|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Steven G. Harsch
Police Constable
Username: Mrsteve74656
Post Number: 1
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 7:23 pm: |       |
And Then There Were . . . Two?
The Pregnancy of Mary Jane Kelly:
Fact or Fiction?
-S. Gregory Harsch
It was the early morning hours of November 8, 1888 when the blade made its first incision into the white, supple flesh of Spitalfield resident Mary Jane Kelly. At the time of the grizzley murder, was this young, East End "unfortunate" pregnant?
In my extensive research of the Jack the Ripper crimes, I've only come across one instance of it being reported that Mary Jane Kelly was, indeed, three months pregnant (Cullen's When London Walked in Terror). Was she really withchild, or is this just a figment of the author's imagination? Cullen also states that a contempory newspaper "hints broadly that the missing portion [of Mary Jane Kelly] was the fetus." Although I've not been able to find any evidence other than Cullen's statement in his book (including her death certificate and autopsy report I've been able to obtain), if it is true, it furthers my belief that Mary Jane Kelly was not one of Jack the Ripper's victims.
Unlike the rest of the "connical five" Jack the Ripper victims, Mary Jane Kelly was murdered inside her home! Thus, her body was not "on display" like that of the previous victims. This leads me to believe that her killer was not Jack the Ripper, but someone that she knew and trusted enough to let into her home (Joseph Barnett, possibly?). If one of her clients did it, for example (killed her, that is), why would she take them all the way back to Miller's Court, rather than "take care of business" in the closest yard or alley?
Also, the extensive mutilations of her body - including the "skinning" of her thighs, etc. - is very "unripper-like" compared with the throat slasing and abdominal cuttings of the first four women. It is my belief that she was killed by someone who then "ripped" her body to place the blame on Jack the Ripper, therefore turning suspicion away from himself. The killer, however, got a bit too carried away with the knife!
If Mary Jane Kelly was, in actuality, pregnant, isn't it possible that both she and her "lover" (again, I say, Joseph Barnett?) knew about the pregnancy, and that he wasn't happy about it? Isn't it possible that, upon learning of the pregnancy, he became "unnerved" - for lack of a better term - and killed her, subsequently removing and stealing the three-month-old fetus to hide the pregnancy; naturally, upon discovering that Mary Jane Kelly was pregnant, the Metropolitan Police and Scotland Yard would have directed their attention towards her lover, no?
Just a point to ponder . . . |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 9:27 pm: | |
"Unlike the rest of the "connical five" Jack the Ripper victims, Mary
Jane Kelly was murdered inside her home! "
I wouldn't get too excited about this point, Steven. She was the only victim that happened to have her own place, and she brought her johns there. The others had to service their clients on the streets. Mary Kelly was a modestly higher class of prostitute than the others: younger, prettier, and with lodgings of her own.
As I've said on another thread, when Kelly closed her door behind them, Jack must have felt like he had hit the lottery.
Sir Robert |
Steven G. Harsch
Police Constable
Username: Mrsteve74656
Post Number: 2
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 12:57 am: | |
Yes, but that just furthers my point . . . Mary Jane Kelly was a higher class than that of his other victims - including the "others" that have been attributed to him. Therefore, she still doesn't fit the "profile" of the other Ripper victims . . . |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 3:36 am: | |
Hi Steven,
The Times Nov 10th 88, does say that the lower portions of the body, and the uterus had been cut out.'and these appeared to have been missing'
I am with you Steven, I believe that the victim was pregnant, my point is was the victim Kelly.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 3:48 am: | |
G'day Stephen,
Sorry to spoil the party here guys, but the contemporary newspaper that hinted broadly of Mary Kelly's missing potion, was interviewing a policeman that almost leaked the big police secret of Kelly's heart being taken. The news that the Ripper took her heart was considered too shocking for the Victorian public to read about.
The policeman who almost leaked this secret to the press/public, was reprimanded for this action! SORRY!
LEANNE |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 6:44 am: | |
" Mary Jane Kelly was a higher class than that of his
other victims - including the "others" that have been attributed to him. Therefore, she still
doesn't fit the "profile" of the other Ripper victims . . ."
