|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sandy
Police Constable
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 1
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 11:59 pm: | 
|
Hello everyone!
My name is Sandy and I am brand spankin' new to this discussion board. Unfortunately I can only read posts so far back and I realize that the question I am about to ask has probably already been discussed, so please bear with me. My question is if anyone has considered the possibility that Mary Kelly was not a victim of Jack the Ripper? Obviously the reason why I ask this is because of the mutilation done to her face. Even though the act of stabbing a person ( as opposed to shooting them) is a personal, the act of destroying someone's face is very personal. The murderer took away not only her life, but her identity. Again, I apologize if I am asking a question that eveyone has already gone over and moved on, but as I said, I am new to this and I am curious as to what you all think. I look forward to your imput and I am very excited about being a part of this discussion board!
Sandy |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1321
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 4:00 am: |
|
Hi Sandy,
First of all 'Welcome to the boards'
The question of Mary kelly 'Was she a victim of jack ?. has been discussed since the casebook began.
I agree with you that the victim at Millers court was disfigured facially which could indicate personal involvement with her, also the removal of the heart has some would say the hallmarks of a wronged lover.
My personal beliefs are etched in stone on these boards although you will no doubt have your own ideas which i look forward to reading.
Welcome.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3085
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 4:52 am: |
|
Hi Sandy,
Well, like most questions regarding the case, this has been rather lively debated as well, although I believe more in recent times, and it has really turned into a controversial issue.
It is of course impossible to conclude anything with certainty and everything is very much up to personal interpretations of the facts -- and personal opinions.
And in my opinion -- which is probably more or less common knowledge at this point for those who have read my posts -- I think there are relevant reasons for doubting her inclusions among the Ripper victims.
I believe with at least 50 - 60% certainty that it was a domestic murder, perpetrated by someone who knew her very closely and was emotionally attached to her. The extreme depersonalisation from the facial mutilations and and the fact that her heart was taken, have been suggested to indicate, that it was what is within FBI circuits called an "interpersonal murder".
Several other known cases involving this types of very extreme mutilations, have proven to be one-time offenses by someone very close to the victim, and on some occasions even made to look it they were committed by a serial killer.
In the case of Mary Kelly, this point of view has been argued by among others Alex Chisholm and other scholars tends to support the possibility as well nowadays.
I for my part think this is a scenario that needs to be considered seriously and investigated further. It is certainly not impossible that the murder was perpetrated by for example Joseph Barnett or Joe Flemming (maybe even George Hutchinson) and was made to look like a Ripper murder, in other words a personal murder disguised as a copy-cat. Still, all we can do is argue and speculate about it, and we will never know the real answer.
If you haven't seen it, please take a look at Jane's excellent depiction of her here:
http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/9175/9890.html
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 261
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 5:05 am: |
|
Hi Sandy,
Welcome to the boards. I know what it's like trying to go back over so much information and messages to find out what's been going on.
If you have got time, there is a lot of discussion on the message boards about this, but you do have to rake through and find it. If you get time it is worth reading absolutely every post on every thread on the site as there is so much information that you can't get from books.
I have to say that is the best way to really get to grips with what JtR was all about. You might get a bit confused along the way, I know I did, but it gives a picture of JtR from all angles.
As Glenn suggests, have a look at Joseph Barnett, on the Suspects message board and the threads on George Hutchinson.
I think there is a possibility that she was not a victim of JtR, mainly for the same reasons as Glenn. I personally feel that whoever killed her knew her very well. Was that person JtR? I doubt if we'll ever find out, but we have to look at all the possibilities.
All the best
Jane |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3087
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 5:54 am: |
|
Oh and yes...
I forgot...
Welcome to Boards, Sandy!
(sorry about that)
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 336
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Hi Sandy and welcome.
We all have our own views, some based on research and knowledge, others on gut feelings, some on poor interpretation of the facts.
Theorising isn't really what attracts me to the Message Boards as a rule; you will never get true answers.
I will say though, that you need to remember the facial disfigurements to CE, never doubted as a Ripper victim, so MJK was NOT alone in this.
Best wishes
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 317
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Welcome, Sandy!
I'm of the camp that sees Mary as probably a JTR victim and her mutilation as part of an escalating series. If Joe killed her, I don't see him as the killer of the others.
As I'm sure you've figured out by now, there's a full spectrum of opinion around here.
Mags
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1646
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
G'day,
Joseph Barnett's father was 47 when he died. Author Bruce Paley failed to state his mothers age at the time but I wouldn't mind betting that she was in her late 30s/early 40s.
Mother Catherine Barnett was no longer listed as part of the Barnett family in the 1871 census. Exactly what happened to her remains a mystery but it wasn't unusual for Irish immigrant widows to abandon their children for a life of prostitution. It would have been impossible to raise five children on her own in the harsh East End of London.
MJK was definately a JTR victim!
Why do people refuse to believe that Barnett couldn't have killed 4 other women that were of a similar age to his last memory of his mother?
Mary Ann Nichols was 44 when she died,
Annie Chapman was 47,
Elizabeth Stride was 45,
Kate Eddowes was 46.
GLENN: '....and was made to look like a Ripper murder, in other words a personal murder disguised as a copy-cat.'
OK mate, please explain the attempts of Kelly's murderer to disguise the job as a Ripper crime?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on February 08, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 103
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Leanne - your post is more Agatha Christie or Brother Cadfael than a serious theory of a real C19th crime. Sorry but that's my frank opinion.
