|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The Overkill of Mary Kelly
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Ripper Victims:
The Overkill of Mary Kelly
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 24 August 2002 - 12:30 am |        | | The actual murderer was an extremely wealthy man that also, at times, was obsessed with a pittance. While having several hundred dollars abandoned in one bank, and several thousand sitting in another, he hounded his lover for a lousy two pounds. He was wealthy, but not beneath begging for a night's lodging. That's what happens, sometimes, when you grow up dirt poor... |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 24 August 2002 - 07:42 am | | Hi Jon
I'm not sure that I'd accuse Peter of skirting the issue. It seemed to me that he pointed out fairly that we have a clue in the inferentially missing money (and the possible coins left with Annie Chapman), but left it to us to draw either the obvious or some more recondite conclusion.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 24 August 2002 - 08:28 am | | Hi Martin.
Perhaps skirting was a poor choice of word. I found Peter's suggestion interesting but I did not get the impression he centered his observation on the missing money.
I found agreement in much of what Peter suggested about the missing coins, but rather than think the coins are part of some fetish or trophy, I think a more mundane answer is acceptable, that is that he was simply poor.
Peters observation.....
"Now I cannot imagine any prostitute, now or then, getting to that point without payment first."
....is often overlooked and is a telling factor.
Its a possibility, nothing more, but if correct will remove most suspects from the dubious list we are presented with.
No, R.J., the killer wasn't slumming.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Timsta
Saturday, 24 August 2002 - 10:54 am | | Hi all.
Opportunistic theft was rampant in the area at the time. Why should the WM have been any different? He wasn't to know they were only carrying coppers, after all. For all he knows, they may have had an extremely profitable night (although in reality if that had been the case they probably wouldn't have been out on the streets at the times they were, but perhaps he doesn't realise that).
Plus, I think he wants his money back. I suspect nothing would annoy him more than giving money to a "dirty whore".
Regards
Timsta |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 24 August 2002 - 11:07 am | | Peter--In regards to your observation-
'Some of the victims surely might have had coins from previous business too. Just because you can't afford fourpence doss money doesn't mean you don't have a farthing or two about your person.'
Note that in the case of Frances Coles, money was found hidden a short distance from the body, behind a drainpipe. These women were used to being 'rolled' after being seen with a customer and might well have hid the money immediately. Or 'Banking by Consumption', ie., spending it on food or ale or lodging as soon as it was earned.
Jon--I appreciate your skepticism. However, I'm not speculating. Call me R.A. Jr. 'It is an ascertained fact.'
I don't know whether or not your parents were children of the Great Depression, but there are certain people who, regardless of how well-off they become, will stoop to pick up a penny everytime. Now if the suspect had been, for instance, an uncared for boy growing up dirt poor Irish [hint, hint]...
But seriously, Tumblety was not a 'slummer' in the usual sense. This would be a mistake. He preferred the slums and lived in them for weeks at a time. The article from the San Francisco Chronicle is a very telling one in regards to T's personality. Along about 1879 or so he shows up unkempt, destitute, and begging a night's lodging. But he was far from poor. He had a severe personality disorder of some kind. The next few summers found him travelling first-class in Europe. In his particular case, his wealth does not boot him from the 'dubious' list.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 24 August 2002 - 05:17 pm | | I certainly find it less lkely that a wealthy Ripper would rob a victim, but not guaranteed. My father was a child of the Great Depression and always pinched pennies so I have to give R.J.P. that one.
Of course, if we're talking about the overkill, money or lack of money in Mary's apartment isn't going to make much difference as Jack had quite a bit of time and could take the coins at his leisure.
I also think it's obvious that the time alone can account for the overkill. Alternate theories that put extra special meaning on the thoroughness of the disassembling of the body (different killer, Mary was special to the killer, some occult ceremony that required such gore) have to be pretty damn persuasive to overcome Occam's Razor (roughly, the simplest explanation is most likely).
Of course, things aren't simple 100% of the time, so there *could* be more at work here than simply a serial killer finally having some quality time to be alone with a woman without the risk of being walked in on. I just don't find it likely.
Dan |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 07:53 am | | | I think there was an escalation at work as well. He needed to do more and more each time. It may even be that he waited for weeks to find someone he could kill indoors because he needed to spend more time with the victim. |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 06:53 am | | Jon -
My point really was that (inferentially) there should have been a small amount of money on the victims, and so - for whatever reason - the killer needed to recover it. I postulated some reasons, but my central point is that to recover the money must have taken some time.
I think this is significant because it would have increased the time he spent with the victim, and hence his risk of capture and disturbance. This (to me) increases the credibility of various claims that he didn't complete or start the mutilation phase of his event because it was disturbed, and it also makes me think that the exposure to risk may have become part of the excitement. |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 07:08 am | | Dan -
I didn't express myself well - I was proposing a simple (but opposite) reason for overkill. JTR may have thought that indoors would be better, as has been suggested by Diana, but when he finally achieved this, actually it didn't work as well (from his point of view) as expected.
