Archive through February 14, 1999

** 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 February 14, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Archive through February 14, 1999

Author: A. Dylan Gable Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:00 pm
I thought of something the other day when I was at work (it's weird, but I do my best thinking at work). Anyway, it occurred to me that if Mary Kelly's face was so terribly hacked up, why were her eyes (relatively) intact?? They're (I would imagine) one of the easiest parts of a face to destroy by accident. I wonder if JTR just missed hitting them with his knife, or if he purposely left them intact for some reason?? I've often heard a rumor that Mary Kelly was pregnant at the time of the murder. Has this ever been confirmed??
Author: Bo Lundin Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:00 pm
I visited Mary Kelly's gravesite in St. Patrick's, Leytonstone, on Nov 9, 1988; she had got flowers from John and Sue and from Bill and is probably the only East End whore to get flowers on the centenary of her death... The grave is rather far away from the entrance, a bit to the right from the main road, not too far away from the wall. I vaguely remember that there was a small statue of a boy (football player?) in the same row. Kelly has a small white marble cross marked R.I.P and the somewhat surprising text "Marie Jeanette Kelly/Aged 25/"The Primadonna of Spitalfields"/and last known victim/of Jack the Ripper/Died Fri 9th Nov 1888." The cross and the inscription is there thanks to (or perhaps due to) a Jim Morrison, who is or was fascinated by Kelly. Didn't he write a book about her too? Or is he just mentioned and pictured at the graveside in a Ripper book? I know I've seen him and the grave somewhere in print...
Author: Michael Rogers Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:01 pm
Several previous books and now the upcoming "Jack the Ripper--First American Serial Killer" by Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey raise a cloud of doubt as to whether Mary Kelly was indeed a Ripper victim. For my money, and I'm sure for most other Ripper aficionados, the Kelly killing was the most vicious. Now if JTR didn't kill Kelly, who did? Some have pointed to Joe Barnett, theorizing that he killed and butchered her to allude suspicion by making it look like a Ripper killing. My problem with that is that I can't see him or anyone else who was sane committing such an awful deed even to mask their guilt by making it look like a Ripper act. The Ripper was extremely driven to kill and the mutilation of the body was no doubt the point of the killing for various psychological reasons. It seems that the mutilation was enjoyable for Jack and that a "normal" person would not go that far. Or would they? Did somebody else slaughter Kelly, or could an act so intense only have one author? What are people's thoughts? It is a hell of a tantalizing question whether Kelly was a true victim or not. I know there's the whole question of Barnett's guilt and all that, but if she wasn't killed by JTR then who the hell did snuff her? For my money, and I think most people's, Kelly's murder was the most brutal. If it was someone else who was trying to cover their tracks by making it look like a Ripper killing, it still would take a hell of a lot for a person to bring themselves to cut her into pieces like that. I just can't see your average killer doing it, especially if it was just a pissed off client or a domestic squabble. It's just too horrible.
Author: Koji Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:01 pm
My personal belief on this is that Kelly was a Ripper victim and that this was intended by the murderer from the start of his bloody career. However, I can understand why some people question her status as a victim. All other victims were killed outside whereas she was killed indoors. At the very least, it shows that the Ripper wasn't content with just any prostitute that night, but he had to murder Kelly, and the other supposition from this is that she may not have been a Ripper victim at all. It is impossible to tell which way her throat was cut because of her extensive mutilations so people could argue on this point. In my opinion, a case could be made for each ripper victim not being one - Elizabeth Stride was not mutilated, Catherine Eddowes was killed in a different district, Annie Chapman in a back yard etc. The point is that these are very linear arguments and I dont think it can be reasonably assumed that Kelly was killed by anybody except the man known as Jack the Ripper.
Author: OdetoPoe Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:02 pm
There are quite a few differences between Mary Kelly's death and the others. - Her murder was the most brutal. - She was the only one that her heart 'taken'. - She was the youngest. - Some say she was the prettiest. - She was murdered in her home. I'm sure there are number of other differences. I can't quite imagine that it was someone other than 'Jack'. The differences can easily fall into a sort of 'upgrade' in 'Jack's' ambitions (the next step). I'll have to read more about the other theories, but as it stands now, It certainly seems 'Jack' did it.... I was about to say no one could be so brutal, but I just recalled the 'limbless' bodies found after Mary's death (1889 I believe)....