There are a number of possibilities with MJK:
a) she was the intended victim all along - the other women were killed in course of finding her (hence Eddowes who used the name Kelly) to silence them or in mistake. Once kelly was dead, the murders stopped. This is the basis of the old "Dr Stanley" theory. Personally, I don't believe that the minds of serial killers work that way outside fiction;
b) the Macnaghten view, summarised in an earlier post. The murderer has an escalating MO and killed himself or died shortly after the MIller's Court "glut";
c) MJK and/or Stride were not JtR victims, but killed by someone else for other reasons;
d) MJK WAS a JtR victim but the MO changes because he was indoors and had more time;
e) there was some mystery in MJK's life which she was trying to hide - the body in the room may not have been her's, and MJK went off to start a new life (hence the sightings of MJK after she was supposedly dead.
There may be more.
I have long thought that MJK might be crucial because the series seems to end with her death. I do not accept Barnett as JtR because no argument yet put forward remotely convinces me. BUT, I could just about accept barnett as MJK's killer, though I note the experienced police officers in 1888 who met and spoke to him did not do so.
It remains an enigma and will continue to do so unless more evidence emerges. IMHO we need to discover more about Flemming and Morgan Stone (my preferred rendition) who might have had just as much cause as barnett (or less). We need to know more about MJK's background and life (especially whether she was a higher class whore fallen on bad times or run away). And we need to know about why she was allowed to get away with so much unpaid rent, McCarthy and her putative relationship to him; and whether there is any connection to eddowes using the name Kelly and saying she knew "who dunnit".
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3088
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Do you really think that the fact that those other women had a similar age as his mother's is enough to link him to the murders?
That is probably the weakest possible circumstancial argument I have ever heard in a JtR context. Do you really think Joe Barnett's mother would have been the only one in this situation?
There is NOTHING that links Barnett to the other murders. None what-so-ever. Except for the constructed, fictional attempts to create a story, built on what he and his mother would have felt in a certain situation. Bla bla bla.
I am sorry, Leanne, but you can't peek into a man's head and emotions 117 years ago, and certainly not a his mother's.
Not one single piece of concrete, non-circumstacial evidence.
It is just ridiculous. You are turning a criminal case into a fairy-tale.
I thought this type of silliness was over and done with by now.
I think Phil Hill's post was exceptionally good and showing the alternatives we have to deal with. Then which ones we choose are matter of our interpretation and analysis of the facts. Although no facts whatsoever seems to support the notion of Barnett as Jack the Ripper.
We do know three things, though:
1) these types of copy-cat murders do occur, often performed by someone very close the victim, and therefore they can NEVER be ruled out as a possibility
2) the Ripper murders were widely covered in the tabloid press, and with more or less accuracy regarding certain details (where, among other things, the details of the mutilations Eddowes facial mutilations on occasion were filled with errors and widely exaggerated)
3) the Ripper murders were a subject to gossip on the street, with a lot on inaccurate and more or less fabricated information flowing around, easy to misinterpet for those who had no true knowledge of the investigation and the details of the crimes.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 266
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I find Phil's approach very useful for analysis purposes, because it does help to seperate fact from fallacy.
Examing each scenario and weighing up the probabilities/possibilities of each using only the facts and seeing what we come up with seems far more productive than some other routes.
Personally, although it It may not provide me with concrete answers, it has helped to avoid pointless excursions into nonproductive areas.
Of course we have to look at all possibilities and for evidence to support those possibilities, but circumstantial evidence can never be a substitute for hard facts. This I think is especially true for Mary Kelly as there are so many uncertainties anyway. I do agree that Mary's past does need more serious investigation and her relationship with other men as well as her involvement Joe Barnett.
I do think that at present there is no concrete evidence at all to suggest the Joe Barnett was JtR, although there does seem to be some circumstantial evidence that he may have killed Mary and used the other murders as a cover. I do think that there are other candidates that are just as likely though and discounting them is a mistake.
Having said that I would love to see some hard facts come to light about almost all of the men in Mary's past.
All the best
Jane
xxxxx
|
Carolyn
Police Constable
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 9:49 pm: |
|
I feel Kelly was probably murdered by the man who accompanied her back to her room. It seems improbable to me that someone entered her room without her knowledge. But I don't think he was JTR. I think the Ripper murders must have provided an perfect opportunity for anyone, who was thinking of murder, in attempting a copy cat killing.
Thanks,
Carolyn |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 237
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 10:23 pm: |
|
Dear Sandy....There is a real quick and affordable way to access prior discussion of MJK as a victim of JTR or not.
Buy and enjoy the 2005 Casebook C.D.
You can't go wrong...
You may go crazy...but you can't go wrong.
How...from Colney Hatch |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1647
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 10:26 pm: |
|
G'day,
PHILL: a) she was the intended victim all along - the other women were killed in course of finding her (hence Eddowes who used the name Kelly) to silence them or in mistake.'
Now in my oppinion that's 'Agatha Christie' and leads anyone's imagination to run wild and invent wild theories!!!!
'...Once kelly was dead, the murders stopped...' Can anyone be certain? 100%? I haven't formed a definate opinion of what became of Jack the Ripper after the 'Miller's Court glut'. The answer could be as simple as the Whitechapel murderer simply changing his M.O./'signiture'/frequency of of action because there was no longer a need to continue the 'show'.