This would provide an additional reason why this style of event wasn't repeated. It also seems to me a more valid reason for him despairing and finally going mad or committing suicide. I'd have thought that if he enjoyed it he'd try to repeat it - I don't buy the idea of a JTR so appalled by the event that he couldn't live with it - I think that implies a too-normal reaction in someone who by this point was about as far from normal as you could get.
It also, of course, might be used as an argument that he went back to his normal outdoor style, but never again managed to get as much time for jolly as he got with Eddowes.
Cheers
Pete |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Friday, 30 August 2002 - 04:36 am | | Hi all
I hadn't paid much attention to MJK and Miller's Court before. Because of the uncertainty of whether she was a victim I was trying not to draw too many conclusions - however, I went and looked up the inquest testimony. Very puzzling.
First of all no less than 3 women, Mary Ann Cox, Sarah Lewis, and Julia Venturney claim to have been awake all night. They describe various comings and goings, but the never see or hear blotchy face man leave, Mary going out to pick up Astrakhan, or Mary and Astrakhan arriving, or Astrakhan leaving, or Hutchinson prowling about. Hmmm. Ms Cox does however hear one of her neighbours going to work, and someone leaving at 6. Also, at 1.00, Mary is singing according to Ms. Cox, but Elizabeth Prater just at the corner of the court doesn't hear her.
Second, if we assume for a moment that Astrakhan isn't the killer, just the night's second punter - bear in mind he's been seen and knows he's been seen by Hutchinson - then Mary has to go out again and pick up a third punter about 3.30-3.45. Remember to date Jack's been killing on the street, so unless he's already decided to change his method that's where he's going to meet Kelly.
If we assume that this isn't what happened and he is someone who knows Kelly is in her room, he _also_ has to enter the court, hide there, and wait for Astrakhan to leave. He is not heard either.
Thirdly - and most confusingly - no-one hears all the door opening and closing that must have accompanied this. And finally, the Ripper, as he leaves, LOCKS THE DOOR! How dare he do that? How does he know the lock won't make a noise? Even if the lock doesn't need a key, won't it make a loud click? The lock on MY door does, why doesn't this one - and if it IS silent, how does he know it??
Can anyone enlighten me on these events? And I do know about Joe and Hutch. Sure, if either one of them is the killer it might make things a bit simpler. If it's Hutch and he's completely fabricating, there is still the question of the lock, and what he's up to until 4ish when the murder 'noise' (one witness says softly and muffled - the other says scream - can't even agree on that, fer goodness sake!). If it's Joe, he's very good at silent rage. No-one hears him come or go, and yet he must be lurking about both for Astrakhan to go and Hutchinson to go. Unless he just turns up in the middle of the night having nursed his anger for several hours and trusts to luck. And WHY does HE lock the door? Nothing worth going back in there for....
And I haven't even tried to think about the woman who saw MJK next morning. Is ANY of this evidence worth a light?
Help!
Pete |
Author: Monty
Friday, 30 August 2002 - 12:08 pm | | Ooooo pete,
Your gooooood !
What is another door shutting and being locked ?
I here plenty near my place yet I couldnt tell you exactly each time they were closed and locked.
Hearing is one thing but whether is registers is down do the individuals. I suppose it was just missed.
As for your other points....Im justas baffled !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Monty
 |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 30 August 2002 - 04:21 pm | | Peter,
I don't think we can read too much into people not hearing or seeing more on that night. This wasn't some situation where people were trying to be on the lookout. This was just an average night in a populated area that would have a lot of noises and sights that people wouldn't pay that much attention to.
"They describe various comings and goings, but they never see or hear [list of people deleted] or Hutchinson prowling about."
Actually, Sarah Lewis did report at the inquest seeing someone hanging around who could very well have been Hutchinson. Garry Wroe's ebook does a good job of pointing the finger at him, which would certainly explain why nobody else saw the person he claimed to have seen or some hypothetical customer after that one.
Really though I don't think the lack of noise and witnesses is much to go on. After all, it's not like there was anything more substantial seen or heard at previous killings, and those were in areas with lots of people within earshot also.
Dan |
Author: Garry Wroe
Saturday, 31 August 2002 - 03:07 am | | Hi Dan.
Thanks for plugging the book - again!
Hi Pete.
Dan has very ably indicated why, without external corroboration, eyewitness testomony is all but useless for forensic purposes. Memory is dependent on arousal. Without arousal, the brain does not process the details of an event to a depth that allows for accurate memory retrieval. 1888 Spitalfields was a turbulent locality wherein riotous behaviour was an everyday reality. As such, a banging door or a woman's scream would have been nothing out of the ordinary and therefore attracted little attention. This, of course, equates with low arousal and thus poor memory consolidation. Add to this the fact that most, if not all, of the witnesses in question had consumed alcohol and the confusion over specific details should come as no great surprise.