Author: Jim DiPalma Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:02 pm
I believe Kelly was a Ripper victim. I don't believe she was killed by either a copycat killer, or by Joe Barnett. As I understand it, a large part of the motive of copycat killers is to feed off the publicity and excitement generated by the original killing. If there were a copycat killer in Whitechapel, it is more likely that he would have acted shortly after the double event, when public furor over the murders was at its greatest level, rather than some six weeks later. As someone who had co-habitated with the victim, and had a close personal relationship with her, Joe Barnett would have been a natural suspect. Almost certainly, the police must have questioned him as to his whereabouts at the time of the murder, yet I have read nothing to indicate the police ever considered Barnett a serious suspect. This suggests he had an alibi, and that it checked out.
Author: Martin Wolverton Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:03 pm
It seems to me to be quite a stretch to discount Kelly as a "ripper" victim. First off, the idea that there was wore than one serial killer of the Ripper's type operating in Whitechapel in the fall of 1888 is very improbable. Second, although her murder was the most horrific, the window of oportunity had opened for the killer and therefore he had more time to complete the mutilations on Kelly. There are enough similarities between the injuries that Kelly received and those inflicted upon, say, Eddowes to allow any doubt that we are dealing with the same killer. On the other hand, medical technology of the late 19th century would not be able to prove if the crimes had been commited by the same hand. This, combined with the fact that the killer was never caught, means that we will never know the real number and identities of Jack the Ripper victims. Like so many other questions relating to this case, the answer must be inconclusive.
Author: Jeffrey Harris Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:03 pm
I don't believe that the murder Mary Kelly was a copycat killing. The four almost universally accepted killings - Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Catherine Eddows, and Mary Kelly (nothing can be certain in this case) become more and more savage and barbaric in the way they were carried out. It also lends credence to the possibility of Martha Tabrham being a possible victim. But the next question has to be why did 'Jack' stop killing after Mary Kelly. I cannot believe that a person who is 'crazy' enough to kill so many people in such a short period of time can suddenly just go into a retirement of sorts. Unless 'Jack' died or was otherwise incapacitated, he had to have a specific purpose for killing ? number of victims.
Author: Donald Perkins Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:03 pm
No, Kelly was not a Ripper victim. Prior to her murder, the victims were all 43-47 yo, 5'-5'5" brunettes.This establishes a victim profile which Kelly (25 5'7" blonde) does not fit. Hers was probably a copycat murder.
Author: Richie Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:04 pm
Of all the victims of the ripper gang (yes, i'm a conspiracy fan), mary kelly seems to be the biggest mystery. by most accounts, she was down right attractive. you can't say that for the rest of the victims. and it is her beauty that poses the biggest questions. for one, what was a cute, young, and supposedly smart girl doing in the east end? it was a last resort for the down-trodden. kelly was too young for that. certainly her looks and smarts would have come up with something better. if there's any truth to melvin fairclough's book about a royal conspiracy, kelly becomes almost as interesting a mystery as finding out who killed all these women to begin with. was she really an informer? is it possible that she managed to set up another girl to take the fall? was she really seen the next day? i believe so. and if there's any truth to the book, it's no wonder why she vanished in to thin air. as shaky as the book may be, one thing sticks out-mary kelly. so un-like the rest. little history to her. no mention of a mother or father. no mention of family coming to the funeral. no after-math. nothing. it's just that i feel something's missing.
Author: Thomas M. Eubank Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:04 pm
I think that Mary Kelly was undoubtly a victim of JTR. I find it near impossible to belive otherwise. If we look as this murder in relation to the genrally accepeted five, it does seem to fit the pattern. Each of the victims were progressivly worse than the last, with the exception of the third. This one would have fallen into the same pattern if his work had not have been cut short by Mr. D. So what we see is a pattern of escalating violence with each of the victims, finaly reaching its horribile conclusion with Mary Kelly.
Author: August01 Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:05 pm
Is it known if Mary Kelly bore an resemblance to any of the suspects mothers,sisters,wifes or girlfriends? He seem to have been very brutal to her.