'c) MJK and/or Stride were not JtR victims, but killed by someone else for other reasons;' Now in my opinion that's the easy way out - to conclude that there was more than one individual capable of such brutality in the same area , at exactly the same time in history!
'd) MJK WAS a JtR victim but the MO changes because he was indoors and had more time;'
Yes he might have been indoors but how could he have been certain that nobody, (Maria Harvey, Barnett himself, or simply another Millers Court resident), wasn't going to stick their hand through the window to move the coat, or simply knock on front the door?
'e) there was some mystery in MJK's life which she was trying to hide - the body in the room may not have been her's, and MJK went off to start a new life (hence the sightings of MJK after she was supposedly dead. '
Now there's that 'Agatha Christie' element again! Let's see what plot we can come up with!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 10:45 pm: |
|
G'day,
GLENN: 'Do you really think Joe Barnett's mother would have been the only one in this situation?'
No of course not. Someone else asked me that silly question. Do you believe that David Cohen was the only woman hater who indulged in solitary vises? Do you believe that Florie Maybrick was the only woman who cheated on her husband?
Perhaps Jack the Ripper was the only man who suffered a venereal disease after using a prostitute!. I don't know what it is that makes one person's mind crack but not everyones. If anyone did then we could try to prevent the next serial killer before he starts!
JANE: 'I do think that at present there is no concrete evidence at all to suggest the Joe Barnett was JtR,' OK then show me the concrete evidence against anyone! CONCRETE, not a very questionable Diary!
LEANNE |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 725
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 11:31 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Today I read of a case that happened 30 Nov 1883, a mere 5 years before the Whitechapel murders and although there are differences, I think it shares some similarities with Catherine Eddowes, if not exactly Mary Kelly--a woman stunned to the ground, throat cut, face mutilated.
This was a domestic case, the inquest was held by Samuel Langham who in 1883 was deputy-coroner for Westminster. The murder occurred in the couple's lodgings at 55 Greek-street in Soho--a lunatic saddler named William Crees struck his wife with a fireplace poker, cut her throat down to the spine, stabbed the front and back of her head, mutilated her face leaving a big wound below one eye with other wounds around the area where the nose joins the face; the right nostril was also sawed at. Some of the facial bones were smashed. Crees, who had previously been a mental patient at hospitals in Westminster and Charing Cross, went dancing in the streets after the murder and fetched a constable. Crees was sent to Broadmoor where he died Nov, 1932.
I don't think it's far-fetched to think that there could have been two Ripper-types in the same period, particularly if one was a copy-cat. And I can think of one actual attempt at a copy-cat murder--the Havant murder of November 1888, although it was a crude, juvenile attempt at one.
I say all this although I actually lean towards including Kelly as a Ripper victim.
Dave |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1649
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:12 am: |
|
G'day,
DAVE: For a minute there I thought you were merely giving us an example of a case in which one lover was capable of mutilating the other. I found another one in which a man tortured his 'spouse' with acid around the same time period!
LEANNE |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 105
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 2:13 am: |
|
Leanne - an amusing de-bunking of the various options re-MJK, but where does that leave us?
Certainly not with Barnett indisputably as killer!!
My post was intended simply to indicate (at a surface level) the complexity of the MJK case, and the fact that there are too many pieces missing to draw firm conclusions.
I personally don't hold to any of those ideas, or any others, they all work away in my mind, as I try to think of some link or key that might help make sense of them.
At the time though, the police who were there and could see, learn and know much more than we can, seemed to believe that MJK was a JtR victim and that she was probably the "last" despite the later "scares" (Coles and Pipe Clay Alice etc).
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3091
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
Leanne,
"DAVE: For a minute there I thought you were merely giving us an example of a case in which one lover was capable of mutilating the other."
I have given you several on different occasions and on different threads. LAST TIME I MADE THE EFFORT YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO IT!I could do it again, but I feel -- after at least four attempts -- that it is a waste of time. You simply just read what you want to read.
One of the most extreme ones I have ever come across, among a lot of others, and which was even worse than Mary Kelly, was the case of Buck Ruxton, who in 1935 in Lancaster dismembered the body and mutilated the face of his common law wife. From what I've seen on the crime scene pictures the flesh on her face and head was carved and fileted almost all the way down to the skull bone.
The annals of crime are littered with cases of husbands and lovers who have mutilated their spouses or paramours in an effort to hide their crime. I have given you several others on previous occasions.
Then we must connect this with the Ripper scare, and the fact that the tabloid press and the attention the murders received put ideas in people's heads. A worry on the police's part that was also expressed at the time. Plus that there are indications on that the Kelly murder actually was seen as a domestic crime by the police in the beginning.
I am not convinced that the Kelly murder was a domestic murder or a Ripper copy-cat, but I think there is a possibility for it, and that it should be investigated. It is far more credible than your and Richard's ideas anyway.
You are somehow obsessed with notion that domestic murders like these CAN'T happen, simply because it would punch holes in your own personal theories.
On the contrary (and unfortunately), this has not been an uncommon feature in crime history.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 09, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 271
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
You're quite right, there is a frustrating lack of hard evidence against any suspect, which is why I personally prefer to keep researching all possibilities, hoping that some hard evidence might turn up against someone.
I don't actually favour Maybrick as a suspect, and I don't really want to get into the diary debate. If anyone comes up with hard evidence to support any suspect I'm
quite happy to consider it. This would include James Maybrick, Oscar Wilde or even good old Dr Barnado as long as the evidence was strong enough.