As has been mentioned by Dan, many of the issues raised in your posting are dealt with in Chapter 8 of Person or Persons. All you need do is click on this link.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 05:07 am | | Thanks Dan and Garry - I'll go read the book.
Cheers
Pete |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 08:19 pm | | Hi all.
Time to bump this thread again I think.
Begg, Ch 10: "A friend named Lizzie Albrook said that Kelly had also spoken of a relative who was on the stage in London." (Footnoted: "Lizzie Albrook. Statement to press (probably to the Press Association). Western Mail (Cardiff), 12 November 1888.)
Hmmmm. Weren't most of McCarthy's daughters on the stage? Mrs Carthy (almost certainly McCarthy or M'Carthy as it was often spelled) of Breezer's Hill. I know someone on the boards (Neal Shelden?) pretty conclusively debunked the John/Mary McCarthy-Breezer's Hill connection (different John McCarthy) but something still keeps nagging away at my brain about this. Something to do with huge rent arrears, maybe?
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 11:39 am | | Some considerable time ago I recall reading that some investigation into the geneology of Mary Kelly, or in a discussion of the same, had turned up the fact that Mary's mother's maiden name was McCarthy.
In 'The History of the Whitechapel Murders' (Fox, 1888), on page 34 we read....
"....The landlord of this and neighboring rooms is a John McCarthy, who keeps a little shop on Dorset Street, on the side of the passage. About a year ago he rented it to a woman who looked about thirty. She was popular among the females of the neighborhood, who shared her beer generously, as I have been tearfully informed, and went under the title of Mary Jane McCarthy. Her landlord knew that she had another name, Kelly, but her friends had not heard of it.
If there were any family connection between Mary Jane and her landlord it might shed more insight into her death. Or, possibly, just another one of those annoying coincidences. Conversely, it might help understand why she decended to the East End so rapidly.
Regards, Jon
The Boston Daily Globe, Nov. 10, 1888, ask's....
"The one question in everybody's mind is, Can the murderer of Mary Jane McCarthy or Kelly be found?
Unfortunately, American press reports are full of errors, more so than the British reports.
The article by Paul Daniel raises some interesting questions, and lets not forget Mrs McCarthy claimed to have received a postcard from Jack the Ripper.
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-mkb.html?show=all |
Author: Timsta
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 12:57 pm | | Whoa.
This from the IGI:
Mary KELLY
Sex: F
Event(s):
Birth: 19 Apr 1864
0240, Castletown District, Limerick, Ireland
Parents:
Father: John KELLY
Mother: Anne MCCARTHY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Information:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Batch number: Dates Source Call No. Type Printout Call No. Type
C701231 -1864 0101089 Film
Anyone found or researched this one before?
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Timsta
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 01:02 pm | | And:
John KELLY
Sex: M
Event(s):
Birth: 19 Apr 1866
0199, Castletown District, Limerick, Ireland
Parents:
Father: John KELLY
Mother: Anne MCCARTHY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Information:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Batch number: Dates Source Call No. Type Printout Call No. Type
C701296 -1866 0101134 Film
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Timsta
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 01:03 pm | | And:
Peter KELLY
Sex: M
Event(s):
Birth: 29 Jun 1868
0194, Castletown District, Limerick, Ireland
Parents:
Father: John KELLY
Mother: Anne MCCARTHY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Information:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Batch number: Dates Source Call No. Type Printout Call No. Type
C701366 -1868 0101174 Film
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Timsta
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 02:15 pm | | Hi all.
Apparently this entry is mentioned in Andy and Sue Parlour's book (which I don't own *yet*).
Anyone know what research has been done on this?
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 04:42 pm | | Do you remember Thomas Bowyer saying, at the inquest, "I did not know the deceased by the name of Kelly"?.
I always thought it was a strange thing to say. We, today, automatically assume that the name given to her at the inquest was the name she was commonly known by, but maybe not. She may have used more than one surname.
Obviously there are times when we all suffer from the Anderson disease......we only think we know.
regards, Jon |
Author: Timsta
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 01:14 am | | Jon:
It's late here, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but Caroline Maxwell, and possibly others at the inquest, testified "I knew the deceased by the name of Mary Jane". No "Kelly".
On a different tack, can't be that difficult to see if there's a John Kelly, birthdate as above, in the 2nd Battalion Scots Guards. Or are the rumors of incomplete records true?
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Jim Leen
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 07:19 am | | Hello Everybody,
Knowing people only by their first name, or by sight, is not exactly uncommon. We all have acquaintances whose life away from the pub/work etc is a mystery to us.
I mean, good-looking fellow that I am too, lots of people just know me as "Fatso" or "Stop! Thief!" Blinking cheek.
Thanking you.
Jim Leen |
|
|
|
|