You missed the words "modestly higher" in my post. Dorset Street had a reputation as being the worst street in the East End, no small feat. Kelly had a tiny tiny room off one of the worst streets in London, and she walked the streets to solicit. Because she took clients to her room, Jack had an opportunity to spend "quality time" with her, unlike the other victims, but for all intents and purposes she fits in with the profiles of the other victims.
Sir Robert |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 7:01 am: | |
From David Yost's dissertation elsewhere on the Casebook:
4. "She may have been heavy with child and may have had a son of about 10."
Dr. Bond’s report - "The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus &
Kidneys with one breast under the head." Had the uterus been gravid, Dr. Bond
would have mentioned it. Plus, Dr. Hebbert provided autopsy information to Dr.
Harris - "The abdominal viscera and pelvic viscera, including bladder, vagina,
and uterus with appendages, had been torn from their cavities..." Again, no claim
that the uterus was gravid. Plus, descriptions of Kelly give no indication that she
was "heavy with child:"
Mrs Phoenix stated Kelly was "5 feet 7 inches in height, and of rather
stout build with blue eyes and a very fine head of hair which reached
nearly to her waste;" Mrs Prater described her as tall, pretty, "fair as a
lilly," and "on good terms with everybody;" yet, Mrs Maxwell described
her as "a pleasant little woman, rather stout, fair complexion, and rather
pale...spoke with a kind of impediment."
Additionally, Barnett informed The Star a six or seven-year-old boy lived with
Kelly, (not 10); yet, he informed the Daily Telegraph that Kelly "had never had
any children." However, there were other victims who had children: Tabram,
Nichols, (whose son helped pay for the funeral), Chapman, and Eddowes,
(whose daughter testified at the inquest). |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 5:37 pm: | |
G'day,
Let's not ignore the fact that
Mary Kelly was 25 years old,
'Polly' Nichols was 43,
Annie Chapman was 47,
Elizabeth Stride was 45,
Catharine Eddowes was 46.
Big differences in my opinion! Yet none of the great detectives at the time, seem to have highlighted this point, in a report or something!
LEANNE |
Steven G. Harsch
Police Constable
Username: Mrsteve74656
Post Number: 3
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 6:12 pm: | |
I agree completely, Leanne! If these murders were committed today, I don't believe that the police or FBI would consider Mary Kelly one of the victims. Possible a copy-cat victim, but not the "geunuine" thing. Other than her being a prostitue, how does she fit into the Jack the Ripper victim profile? |
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 8:02 pm: | |
Regarding the question as to whether Kelly had been pregnant at the point of her murder I poste a couple of contemporary medical opinions with respect to two other Whitechapel murder victims.
Dr Killeen is reported to have stated.....
"he had made the most carefull examination (Post Mortem of Martha Tabram), and he could find no trace of the woman having had any children."
Henry Tabram, husband of victim, stated she had given birth to two boys, now aged 15 & 18 yrs.
(East London Advertiser, Aug 25, 1888)
Dr Brownfield is reported to have held the opinion....
...that the deceased (Rose Mylett) had never been a mother...
Victims mother stated her daughter had one child aged 7 yrs.
(Daily Chronicle, Dec 28, 1888)
One wonders the capabilities of medical expertise in the late 19th century to accurately determine the condition of the female uterus.
A second and smaller point is that we cannot assume Dr Bond would detail the condition of the uterus as "if it had been gravid he would have said so", not true.
In archeology there is a saying...."absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Just because we do not find it, does not mean it was not there, just because it is not stated does not mean it did not happen.
And for the record, I have no opinion as to the pregnancy of Mary Kelly, I just raise points to ponder.
Regards, Jon |
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 8:33 pm: | |
Post-mortem
I think it worthwhile to note that the practise of undertaking a through and detailed post-mortem in all cases of murder was well understood by all the doctors involved in the series of Whitechapel murders, Killeen, Llewellyn, Phillips, Brown, Bond, Brownfield, etc, etc. And much to our chagrin almost all of the official post-mortem reports have been lost to time and light-fingers.
We are fortunate in one example, that of the post-mortem report from Dr Phillips on the death of Alice McKenzie. For those who are fortune enough to have a copy of Stewarts 'Ultimate' you will find this excellent record on pages 455, 456, 457, 458, 459 & 460.