I do have to say that there is a woman I visit that had petrol poured over her head by her husband whilst her four year old daughter was watching and he then set light to her.
The only thing that saved her was the fact that a neighbour came in at that moment and managed to save her life. She is now horrendously scarred and never leaves the house. There is very little of her face left and this is what her husband intended.
I'm sure she wishes that domestic murders/attempted murders did not happen.
All the best
Jane
xxxxxx
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1650
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
G'day Glenn,
I know you have given several examples! I have found some myself!
I am not sure why you've used capital letters in your last post. Why get angry with me?
Here in the past people have expressed to me the belief that it was impossible for a man who loved Mary Kelly to do what her killer did to her that morning! Initially I thought Dave's post was supporting my belief that he could've.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3097
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 6:55 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne,
"I know you have given several examples! I have found some myself!
I am not sure why you've used capital letters in your last post. Why get angry with me?"
Then why do you totally exclude the possibility of it being a copy-cat murder performed by Barnett or someone else close to her (whoever that might be)?
My point is, that if we know these things happen -- and has happened -- then there is no relevancy in NOT exploring the possibility and keeping an open mind to it.
I can agree on that Barnett may have committed the murder of Mary Kelly, but I can't see any connection whatsoever between him and the other murders.
"Here in the past people have expressed to me the belief that it was impossible for a man who loved Mary Kelly to do what her killer did to her that morning!"
I know, and so did I -- until I did some research and learnt better.
What makes me frustrated, is that you don't seem to understand, that Barnett's childhood and past experiences -- which could fit hundreds of people in East End brought up under similar circumstances -- is not enough to link him to any murder and certainly not as Jack the Ripper.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Sorry if I was vague, Leanne--I was reacting to your post where you wrote: "'c) MJK and/or Stride were not JtR victims, but killed by someone else for other reasons;' Now in my opinion that's the easy way out - to conclude that there was more than one individual capable of such brutality in the same area , at exactly the same time in history!"
I was struck by the Crees case not because it was one case of a lover doing in another, but because it was a brutal knifing murder with facial mutilations, happening close (historically) in time to the Whitechapel murders. Admittedly there are differences like absence of abdominal mutilations in the case of Crees, but for sure Crees was a brutal, mutilating knife murderer. Maybe he's closer to James Kelly, but I think Crees suggests the possibility that two such Ripper-types could have been in London in 1888. Barnett could have killed Mary Kelly and still not have been Jack the Ripper.
But I'm just talking--like I said, I believe MJK probably was a Ripper victim (most of the objections that I know of are explained by her being inside) and that Joe Barnett wasn't her killer. I reserve the right to change my mind though if I ever see evidence to the contrary.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1651
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 2:51 am: |
|
G'day Glenn,
Doubts that I have of Mary Kelly's murder merely being a copy cat job stem from the fact that her killer didn't wait until the opportunity presented itself outdoors. Plus the fact that the scene inside room 13 didn't resemble any press description of the earlier scenes. I'm looking for the 'Jack the Ripper' signature designed to leave no doubt in the minds of investigators.
Glenn you say that copy cat murders have happened before. I'm not doubting that! Can you please give us some specific examples so we can compare the extent to which the killer copied?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on February 10, 2005) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3098
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 8:48 am: |
|
G'day Leanne,
"Plus the fact that the scene inside room 13 didn't resemble any press description of the earlier scenes. I'm looking for the 'Jack the Ripper' signature designed to leave no doubt in the minds of investigators."
OK. fair enough argument.
However, it's a fatal mistake, to believe that a copy-cat murder has to be totally identical with the ones they are supposed to copy. I hate to tell you this, but they seldom are.
Copy-cat murders are not always planned, you see. Many cases have shown to be impulsive domestic murders, where the perpetrator then has tried to cover up the crime in pure desperation. Therefore it is not important that the murder was committed indoors in this case. The key to the copy-cat scenario lies in the mutilations plus the fact that the overture to the crime displays another approach by the killer during the actual initial attack.
If we want to subscribe to the idea of Mary kelly being a copy-cat, then we must also accept the fact that her murder may not have been planned beforehand but was an impulsive act, which most interpersonal domestic murders usually are.
My belief -- based on other similar crimes -- is that the man in question killed her in pure frustration and then -- realising what he had done -- came to think of the Ripper and then tried to mutilate her in a horrific way (the way HE had interpeted the Ripper's crimes to look like), but went to extreme excesses because he really wanted to persuade the police to believe that a serial killer had done it.
Like everyone who totally dismiss this possibility, you are going about this the wrong way. We have seen the photographs of the victims, the police sketches, the police documentation, the reports etc... but that was NOT the case for the common man. Most people got their information from the papers and the word on the street, and both sources were guilty of great errors and exaggerations. We are not talking about a killer here who had inside information about the case, or who had read up on every detail. That is not how it works. As Alex Chisholm once argued, the murderer simply may have committed the mutilations how he thought they would look like. You must look at it from his point of view -- not our own. We have factual information in retrospect to lean upon.
"Can you please give us some specific examples so we can compare the extent to which the killer copied?"
But I just gave you one in my post above!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I have done in other previous posts (as you yourself admit!). How many times do I have to give you that information? The last time I did it, I received no response whatsoever! And you're asking me to do it again? Do you now see why I become angry and USE CAPITALS?????????
