|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through March 22, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Mary kelly:
Archive through March 22, 2000
Author: Robert Brogan
Sunday, 05 March 2000 - 12:14 am |        | | As a new reader of Ripper theories, I hope this question does not seem to amatuerish. Why the horrible overkill commited on mary kelly, what was jack trying to do here? If mutilation such as this was his primary motive, surely he could have secured a room to take his time with the others as well, why risk getting caught in the open. If this were to occur today, would police suspect that this murder was commited by another person? Seems that the MO is totally different here. |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 05 March 2000 - 12:16 pm | | Robert,
Yours is an excellent question. The time-worn, and in my view inadequate, reasons for the overkill in Miller's Court, are (1) that the Ripper for the first time lucked-into a situation of a prostitute having private quarters indoors, where he could mutilate to his heart's content, so he did so, and then quit murdering because he'd satisfied his real desire, or, (2) he was really after Mary Jane Kelly all along, she's the one he really hated, he was really just warming up with the previous murders. So he knocks the old harry out of her when he finally gets the chance, then quits because he has reached his goal.
Reflecting on these "solutions," we can see easily enough that they are likely to be mere conveniences and conventionalizations, not answers to basic questions. They attempt to set up a predicatable wheel of causality using empirical trivia. But, you see, this kind of thinking doesn't work. Schopenhauer tried to do this in his emprircal metaphysics, and was debunked. Hope ever springs eternal in the mind of the unwise.
Thank you for your insightful question.
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 05:43 am | | | Uhh...what ? |
Author: stacie gendreaux
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 05:47 pm | | If Mary Kelley was a culmination murder, that would suggest that the killer knew her. Was she a relative, a wife, etc? Did he kill the others as a warning to her (when I get my hands on you...) or as practice?
These theories, however inticing, will not lead us to the killer or will they? Could it be possible that he WAS related to Mary? He did stop killing after her. How would one go about finding out if it was a disgruntled husband, boyfriend or brother?
I am also new to this list and am looking forward to discussing many things on this bb. Thank you for opinions.
Stacie |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 19 March 2000 - 06:56 am | | G'day Stacie,
Read Bruce Paley's book: 'Jack the Ripper, The Simple Truth'. It introduces Kelly's boyfriend Joseph Barnett as a suspect and includes a detailed reference for each fact.
Leanne. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 19 March 2000 - 01:29 pm | | While MJK was undoubtedly the worst case of mutilation, you can, if you look at the autopsy reports, see a gradual escalation with each of the victims. If you choose to start with Tabram, she was stabbed, but not cut open. Nichols had a gash in her abdomen from which her intestines protruded, but nothing was removed. Niether she nor Tabram had facial cuts. Chapman had her intestines pulled out and her uterus removed, but still no facial cuts. Stride was either not a ripper murder, or Diemschutz interrupted Jack before he could finish what he started. Eddowes had her abdomen opened, her intestines thrown out, her uterus and one kidney removed and for the first time there were facial mutilations.
Of course when you get to Kelly that atrocious picture says it all. I think that whatever sick need Jack had, he had to do a little more each time to fulfill it. |
Author: Jim Leen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 05:43 am | | Hello Everybody,
There are a few things about the demise of the unfortunate Mary Kelly which, I feel, point to a hand other than that of Jack the Ripper as perpetrator. For one thing it has been theorised that a sheet was covering some of Kelly's face which would seem to indicate that she was asleep when attacked. Surely this would demonstrate a complete change in the modus operandi of the killer?
Also, there are the discrepancies in the witnesses view of events, chief amongst which must surely be the testimony of a certain George Hutchinson. I feel that Hutchinson made up his testimony to protect Joe Barnett. However, until such time as a link between the pair can be shown this is mere speculation.
Finally, there is one other aspect which may cast a slant upon Hutchinson. After her death MJK's friends spoke of a relationship which she was having with a man, other than Barnett, but also called "Joe." In some parts of the world, i.e. Ireland and Scotland, a man named George is nicknamed "Geo", pronounced gee-oh. Now put that into a soft Irish accent, amend it into a Cockney, and what does it sound exactly like?
So was MJK's other paramour "Joe" or "Geo"?
Thanking you etc.
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 06:12 am | | Hi Rabbi Lean. The other thing against Mary being a victim of Jack is that the killer changed his modus operandi by killing her. His first four victims are middle-aged prostitutes and all are killed outside. Then suddenly the fifth victim is a young and attractive girl and she is killed indoors : what has been the reason for the change ? I don't believe Joe did it but try this for size : Joe could read. And he reads in the paper that a certain ' Mary Kelly ' ( i.e. Catherine Eddowes under her assumed name ) has become the latest victim of the Ripper. And he might think to himself ' Hmmm , that might be the way to sort out my Mary... '. Just a thought , but it does explain the following mystery : when there were 80,000 prostitutes in London , how come the last two out of the five victims of the Ripper were both named ' Mary Kelly '. That is one BIG coincidence. But if Joe had copied the Ripper , then it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 11:41 am | | Rabbi:
Sorry to disagree with you but I have never come across a George being referred to as Geo (other than as a shortened form similar to Jno. for John and Wm. for William and used only in writing). I don't believe it exists as a spoken form.
By the way, did you see Dr. Anthony Joseph on the TV last night?
Peter. |
Author: Jim Leen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 03:24 pm | | Hello Everybody,
Peter it's probably, as I said, a regional thing. In fact, up here in the wild wastes of the west of Scotland there is a disc jockey named George who is known as "Geo the Hitman". Geo, as a nickname, verbally communicated, is not uncommon up here at all, or in Ireland.