This is a fine example of how thorough a post-mortem was and how it was recorded.
Regards, Jon
PS, Dr Bond's report on his examination of Mary Kelly is not a post-mortem report, it is only a summary. |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 9:52 am: | |
I can't agree that a victim can be ruled in or out because of differences in age/ occupation/ habits etc. Many modern cases show us conclusively that yes a serial killer will pick and choose when able, but when unable will take the nearest available individual even when that individual falls outside of his target group.
Peter Sutcliffe generally preyed on older prostitutes but attacked and killed a schoolgirl when his choice target was unavailable.
The Boston Strangler attacked white, vunerable, ederly women, but when no choice was available attacked a young coloured woman.
Ted Bundy selected college girls with long dark hair but killed a very young schoolgirl with blonde hair when his match was not available.
Care is needed here. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 11:00 am: | |
Guys,
First, what links MJK in with the rest of the Ripper murders is that she was female, a prostitute, living in Whitechapel, who was murdered in the early hours, body mutilated and left in plain view.
Her age had nothing to do with it. She entered his "kill zone" when he was hunting. And all of the other prostitutes were reportedly much younger looking than they actually were - the Times and Telegraph, if I recall correctly - guessed their ages off by 10 years or more too young.
MJK's uterus was intact - it was under her head with her kidneys. I believe that Dr. Bond would have been thorough, and there's a difference between determining if a women has had a child or if she is currently pregnant - the fetus, primarily.
Not only this, but none of her contemporaries believed her to be pregnant, not even Barnett.
Why it even matters if she's pregnant, I don't understand - I guess this factors into some idea of motive on the part of someone other than the Ripper.
All the evidence we have points to MJK being a Ripper killing.
B |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 11:06 am: | |
" I believe that Dr. Bond would have been thorough, and there's a
difference between determining if a women has had a child or if she is
currently pregnant - the fetus, primarily."
Amen, bro.
It astonishes me to witness some of the leaps of logic that are being committed on this, and the Barnett threads.
Sir Robert
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 12:34 pm: | |
Yes, Brian and Sir Robert, quite right.
The leaps of logic are something to behold but like you I'll stick to common sense for me four pence.
Actually it might interest you to know that a chap I cross swords with elsewhere has actually worked it out that it would be universally impossible for two serial killers to be operating in the same small area using the same victim type and modus.
He made a good deal of common sense, and I feel is absolutely right.
The odds against anyone else killing Merry Kelly other than Jack are truly monumental, and I'm afraid fatally stacked against such happenstance. |
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 7:07 pm: | |
" I believe that Dr. Bond would have been thorough, and there's a difference between determining if a women has had a child or if she is currently pregnant - the fetus, primarily."
Absolutely, no question about that, I was thinking of the issue from two separate perspectives, which when re-reading my poste was apparently none too clear.
One was, had she been pregnant previously in her past, suggested by recent geneological research, and secondly was she in the early stages of pregnancy at the time of her murder.
This is speculated by some, among them who come to mind are the 'conspiracy' theorists and the Jill the Ripper (abortionist?) theorists, gladly and apparently no longer extant.
Geneological suggestion.....
"c. 1879: At the age of 16 she marries a collier named Davies. He is killed in an explosion two or three years later. There is a suggestion that there might have been a child in this marriage."
My point was that rather than suggest two doctors were unable to differentiat between a uterus which had been previously 'gravid' and one which had never been so described, it was more likely (or, was it more likely?) that this was the general level of expertise in the late 19th century. As evidenced by the two instances provided.
Secondly, the report written by Dr Bond (MEPO 3/3153, ff 10-18) is a very brief summary of what had to be originally a lenghty and detailed autopsy report, or simply a letter noting certain particulars for Dr Anderson.
Strangely it is dated '16th Nov.' long after the inquest, which had been concluded 4 days previously.
The other commonly known letter by Dr Bond is the one where he profiles the killer, this he wrote the next morning following the murder, Nov 10th.
The main issue with Dr Bond's report is that we assume if the uterus had been gravid he would have noted such, my point was that because his report was either a summary or an edited letter then that 'fact' may not have been included, if in fact it was true.
The original and obviously detailed (but missing) autopsy report by Dr Phillips would most certainly have noted such a detail if it was true.
