|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:36 am: | 
|
Mary Jane was so badly tore up that police were not even sure that it was her. She was murdered at 4:00am however a witness says she saw Mary at 8:30am. Therefore i propose that Mary was the Ripper, she murdered another girl with similar features as Mary, mutilated her so the police would think that it was Mary, thus making her escape. However she made her only mistake and was seen. This would explian why the murders stopped after Mary's supposed death |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 710
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 1:49 am: |
|
Sam - thank you. You've solved it!! How could we have missed such an obvious solution?
I assume your post is a joke?
Let's look at it in detail, just in case you weren't joking.
MJK's body was identified by Barnett by her hair and eyes/or ears. Was he lying? If so was he a an accomplice?
Was she murdered at 4am? Or later? opinion is divided. Some argue she wasn't murdered at all (though without being "Jack" - or Jill) or if it was her she was killed later.
Read the various threads on Casebook about the sightings of MJK by Mrs Maxwell and others to see the arguments for and against. This is by no means clear cut.
If she made a "mistake" and was seen - what impact did that have? The body was buried as MJK's and I assume your mary then went off and lived a new life.
Many things might explain why the killings stopped after MJK's death. You cite one, but not the strongest.
What you do not mention is anything about her motive, or method. The idea of Jill the Ripper is not new (far from it) - but why did Mary kill the women and how many do you think she killed?
Is there any evidence to link her to the other killings? You mention only her "own" murder?
How do you relate MJK to the MAN seen assaulting Stride?
Just a few points to ponder, Sam,
Phil |
Sam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
Phil
ur points r very valid, obviously.
Barnett identified mary by her eyes and hair. This is by no means an extact positive. If u looked at only the eyes and hair of someone u know, would u recognise them. Also Mary was horrificacly torn up and therefore Barnett could have been dilusional due to the visual intensitiy
What difference does it make what time she was murdered? Soemone was murdered on that day and Mary was never seen again. This would support my view on Mary being the Ripper. And if Mary wasn't murdered then again this supports my view
Mrs Maxwell may have been mistaken, however she still could have seen Mary
The Ripper was very clever and so why not could the Ripper slip off and have a new life somewhere else - the Ripper was never caught remember
The killings did stop after MAry's death, i do cite one - not the strongest but to be overlooked
Mary's motive could have been many - rival prostitution, envy etc. Her method was described in the police report - The prostitues never had sexual intercourse - because they and the Ripper were both women, no maoney was found on the body's because they were not at work becauser they were walking with Mary, Mary new the area well.
The evidence to link her to the other killings is the fact that she wand the other girls were in close quarters, doing the same business - she earnt their trust and she gained knowledge from them
The 'man' assaulting Stride is easy - it was dark and latre at night, the witness could haver been easily mistaken
I know this isn't the strongest case, however it has all the elements to tie Mary to the Ripper
Sam |
Catherine Ann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 11:47 am: |
|
Yes actually Sam I would. Because nobody's hair is exactly the same. The eyes and hair were apparently the only thing which the ripper didn't harm. Mary apparently had very distinctive hair, a fine head of hair for instance that was almost to her waist!
We also don't know for a fact that the killings did stop. It seems there were others. The culprit possibly carried on the evil deeds elsewhere.
I actually go in for the theory of it being a "Jill the Ripper." A midwife, the prostitutes trusted. Or else a very posh gentleman that didn't seem like a killer at all. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 780
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 1:42 am: |
|
So we unearth another old "rave from the grave". I thought the mad mid-wife theory had been buried years ago. It seems not.
My advice is, have fun playing in the sandpit and join the grown ups when you have evolved.
On the other hand Catherine Ann, what do you mean by a "very posh gentleman" - what social class are you referring to:
* a peer of the realm or a member of the royal family? (Clarence/Lord Randolph etc)
* a country gentleman?
* someone from the squirearchy?
* a professional man - lawyer/doctor etc? (Druitt/Dr Stanley type)
* a middle class tradesman? (Maybrick type)
* a Jewish business man (from the Rothschilds to Lawende)
I could go on.
In 1888 each of these types would have been marked out by their dress, manner, force of personality/assurance; and would not easily have been mistaken for each other. This was an age of marked social ranking and also of deference. Disguise would not have been easy. A "lord" would have stood out in the East End like a sore thumb - so how did they pass unrobbed/murdered/noticed themselves?
Please try to root your theories in a modicum of their time not ours.
Phil |
becky
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
hey guys erm i think that it is a good point but most witnesses say that the muderer was a man with a mans build and MJK was meant to have a thin build and the other victims were older and not as pretty so why would she be jelous cos more people would go for her right? or am i just talking weirdly?
oh well its a good point though,
becky xx} |
Tuffty
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
laughable.
purely laughable, and disrespectful.
i know this is a very interesting case, but can we bear in mind that these are actual people who were murdered, not just there for us to disect through and point fingers.
i think it's enough that she was murdered in the horrifying way that the killer attacked the poor girl, her memory really doesn't need you to call her the ripper aswell. |
Gatsby
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Tuffty,
Everyone that has ever been named as a Ripper suspect is dead. How is it any less respectful to Mary's memory than it is to say: sickert, Maybrick, Chapman etc.?
And, most people that believe Mary Kelly was the Ripper do not believe that she was murdered - which would have to be the case.
There is nothing laughable about the theory that Mary Kelly was the ripper. Of all the supposed "eyewitness accounts," the sightings of MJK after she had supposedly been murdered seem the most believable accounts to me. The person who says that she saw Mary actually knew Mary which makes it far less likely that she was simply mistaken. So, I think it is something worth consideration. Every other eyewitness account of the supposed "ripper" was nothing more than a man seen with a prostitute which may have been the killer, or more likely someone looking to buy sex.
So MJK as the ripper seems like as valid a theory as any other to me.} |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