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1652
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 12:06 am: |
|
G'day,
GLENN: If Joseph Barnett sliced the throat of the woman he loved, (on impulse and with no prior planning), then remained at the scene to mutilate her the way he did, (with the 'survival instinct' intensions of trying to frame the unknown killer he'd read about), then he had remarkable abilities indeed!
'But I just gave you one in my post above!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! '
If Buck Ruxton tried to frame another active killer, (because that's what I requested when I asked for examples), then let's study the case and examine how he tried to do that! How did he 'forge' someone elses 'signature' to his crime?
I am just trying to get us to take a thorough look at this copy-cat possibility!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on February 11, 2005) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3099
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 5:52 am: |
|
G'day Leanne,
"If Joseph Barnett sliced the throat of the woman he loved, (on impulse and with no prior planning), then remained at the scene to mutilate her the way he did, (with the 'survival instinct' intensions of trying to frame the unknown killer he'd read about), then he had remarkable abilities indeed!"
And that would in such case apply on several others as well. Why is it so impossible for Barnett but not for others?
It is usually the "survical instincts" that tell them to do this, in order to avoid the crime!!!!
If Barnett DID happen to kill Mary he would have been the prime suspect big time anyway, so he would have had nothing to lose. And this was at the height of the Ripper scare, so the timing couldn't have been better.
"If Buck Ruxton tried to frame another active killer, (because that's what I requested when I asked for examples), then let's study the case and examine how he tried to do that! How did he 'forge' someone elses 'signature' to his crime?"
I can't remember the exact details or which killer he tried to blame it on (it is not at all certain that he tried to blame it on a named killer, just 'a' serial killer, since many believe that those are the only ones capable of those types of crimes); I read about it in a police hand book and saw the crime scene photos (and they are ten times worse than those of Mary Kelly, although they are nasty enough). You can probably find information about it on the more common crime websites that exists. I am a bit short of time at the moment.
We also have another example, namely WH Bury.
Although that nearly made him a Ripper candidate himself.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 340
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
My, am I glad I've been away for a few days and avoided all this!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3100
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Philip,
Typical you -- missing out on all the fun. 
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
G'day,
GLENN: 'And that would in such case apply on several others as well.'
I 'heard' you the first time you 'said' that! What I am asking you for is to name some more examples so we can study them.
I've searched the Internet for 'Buck Buxton' and can't find enough material.
Looking at William Bury: '...due to similarity between the stab wounds he inflicted upon his late wife, Ellen, and those found on the body of POLLY NICHOLS' - so Bury did try to mimic what he had read in the papers.
'It was also suggested that the words "Jack the Ripper is in this sellar" were writen in chalk on the door of Bury's residence.' There's the forged 'signature'.
LEANNE |
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Hey there Glenn I read my last posting on the was Stride a Ripper victim thread and boy did i sound nasty...guess lack of sleep will do that. On to poor Mary. I think its almost 100% Mary is a JTR victim. Now as for the copycat theory? I don't see a copycat who is essentially trapped in the room as whoever killed Mary was, going to the extent of cutting away the meat from her legs or taking her heart out. If the idea is to disguise the crime, cutting the throat, ripping her abdominal area and taking an easily accessable organ would have been more then enough of make it look like a Ripper crime. Having no means of escape logic dictates Mary's killer would want to get the hell out of there as fast as possible. If the mutilations were an attempt to disguise the crime then the killer was acting at least in part logically. A logically thinking copycat may commit some mutilations but does not put his own life in jeopardy doing a time consuming overkill as we see in Millers Court. It doesnt make sense. A second point imop that points to this not being a copycat crime is the fact that it still doesnt produce an alibi for the killer even if the killer is not the Ripper. For instance if Barnett is the killer he still needs an alibi whether he made it look like a Ripper crime or not. If the police question him and his alibi does not hold up or he acts strange the fact that Mary was horribly mutilated will not get him off the hook...imop it will just make the police start investigating him for the entire series or crimes. let me say this loud and clear....there is no reason not to include Mary in the series of ripper crimes. Of course it's not 100% but no way its like 50% 50% either. As we say her in NYC no way Jose. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
Eddowes also had some facial mutilations. I think that he took a chance when he attacked all of his victims but I feel he felt safe in Kellys' room. He took out all of his frustrations on her and endulged in every sick fantacy he had. Remember, He took the whole month of October off he may have been real frustrated. Police patrols increased after the double event and this may of had something to do with his lack of activity in the month of October and may have forced him indoors. The police are trying to catch him and with every murder came increased risk. You are not alone and many people have suggested that Kelly was not a ripper victim. I believe she was a victim of Jack the ripper.
Leanne,
Regarding point D you are assuming that the ripper would have known about Kellys' personal life. He may not have been aware of Barnett or Maria and he would have taken the risk that someone would not peak in the window. Remember he took greater risk of being caught when he commited the other murders. Kelly probably told him that she lived alone and that they would not be disturbed. I believe she was killed around 3:45 so the idea that someone may come around may not have concerned the ripper.
Hi all,
I do not believe the Kelly murder was a copycat murder. I can not prove that Kelly was a ripper victim but not only would a copycat killer have to be able to commite such brutal murders as the ripper but he must have been able to kick it up a few notches. The Kelly murder was much more brutal then the other murders. He skined her. The fact that Edowes had facial mutilations and the ripper took the time to perform the mutilations to the face when he had such a short window to commite the murder tells me he already had the desire to step it up a notch. I have not read one report that suggest that any of the detectives who worked the case believed that Kelly was not a ripper victim.