And just for good measure, you may recall the only praticing surgeon, at the time of writing, researching the case was Nick Warren who offered the suggestion that he could see evidence of hatchet marks on the leg bone of Kelly's corpse. Nick was none too deterred by the fact that Dr Bond made no such mention of this detail.
Regards, Jon |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 8:42 pm: | |
"it might interest you to know that a chap I cross swords with
elsewhere has actually worked it out that it would be universally
impossible for two serial killers to be operating in the same small
area using the same victim type and modus."
Let us not forget that contemporaneous with Jack we have the Thames Torso killer, so we would have to start to postulate 3 serial killers hunting in the same area. Possible, but highly unlikely.
Sir Robert |
Saddam Hussein The Dictator
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 10:36 am: | |
The presence of cuts made on Kelly requiring a leverage tool indicates that the murderer knew ahead of time that he would be meeting a prostitute in a place where he would be able to use it. No wounds made by a leverage tool appeared on the bodies of any other victims.
SHTD |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 8:17 pm: | |
Dear Steven,
A mite heavy with the Hollandaise, maybe?
Rosey :-) |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 4:40 pm: | |
G'day Brian, Sir Robert, guys,
No one is saying that Mary Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim or that there were two prostitute killers working in the same small area at the same time!!!! The Barnett theorists are suggesting that Barnett was Jack the Ripper....'Simple Truth'.
As for the abortionist theorists....why didn't her killer take her uterus or throw it onto the fire to destroy all evidence?
Mary Kelly wasn't pregnant!
LEANNE |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 5:32 pm: | |
Would it have been possible for her to have miscarried the fetus during the assault or mutilation? I think it's highly likely that this would happen during such a vicious attack. Maybe no one noticed the fetus amongst all the carnage? They were looking for specific body parts while cleaning up the crime scene. Maybe no one thought to look for a 3 month old fetus? |
Faye
Sergeant
Username: Faye
Post Number: 20
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 9:57 pm: | |
Hi Valerie
I think the evidence points towards Kelly being dead within minutes. Perhaps even instant death. Even if she would have had a miscarriage from the attack, I doubt she lived long enough for the fetus to actually be rejected from the body.
Just a guess though. I don't have medical training, but I do know how a miscarriage works.
Faye |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 363
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
Hi all
I don't believe that Kelly was pregnant, though obviously doctors can make mistakes.
In chapter 28 of "Forty Years of Murder" Prof Keith Simpson discusses the murder of 14-year-old Constance Williams. Prof Simpson says that a senior west country pathologist performed a PM and failed to notice that the victim was seven months pregnant.
Here a mistake by one doctor was corrected by a second doctor. In the case of Kelly, several doctors were involved. Surely if she was pregnant, they couldn't all have overlooked it?
Robert |
Mick Lyden
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 7:49 pm: | |
Valerie,
Doctors spent hours piecing back together Mary's body in preparation for identification.It is therefore unlikely that they would have missed a foetus had it been there.
Also I would like to comment on the subject of the Rippers M.O.
The killer was not closely adhering to a strict set of rules as layed down in the well known "How to rip up a Whore and get away with it" guide.
He was simply taking advantage of oportunities that presented themselves in a given situation.
I believe these where sexually motivated killings and that the Ripper became addicted to the thrill that ripping open a woman and plunging his hands into the warm viscera gave him.
The Rippers confidence grew with each murder and consequently,with the exception of Stride, the savagery of each attack increased.
It is my belief that if we are going to analyze the Rippers behaviour,more attention should be payed to the simmilarities between each of the murders and the retention of certain features that Jack simply built upon as his nerve increased.
Those who doubt whether Kelly's murder was perpetrated by the same hand as the other four,often cite the fact that unlike the others,this murder was commited indoors.
They say that this aspect alone represents a significant departure from his M.O.
But Surely the Ripper would have chosen to commit all of the murders indoors had he been given the chance,safe in the knowledge that he would be undisturbed.
He would also have the satisfaction of knowing that his handiwork would be seen soon enough.
Regards,
Mick Lyden
|
shanney
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 10:29 am: | |
Maybe MJK wasn't pregnant but maybe Winifred Collis,Lizzie Albrook or ....was! Just a thought... |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