Simon, statistics are a wonderful and curious thing. The way that fake faith healers and fortune tellers operate is by having a good knowledge of "coincidence." Do you know, for instance, that in a fair sized crowd there is one chance in 22 of someone else present sharing your name and birthdate? It's not magic, it's fraud. Even worse, some people believe it!
Thanking you etc
(no longer Rabbi, just) Jim Leen |
Author: Jim Leen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 03:28 pm | | Peter,
Just a quick addition. Being one of those curious people who don't actually posess a tv I'm afraid to say that I didn't catch Dr. Joseph though I would be obliged if you could give me a quick summary.
Thanking you etc
Jim Leen |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 04:43 pm | | Simon makes an interesting observation, but one that I feel must always be treated with caution. "Joe Barnett could read." I would be careful to use this as a prelude to assuming MJKs ignorance of the written word.I have often seen it theorised that Mary Kelly could not read, but this has always been based on Barnett's testimony that he used to read to her about the Ripper murders. He did not say she herself could not read.
It may be argued that what he was saying was a common East End reference, and that his listeners would naturally know MJK was illiterate, but this is to presume much. Perhaps Kelly merely liked the sound of Barnett's voice; I used to date a lady who was immensely well-read, but would often ask me to read to her. So may it have been with Kelly.
Good God, Jim, have you been kicked out of the rabbinate? Say at least you'll keep giving us your Talmudic wisdom, without which - in my opinion - the boards would be much poorer. |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 08:06 pm | | JIM L. & PETER: Isn't using Geo as shorthand for George a modern abbreviation? Here in the USA there's a car--a spin off from Chevrolet-named the GEO. My six year old grandnephew George is called GEO to reduce confusion--because his dad & granddad are named George also.
Ten years ago or so, I never heard anyone or anything anywhere called GEO. How long has your D.J. been on the air, Jim?
Butting out now ...
Janice |
Author: stacie gendreaux
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 12:07 am | | My, this is a busy list!! I want to thank Leane for the suggestion, I wished my schedule would permit book reading! Like I said before, maybe JtR knew Mary all along. Or maybe he coveted her all along. You know, have sex (and kill) the ugly ones before you could get the nerve to go after the prize. So far as the change of MO, she had her own house and he had nothing but time and privacy. Why not take the opportunity to do all things that you wanted to do? Did JtR actually have sex with the girls or if he did, did he leave any ej. behind? Some men are non-secreters. Would that have been any help to the cops if he ha left any behind?
If my posts seem a little naive, I am sorry, but I am new here.
Thanks for listening,
stacie |
Author: lee donovan
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 02:13 am | | If Jack the Ripper Knew Mary Kelly all along (as some people suspect) then why on earth kill all the others if it was Mary Kelly he wanted all along. Bruce Paleys book The Simple Truth is drawing my attention to Mary Kellys boyfriend Joseph Barnett, Which might explain why he killed all the others. We may never know.
Cheers
Lee ( relatively new Ripper fan ) |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 04:53 am | | Why Should Hutchinson protect anyone but himself.
AS for the sheet over the face,could it have been a subconcious effort at protection,or a means of shutting out the inevitable.In terror,it is not unusual to adopt the foetal position and cover the face.
A word on Hutchinson's testimony.It was a smart move on Aberlines part to accept it as it is given.It does not indicate that Aberline accepted its truthfulness in full,but it would serve a useful purpose at that particular time. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 07:51 am | | | Good point CMD. It is possible that MJK was merely short-sighted and could not afford to purchase spectacles to correct this deficiency , or perhaps she did not want to because she was vain. Even this may not be the case. Mary's room was badly lit , it is probable that her grate was small and only one person could sit by the fire at a time if they had a fully opened newspaper in their hands. The light of the fire would have been necessary to read by in such a dingy room. Thus I imagine Joe would sit at the fire , reading aloud as was customary with the Victorians. Mary might have lain on the bed with her eyes closed listening to him or doing a bit of embroidery , according to her wishes. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 03:40 pm | | Hi, Simon and CMD:
My presumption is that Mary Jane Kelly was illiterate. However, as my friend CMD points out, that may not necessarily have been so. Living in our present-day society with its (more or less or at least greater) equality of the sexes, we tend to forget that in the late Victorian period, men heavily dominated the society. The men were the newspaper readers; women might read books but generally not newspapers. The males were "men of the world" whereas convention dictated that in theory women were protected from the evils and rigors world. Yes, this convention might be followed superficially even in a household with a prostitute and her man.
In the nineteenth century, well-to-do women, let alone lower class women, were not expected to be capable of being, let alone aspiring to be, intellectuals. Women such as the Bronte sisters, Virginia Woolf, or George Eliot, were an extreme rarity in aspiring to achieve in the male-dominated sphere of writing literature. A woman of MJK's class would not have had much if any education, and in any case, even if she did, she would have deferred to her "man" as the person to read the newspaper even if she was capable of reading from the Bible or a book of poetry.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 03:55 pm | | The Elementary Education Act was passed in 1870. Though this obviously did not transform England into a nation of literati overnight, it is something to be considered when we think about the intellectual capacities of the dramatis personae of the Ripper story.
We do not know what sort of education (if any) Kelly received. She may even have been too late for compulsory schooling, depending on whether we accept a birthdate of 1865, 1862 or whenever. It is at least within the realm of possibility that she could read or at least sign her name, and I think we must allow for that until further information (such as an "X" next to her name on Eddy's marriage certificate) turns up. |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 12:15 am | | "The intellectual capacities of the dramatis personae," eh? Sounds good. I'd like to see a topic on this some day.
Like, how bright do you really have to be to be a Met constable? I wonder how smart ol' "Indian Harry" Bowyer was, eh? He seems like just your basic rent enforcer, as I read him. Not very much petrol in these tanks, matey.
David |
|
|
|
|