Your friend,CB |
mal x
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Mary a victim of the Ripper? definitely yes, it's the next murder on from Eddowes, it's basically a more hideous version of the Eddowes murder, similar facial mutilations, imbecilic toying of his knife etc etc. |
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 7:32 am: |
|
Jane,
just some thoughts
1)JTR's violence was increasing.In Mitre Square he only had more or less 10 minutes before the cop came to the Square.Unless he wants to get caught, JTR does'nt have to be smart to realize after this that if he wants to do more mutilation ,more violence,(or need more time with his victim) he would need more time and to do this he had to go indoors.The Mary Kelly murder was what this increasing violence lead to (or into) and it showed what JTR can do (post-3 victims) in a room alone with his victim.
2)As far as the killer knowing her personally 2 things are of importance
a) knowledge of Barnett's split with Kelly
b) Knowledge that her door can be opened through the broken window
....and perhaps,maybe c) when Miller's Court usually is quiet and or Kelly's room unlit or Kelly asleep early in the morning(this could be day to day)
(a Dorset St. resident perhaps,a former customer,somebody who frequents Dorset St. and knows somebody there or observes and ask well would suffice with a) and b) )
(If you conclude it's Barnett all the above is negated)
3)as far as the killer taking her heart with him,it's a "very vague" fact
4)Perhaps also you should decide if the man Sarah Lewis saw was possibly the Ripper or George Hutchinson or a stranger. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3101
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Hi extendedping,
"Now as for the copycat theory? I don't see a copycat who is essentially trapped in the room as whoever killed Mary was, going to the extent of cutting away the meat from her legs or taking her heart out. If the idea is to disguise the crime, cutting the throat, ripping her abdominal area and taking an easily accessable organ would have been more then enough of make it look like a Ripper crime. Having no means of escape logic dictates Mary's killer would want to get the hell out of there as fast as possible. If the mutilations were an attempt to disguise the crime then the killer was acting at least in part logically. A logically thinking copycat may commit some mutilations but does not put his own life in jeopardy doing a time consuming overkill as we see in Millers Court. It doesnt make sense."
Note that I don't think it is that certain that the MJK murder was a copycat -- it could be, but my main point is that it was a domestic murder peformed by someone who knew her; if the mutilations then were a result of a rather crude copycat attempt or a real expression of frustration on the killer's own part, is impossible to know anyway.
All we can do is to look at how other similar domestic mutilation murders have been made, how they look like and why.
I have said it before and I'll say it again: if the Ripper didn't commit the crime (and I personally don't believe that he did), then it more or less always in these cases is the closest male aquaintance or lover/former lover that is responsible for it. Period. Those are facts.
If for example Barnett did it, he would -- as everyone else -- be aware of this, and the police certainly focused on him as their highest priority directly after the murder. It does not even take a five years old to reach that conclusion for someone in that situation.
Therefore the killer would have NOTHING TO LOSE WHATSOEVER on performing the mutilations, as long as they resembled the Ripper's trademarks on some important features.
If he had just killed her, the police would be on his tail in no time, and he would really be in trouble.
We must not forget, that the police were desperate after the Eddowes murder, and -- after what seemed to be a calm October -- when he then appears to strike again, they became probably even more desperate in their search for the Ripper and would immediately be on the lookout for him.
So even if the killer didn't get the mutilations right and went to excesses, it would still be a safer deal for him to blame it on the Ripper the best way he could.
The police were on the lookout for Jack the Ripper, for God's sake. All it took was for Barnett to produce viable alibis for the OTHER murders in order to be cleared.
It is a strange misconception, that a copycat killer has to do everything right. That is a creation from stupid Hollywood films like Copycat, where the killer reconstructed the murder scenes in every detail, but in that film the copycat killer was a professional and experienced serial killer HIMSELF!
In these types of copycats referred to in cases like Mary Kelly's or others that are similar, we are talking about INEXPERIENCED one-time killers, and they are numerous. They may be irrational, crazy, morbid but they are still inexperienced and sloppy! And I believe the the killer of Mary Kelly as inexperienced and sloppy, simply because of the way he went to unnecessary excesses.
This is not a theory based on wild imagination; these types of domestic killings do exists and can happen (and have happened).
That does not in any way prove that this is what happened to Mary kelly, but the possibility is discounted on reasons that are full of errors and misconceptions -- and generalisations about how a "domestic killer" thinks. News flash: no one knows how a domestic killer thinks, or how his personal logic operates.
An inexperienced killer can't be expected to cover up his crime (in order to blame it on a reputed killer at large) and get it right in every detail. As I have explained, we are looking at it from our point of view. People like Barnett, Hutchinson, Flemming etc. would only have access to the information they could pick up from the papers and the word on the street.Therefore it would be natural for such a killer (unsure of what things really looked like) to go to excesses in order to feel safe that the police would connect it to a serial killer. Eddowes' facial mutilations were quite exaggerated in the papers and it is foolish to take for granted that people were aware of every detail about the murders, even if they were described in the papers. These murders are seldom planned beforehand.
"If the police question him and his alibi does not hold up or he acts strange the fact that Mary was horribly mutilated will not get him off the hook...imop it will just make the police start investigating him for the entire series or crimes."
Exactly, and -- since the police was on the lookout for Jack the Ripper -- I believe he possibly could produce alibis for the other murders and therefore finally was released after some hours of questioning.
