolution. Deep-rooted, and with a potential filigree root-system of branching facets. Elaborated rituals on the own body or in behaviour patterns performed in secret, ever more defining themselves, ever more elaborating in their specifics. And this beginning in childhood, effectively preventing the individual from leaving childhood - a situation common with a lot of people, but also a common denominator with serial murderers.
                  And it is no coincidence that one area that compares is in fact sexuality: the way fantasies form and establish themselves.

                  More to the point here, with such a baroque shaping of this strange inner life and all its detailed facets, it's very hard to follow the workings, the way these mechanisms work by means of the standard of how a person not afflicted by this diffuse, amorphous way of being sick, a state that can and often is covered up by the afflicted, outwards nothing sick appearing, to access and understand this by the standard of healthy ratio.

                  And I think this difficulty shows. Once again, the situation from which is argued is a desirable one. We're not serial killers, and we're not Will Grahams (the FBI agent suffering from having this access in that 'Red Dragon'-novel).

                  What exactly was the significance of respective organs and other body-parts to him? The best answer can only come from him.
                  Christer, in case you're reading this, perhaps a better way of wording it for me would be 'of different significance, the heap on the table, but maybe difference would also eventually have to be quantified.

                  As for whether or not he knew or not if there was or wasn't anyone around in the vicinity of Mary's room who could have defended her or otherwise interrupt, I think I'd opt for the 2nd version: each of the murders included risk, but withi a single room accommodation this risk was already minimised compared to the others.

                  Where I totally agree with you is your final statement; there's indeed a lot keeping him apart from what we'd come to frequently encounter later.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    p.s.

                    Originally posted by Daniel Cazard View Post
                    And it is no coincidence that one area that compares is in fact sexuality: the way fantasies form and establish themselves.
                    Importantly, with sexuality being an essential part of what and who we are, where someone develops into these baroque woods of secret, disturbed passions it can only be expected that they'll establish themselves and show in the individual's sexuality in the strongest possible way.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Maybe Jack was "exposing" women for what they are. He removed the outer covering and exposed organs. In Mary's case he took his fetish down to the bare bones, which is an expression we use in the US. It is probably also a British expression. Getting down to the extreme basics of a subject.

                      Something has long bothered me about the position of Mary's body. I think similar can be found with Annie's body. Though I have read discussions about whether of not Jack posed his victims, what bothers me has never been mentioned.

                      I can almost see an old painting of a woman on a bed with her hand on her abdomen like that. I have no idea if the painting I visualize was something of a pornographic nature or an old master portraying Venus or something. My vague recollection is of a nude woman with maybe some drapery over her legs. One leg kind of in a bent knee position. Her head is turned to look toward the viewer. The general theme is kind of Grecian.
                      The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Daniel Cazard;304820

                        What exactly [I
                        was[/I] the significance of respective organs and other body-parts to him? The best answer can only come from him.
                        Christer, in case you're reading this, perhaps a better way of wording it for me would be 'of different significance, the heap on the table, but maybe difference would also eventually have to be quantified.
                        Let me say that before I looked into what I am looking into now, I would agree wholeheartedly about the perceived differences in significance when it comes to the organs strewn on the bed and under the head of Kelly visavi the parts seemingly discarded on the table. I used to have the exact same picture of it.

                        I no longer have that picture, though. I believe the parts on the table were part of the exact same somewhat ritualistic pattern behind the apparition of the murder scene. Then there are elements where I am not as certain, but where I can still see them all fitting into the same overall scheme.

                        Though it is no explanation as such, it is what I am ready to say at this stage: The cut to the neck, the organs on the bed, the abdominal panes lying on the table together with flesh from the thighs and buttocks, the parts under the head, the cut away face, the fact that the eyes were seemingly left undamaged - these are all parts of the exact same scheme. Removing any one of them, is removing equally important parts.
                        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                          Maybe Jack was "exposing" women for what they are. He removed the outer covering and exposed organs. In Mary's case he took his fetish down to the bare bones, which is an expression we use in the US. It is probably also a British expression. Getting down to the extreme basics of a subject.

                          Something has long bothered me about the position of Mary's body. I think similar can be found with Annie's body. Though I have read discussions about whether of not Jack posed his victims, what bothers me has never been mentioned.

                          I can almost see an old painting of a woman on a bed with her hand on her abdomen like that. I have no idea if the painting I visualize was something of a pornographic nature or an old master portraying Venus or something. My vague recollection is of a nude woman with maybe some drapery over her legs. One leg kind of in a bent knee position. Her head is turned to look toward the viewer. The general theme is kind of Grecian.
                          "Olympia" by Manet? Or perhaps "Liegende Frau in Gelbem Kleid" by Schiele? That one comes pretty damn close to the position of Kelly! But alas, I don´t think the killer had any painting in mind as he cut away. At least not the Schiele painting - it was done after the Ripper deeds.

                          But that does not take away from the fact that you are closing in on my thoughts in m ore than one way ...
                          "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
                            "Olympia" by Manet? Or perhaps "Liegende Frau in Gelbem Kleid" by Schiele? That one comes pretty damn close to the position of Kelly! But alas, I don´t think the killer had any painting in mind as he cut away. At least not the Schiele painting - it was done after the Ripper deeds.

                            But that does not take away from the fact that you are closing in on my thoughts in m ore than one way ...
                            Gosh, yes, that Schiele-painting.
                            That's almost spooky.
                            Including her left arm.

                            Okay, your teaser-trailers have reached the level of insomnia-inducement for the coming night. I'll need at least a longer one, or I'll end up in Colney Hatch.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                              Maybe Jack was "exposing" women for what they are. He removed the outer covering and exposed organs. In Mary's case he took his fetish down to the bare bones, which is an expression we use in the US. It is probably also a British expression. Getting down to the extreme basics of a subject.

                              Something has long bothered me about the position of Mary's body. I think similar can be found with Annie's body. Though I have read discussions about whether of not Jack posed his victims, what bothers me has never been mentioned.

                              I can almost see an old painting of a woman on a bed with her hand on her abdomen like that. I have no idea if the painting I visualize was something of a pornographic nature or an old master portraying Venus or something. My vague recollection is of a nude woman with maybe some drapery over her legs. One leg kind of in a bent knee position. Her head is turned to look toward the viewer. The general theme is kind of Grecian.
                              I have been part of some of the discussions about posing.
                              I don't categorically claim that he didn't stage the victims. But I'd favour caution in this, because it has become certainty with some. The question is whether what was found, what was seen and what we see would look any different if all manipulation of the bodies had been solely related to the necessary motions of what had been done to them (e.g. propped up legs, pushed up skirts), in other words with the perp having no audience in mind. In my opinion not at all - including Kelly.

                              This said, the thing that I have neglected is that there are not merely 2 possibilities, the murderer staging the victims, or him not caring about this and simply leaving them behind as they were.
                              A third possibility would again involve significance for him alone, i.e. not with a later audience in mind, but the positioning of the victim - and this might be more enacted with Kelly, if this is the case - being indeed part of it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X