Author: Colin Heaton Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:05 pm
Can you confirm that Kelly was stabbed through the sheet which had been pulled over her head??? If so why ? the Ripper never did that before he just strangled them put them down and cut their throats. Why not look her in the face it never bothered him before?????? Unless she ment a great deal to him and he couldn't look her in the face.
Author: Robert Crawford Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:06 pm
There seems to be as much evidence to support Kelly being a fugitive victim of a copycat killer as there is to suggest that she was the Ripper's fifth victim. The differences in her murder certainly are intriguing, although they don't even begin to suggest any deviation fro JTR's established MO and signature. However, the differences cannot be dismissed. WHY was Kelly killed, as she was by far the prettiest and youngest of the five? WHY was her key missing, which suggests that her murder wasn't a random one as the other four seem to have been? Why was graffiti (the "F M" on the wall next to her bed) scrawled at the murder scene and not the other four? WHY was her heart missing, and WHY did the Ripper allegedly perform an abortion on her? Walter Sickert's ridiculous "theories" notwithstanding, we have to seriously consider the Maybrick diary, which seems to have attracted a curious amount of apathy, as if its mysterious provenance alone dismisses it from serious consideration. Remember, Kelly's liver was placed between her feet, and Maybrick was from LIVERpool. Maybrick also alluded to her missing heart, a fact which Scotland Yard had withheld from the public for 100 years until the files (or what was left of them) were unsealed in 1988. Yet, Kelly was the only victim of the five who wasn"t called "Ann" or "Annie" either in her proper Christian name or in any pseudonym that she may've adopted. These coincidences alone were alone to inspire the plot for a science fiction novel that I'd written (and is currently being peddled around top New York publishers and Hollywood studios by my agent): Was Kelly really the Fifth victim or the victim of a copycat killer? I won't say. ; ) You'll have to read the book when it comes out.
Author: J Janovich Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:06 pm
Dear Readers: Part of the fascination with the Whitechapel murders lies in the fact that they are unsolvable. Part of the burden with them therefore, becomes the fact that with the continual passage of time, we tend to make the events fit a scenario, rather than allowing the scenario reveal the events. In the case of Mary Kelly, we see events and drives reaching a climax; for shear horrific effect, nothing could surpass it. And no attempts were made TO surpass it. There was no need, since Mary Kelly was the object of the exercise from the beginning. Let's look for a moment at what makes Mary Kelly different. Of all the victims, Mary was the only one WITH NO KNOWN NEXT OF KIN. Of all the victims, Mary was the only one who still might have ENTERTAINED HOPES OF LEAVING THE EAST END AND ENJOYING A BETTER LIFE. Of all the victims, Mary was the only one WHO WAS PREGNANT. And of less importance, Mary was the only one WHO WAS UNDER FORTY YEARS OF AGE, and the only one MURDERED INDOORS. Now, what may we deduce from this? It seems evident (and becomes more so as further research is done on her origins) that Mary Kelly's reticence about her family would indicate that some rift existed that either caused, or was precipitated by her decision to leave Wales. She never returned there, so again, we must assume that whatever was responsible was also irrevocable. Not even her widely publicized murder prompted any familial inquiries. Mary was obviously "alone in the world". That she was ambitious and independent can be deduced by the glimpses given us by Barnett. People only sever connections with family (wilfully) for two reasons: either they are leaving to escape, or they leave for opportunity. It has been reported that Mary Kelly had once plied her trade under better circumstances. That she persisted in affectations such as Marie Jeanette would indicate that she often ruminated over her lost station, and probably continued to entertain schemes to return to it. Both her marriage and her relationship with Barnett give the impression that she was never deeply committed to either, and instead, waited and planned for the opportunity to escape- just as she had done in Wales. The problem was, of course, that Mary was really quite shallow. Certainly, she would not have left the West End of her own accord. The only conclusion being therefore, that despite her sexual qualifications, Mary was a woman of big ambitions and little depth. In the end, she may have been too ambitious for her own good. Why did the murders occur in Whitechapel? Because that's where Mary lived. Her former "patron" surely found her more desireable when kept at a distance. That she alone of the victims could afford a room, suggests that she was subsidized. Perhaps at first, as insurance against her talking to much or too loudly. Yet, when she was murdered, she was considerably in arrears