As far as Mary Kelly being a Ripper victim there are several elements that indicates that things just aren't right or what they seem to be. And in her case, we also have a possible, natural suspect that also had a motive -- in contrast to the other murders (if we disregard Stride). I give her 40 - 50% chance of being a Ripper victim, but that is as far as I am prepared to go.
So it is not a theory I am prepared to put forward with more certainty than others, but the possibility for it, is not as small as some people makes it out to be. If people want to get stuck in their views about this, and won't consider any alternatives then those they are convinced of is the truth, is not my problem.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
G'day,
EXTENDEDPING: I agree that the time consuming overkill performed on Mary Kelly is an indication that her killer wasn't trying to copy what he'd read or heard about.
The only record of Barnett's alibi appeared in the 'Daily Telegraph' on November 10 which said he: 'was at [Buller's] Lodging House in New Street, and was playing whist there until half past twelve when he went to bed' No matter how many times I read that it shows he was seen until 12:30. Even if someone was able to tell the police that he was seen at Bullers at breakfast time, that still doesn't cover him for the time of the murder, (which wasn't established until her inquest).
CB: Yes I believe Kelly's killer had to know something about her personal life. I don't think that too many prostitutes would have been living totally alone at that time and I don't think that Mary Kelly, (who was frightened of the Whitechapel murderer), would have told anyone that she lived alone.
I think the Ripper would have considered a tiny room with a hole in the window that anyone could look through, and only one other means of escape as a big risk!
He took the precaution of waiting until a patrolling policeman had just left Mitre Square, and must have known that he had about 10 minutes to do Eddowes.
LEANNE |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 275
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Hi zxcter, I hope I spelt that right!
I wasn't sure if you actually meant me, because I didn't remember posting anything that tied in with the comments you made, but thanks for thinking of me all the same. I never remember what I post!
I can see the logic in your point about the escalating violence often attributed to serial killers. As I understand it, it is a common pattern. I personally would not like to second guess what was going on in his mind and although what you say may be true, it's not provable, and I'm afraid that I personally like hard facts. It's not an unreasonable premise, but it can only be that, a premise.
2)As far as the killer knowing her personally 2 things are of importance
a) knowledge of Barnett's split with Kelly
b) Knowledge that her door can be opened through the broken window
....and perhaps,maybe c) when Miller's Court usually is quiet and or Kelly's room unlit or Kelly asleep early in the morning(this could be day to day)
On point 2 - I personally think that the evidence does point to the fact that the killer knew her, whether it was JtR or Barnett or whoever. I'm quite sure if I'm in agreement with you or not there, but I think I am......
If they were in close contact, then are quite right, they would have known the facts you bring out in your post, if as you say it wasn' t Barnet himself.
(a Dorset St. resident perhaps,a former customer,somebody who frequents Dorset St. and knows somebody there or observes and ask well would suffice with a) and b)
I agree that the possibilities you put forward are very good possibilities, a local would seem a very good candidate as either JtR or Mary's killer, if in fact they are not one and the same. We seem to be on the same wavelength there.
3)as far as the killer taking her heart with him,it's a "very vague" fact
As far as I remember from the reports, the statements only said that the heart was missing, I don't actually remember posting anything about the heart, so forgive me if I can't really say much more about that. Without evidence no-one can say whether Mary's killer took it, although it would seem more likely than any other scenario. I don't think I did state that Mary's killer actually did take her heart as a fact. If I did then I was totally out of order as that is an incorrect statement.
As for the part about Mrs Lewis, I would not even attempt to decide which of those options to go for without hard evidence.
I think maybe the last two points were from someone else as I definitely didn't bring Mrs Lewis up, but I might as well say that I agree with you!
I'm a hard evidence kind of girl, although I examine all possibilities. I merely think that it is quite possible that Mary was killed by someone that knew her well, but don't think that there is enough evidence to decide if her killer was JtR or if it was a domestic killing.
I'm probably about 50/50 at the moment.
On reflection I think I agreed with practically everything in your post although for different reasons perhaps, I just haven't made up my mind yet!
All the best
Jane
|
Sandy
Police Constable
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Hello everyone!
I see a lot has been going on since I first introduced myself. I asked the question about whether Mary Kelly was truly a victim of the Ripper not necessarily because I don't believe she was, only because I cannot help but wonder, and there are many reasons why this question has always come back to me. If she was killed by someone else, that someone does not have to be Barnett, and if it was Barnett, that does not mean he was responsible for the other murders. There are a differences in what happened to Mary compared with the other victims and it is usually explained because this attack was done inside. However, like what has already been mentioned, there was a seperate set of risks for the killer by being inside. Having only one way out being an important one. I feel that there is something that does seperate Mary Kelly, and possibly Catherine Eddowes from the other victims. This does not mean that I don't think either were victims of the Ripper, on the contrary, if they were, then the facial mutilations could signify something important, and not necessarily that he knew them...but something. (I'm rambling. Sorry). One thing I do want to mention..and I hesitate because I am not sure if this is the right thread for this. I have a question concerning George Hutchinson's statement. Part of it reads, "She said she had lost her handkerchief. He then pulled out his handkerchief, a red one, and gave it to her." Now, forgive me, but this was the middle of the night. One of the issues surrounding Whitechapel was the problem of inadequate lighting. He was following them and I am sure he wasn't exactly right on their heels, so how did he know that the handkerchief was red? Especially considering the color red is one of the most difficult colors to distinquish in the dark. Well, I truly hope I have not left everyone baffled, confused, and going "huh?" My apologies for rambling.