on her rent, and judging from her remarks and behavior, becoming increasingly desperate. Another item for consideration: if we count backwards the three months that Mary was said to have been pregnant from the date of her murder, we have a window which opens nicely for the events of August 31. Was this the trigger that fired the Whitechapel murders? That she let him in, there is no doubt. Perhaps a deal, perhaps a showdown.... who could guess? Read carefully Hutchison's description of the initial conversation with her, and her apparent bouyant spirits a few minutes later. What would cause this abrupt change? The rent was still due in the morning. Did the appearance of her late visitor alter that reality? Lastly, under what theory can we postulate a "second Mary"? She was never heard of again, nor in truth, was HE. This suggests a fatal bond- a subject and an object- without which the motive for the murders ceases to exist. The mutilations? Well, simply put, they were NOT provided so that Mary could make an escape incognito. Apart from an artists fictional rendition, the only photograph that existed of Mary Kelly could never be used to identify her. Had the desire been to destroy forever the possibility of identifying Mary Kelly as the one time courtesan of a well-to-do West-Ender, I think we can conclude that he accomplished his task. Why was she preceeded by three others? The only answer could be so that SHE WOULDN'T STAND OUT. Drop a marble on a white carpet, and it is easily found. Drop four marbles into a bag of 1,200 others, and see if you are as quickly successful. For those interested in the copycat killing, one needs to think about Liz Stride, not Mary Kelly.
Author: Justin Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:07 pm
Just a few answers/additions/corrections to some of the things mentioned above: - Kelly was not pregnant when she was killed. The discovery of Dr Bond's report in 1988 confirms this -- he states that her uterus was not gravid. - Jim Morrison, who bought Kelly a headstone, wrote and self-published a book naming a Liverpool villain called James Kelly as the Ripper. (I'm fairly sure James Kelly was a convicted murderer, but my recollection of the facts here may be a bit muddled.) In any case, this man Kelly escaped from prison (this is documented) and, according to Morrison, went down to London to murder Mary Kelly, who had been his wife. NB: There is absolutely no evidence that Mary Kelly was ever married to this man. Let me allow personal opinion to break in here for a minute: I think it's very likely that Morrison, whether conciously or unconciously, fell victim to the old plague of tailoring the facts to fit his theory. I don't blame him for wanting so badly to unmask Kelly's killer (whether it was the Ripper or not, I won't get into). She's the most tragic of the victims, as was mentioned above -- young, pretty, well-liked, widowed at sixteen, (probably) lured into a brothel when she came down to London -- by all accounts, a decent and somewhat intelligent woman given a horrible lot in life. It's an absolute sin that she had to die the way she did, and Morrison at least did her a service by marking her grave. But he hasn't found her killer. As to Mary getting flowers on the anniversary of her death, I think that's a very nice gesture. NB: I believe that her grave was used for several subsequent burials.
Author: WysongB Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:07 pm
Has anyone looked into the possibility that the body found in the room was not that of Mary Kelly? It was stated that she let a woman stay there before (which is the reason Mr. Kelly stated he left her). The body was in such a state that I don't think it could be positively identified. Given that at least two witnesses reported that they seen Mary AFTER she was suppose to have been murdered. Could she have let a woman friend stay there, returned after or during the time of the murder, and, having stayed around the area, left the city? Also I cannot give much credence to the dunken accounts of that night.
Author: Danny Landry Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:07 pm
As genealogy is my other hobby, I'd though it might be a worthwhile to get more background information on the victims'. I decided that I would first check the records to see if Mary Kelly's birth was recorded. Using the IGI (International Genealogical Index) a list on CD rom of more than 300 million B-C-M and Death records, I found the following listing: Mary Kelly born: 19 April 1864 (Ed. note, 1864 not 1863) POB: Castletown, Limerick, Ireland father: John Kelly mother: Anne McCarthy If this is the correct birth record, and more research will be needed to verify it, then Mary Kelly was 24 years, 6 months, and 21 days old at the time of death; not 25 as previously believed. Other children born to John and Anne Kelly were: John, born 19 April 1866 Peter, " 28 June 1868 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Elisabeth Gustafsdotter aka Liz Stride also found in the IGI. It shows the same dates and information that is shown in the article on her. I will also attempt to find more information about the other victims'.