Sandy |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 122
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Hutchinson probably didn't know what colour the handkerchief was - if it ever existed - and made it up, as he did all or most of the details. I don't believe a word of the statement, bar maybe seeing a man or men with Kelly, is reliable.
Phil |
Carolyn
Police Constable
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Just a thought,
I think he just said the hankerchief was red, to go with the rest of the outfit he had invented, Stick pin, heavy gold chain, etc.
A plain white hankerchief would be too "common", he felt it had to be something special.
Carolyn
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Thanks for your responce. I believe that there are a few mistakes that people make when investigating the ripper crimes. 1. They do not give the police enough credit for being able to do there Job. 2. They try an use modern day profiling and apply it to a case 116 years old. 3. They over think the case and make mole hills into mountains. 4. They over estimate the rippers cunning. 5. They over etimate Kelly.
I respect you and Richard. You guys stick to your guns and you answer all post. Barnett is a good suspect and he could have been the ripper. I feel Kelly is given a little to much credit. Kelly could have been killed by someone she knew but to sugggest that the ripper had to have known Kelly because Kelly would not take a strange man back to her room or she would not undress in front of a strange man is giving her to much credit. Kelly was an eastend unfortunate who worked the street. She was desperate for money or drink. She was drunk. I think she would have went home with anyone. undressed for anyone. All they would have to do is offer her enough money. She would not have to tell the ripper she lived alone. [But she may have.] All she would have had to do is assure him that they would not be disturbed. The ripper was a man who killed women in the street. He probably was thrilled to have a chance to work indoors. I believe Kelly was scared of the ripper but most unfortunates were. She had already taken at least one man home that night according to Cox. She may have taken two men home if you believe George.
Barnett could have killed Kelly and I am not debating that with you. I just feel that Kelly is given to much credit.
Your friend,CB |
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Hello ripperologists,
Interesting thread - was Kelly not a ripper victim because he went indoors and her face was attacked, unlike the others, so she must be a victim of someone else.I think ths does not paint the right picture here, so I'll try to help.
1. I think that after the double event, he went indoors by neccessity more than anything else. I should think that after September 3oth, any lone man seen on the streets after midnight would have been lynched by the public even before the hundreds of police could get to him.
2. Kelly's was not the only face attacked. From Martha Tabram to Kelly the attacks grew in ferocity.I exclude Stride as her killer was interupted by witnesses, or as some say, a victim of Michael Kidney. By the time he got to Eddow's, he had started to attack the face.An earlobe was cut off, her nose cut off,eyelids slashed and more.So what he did to Kelly's face does not surprise me at all. I also think he stopped after Kelly because he had reached the zenith with the mutilations, and there wasn't really anywhere to go to after that.
DALE THE SNAIL. |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 10:53 pm: |
|
Dale,
I have a question. Actually anyone is free to answer this (obviously). If Mary was the last victim of JtR, what happened to him after? How could his obsession escalate to something so horrific and then...nothing? I'm not sure this question is even appropriate for this thread so I apologize if it isn't. Also, in my previous post I mentioned Catherine Eddowes. My question about another victim being one of JtR would be Stride, so I apologize for the mistake and again for this not being the proper board for this.
My original question still stands. If Mary was a victim of JtR, what happened to him after?
Sandy |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 343
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 3:51 am: |
|
Sandy - The usual explanations are:
a) she was NOT the last victim (because he moved elsewhere and continued to kill) - the Tumblety theory takes this line in part.
b) because he moved away (see above)
c) he was incarcerated (his family or others recognised the problem and had him put away in a mental or other institution) - the Kosminski theory has elements of this, as might the Druitt.
d) he died
e) he committed suicide (see the Druitt theory)
f) he had completed his task (ie if you believe that Joe Barnett killed all the women, he was always focused on Kelly and when she was dead there was no longer a "point")
g) Kelly was always the focus - women were killed in finding her, but when she was dead JtR's mission was complete (Leonard Matter's "Dr Stanley" hypothesis)
h) the conspiracy theory (the five victims were involved in a blackmail plot, when they were dead the killings stopped)
i) any other explanation you can think of.
Obviously all these are just commonsense possibilities, as no one knows what happened for sure.
But did the killings stop after Kelly? Some believe that there were later murders (see Pipe Clay Alice and Frances Coles for instance).
Or was there just one "Ripper"? have other murders and murderers been conflated into the case - for instance there are arguments that Stride and Kelly might have been killed by other hands (Kidney or Barnett respectively). Thus it would not be just a case of looking for one explanation but several.
Hope this gives you some ideas,
Phil |
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 9:34 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
Phill justs about wraps it up with that post.However, with this ripper game, with thousands of possibilities, I guess you are free to form your own opinions and speculations about just about anything.I sure have mine about this so called Maybrick diary , which I think is a joke book.But I'll give you my oppinion for what it's worth.I do think Kelly was killed by the same man who killed Tabram to Eddow's.There is a geometric pattern in the ferocity of his attacks and mutilations.I believe, after Kelly he had reached his zenith(for whatever his actual motivations were) and probably felt content his needs were satified.He may have simply thought - " I have got this out of my system , and now I am over it." He then would have more than likely moved away into obscurity. There still might be a genuuine clue somewhere on this planet which will reveal his exact identity. With alot of hoaxers, and shoddy fiction writers, it makes all a bit harder.
Best wishes - Dale |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 8:00 am: |
|
Good post Phil, that exactly pinpoints the suggestions. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