Author: J. Janovich Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:08 pm
With all due respect to Justin and Dr. Bond, look closely at the police photograph taken of Mary Kelly "postmortum". If you can scan the photograph, so much the better - use a high resolution graphics program, and look again. Caroline Maxwell was giving evidence at the inquest in such a manner as to inform, yet mislead. She did not want to, excuse the pun, "stick her neck out", yet she made a point of describing something that sounded suspiciously like morning sickness. She certainly would not intentionally make a statement that would draw a caution from the coroner and a comment from a Scotland Yard Inspector. Why, then? As for James Kelly, I never meant to suggest that Mary was fleeing from a brutal marriage, only to be tracked down and butchered along with a handful of others. But, it seems that James Tully at least, felt that Mr. Morrison had something worthy of consideration. Do I personally believe it? No. However, there are certain descriptive points that meld well with what I do believe. And to Danny, my compliments and appreciation. I have a name or two that I should very much like to research, myself. I suppose I should add however, that at the time of her death, no one came forward as next of kin to identify or claim the body. The fact is, that through electronic wizardry and the praiseworthy efforts of a researcher, we know more in 1997 than the investigators did in 1888, at least in terms of vital statistics. However, I think it quite dangerous to mix 20th century awareness with 19th century reality.
Author: A. Dylan Gable Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:08 pm
I was really intrigued by the post about the possible genealogical information found about Mary Kelly, which stated she was born in Castletown, Limerick, Ireland. I, personally, do think that the information could very well be for THE Mary Kelly, as the one the entry discusses would have been approximately the correct age. The only (minor) problem I have is with her place of birth. I've checked on what is probably the best atlas of the British Isles I've ever seen (an old WWII-era one) and can find no Castletown in County Limerick, although there is a possibility that Castletown refers to a district within the city of Limerick. There are four Castletowns in other parts of Ireland, though--one in County Leix and three in County Cork, which is directly south of Limerick. I also checked through various books, attempting to figure out the meaning of Kelly's missing heart, when I came across a passage which stated that members of Hellfire Clubs (though usually leaders only, which were invariably male) were sometimes buried with their hearts seperate from their bodies.
Author: Jami Joanne Russell Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:08 pm
I was just reading the thoughts on Mary Kelly and have to throw in my $0.02, if no one minds. I think Mary was a Ripper victim. It's been known for killers to change their patterns. At least, in the books I've read they have. Some start out at rapists, then start killing, getting worst each time. What I'd really like to know is - was Mary Kelly really pregnant? I've read one book that said she was. All the others I've read won't even speak out on the subject. I took a Jack The Ripper walking tour last October, a very good one, I may add, where you don't even have to pay the 4 pound fee if you didn't like it. But when I asked about Mary Kelly's pregnancy, he wouldn't say more then one sentance on it. The same went for the Maybrick diary, beyond the fact he didn't believe it because it was the same publishing company that published the phony Hitler diaries. Yes, Mary didn't fit the profile of the usual killings, but he might have been working his way to her. Or - maybe her pregnancy, if she was pregnant, was what set him or her off. (Yes, I do think there's a possibility of the Ripper being a woman, even though I read 95% of all serial killers are white males. The other 5% females and males of other ethnic groups.) What I find strange though, on the walking tour, all the major suspects they promoted were homosexual pediphiles. Even the Prince was known to hire young boys for his twisted sexual pleasures. All were suspected of having syphilius. Now why would this be if all the victims were female and adults? I would have thought someone like these suspects would be more likely to kill, and rape, young males who prositute rather then women. But I could be wrong. After all, what do I know? I'm a 21 year old female who had never met a prositute and my expertise lies more in the area of vampire folk lore then Jack The Ripper. Though he is a minor obsession of mine because of his brutality and - dare I say? - almost vampire-like charm. (Could Jack have been some deluded mortal who thought he was a form of vampire? Or could he have suffered some new branch of Lycanthropy - a mental disorder that is where the myths of werewolves came from.) Well, I've added my two cents and then some. I hope you don't mind.
Author: Gayle Blayney Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:09 pm
There has been much made of the fact that Mary Kelly was killed indoors, this seems to be one of the primary reasons for her disclusion as a Ripper victim. It must be remembered that since the double event over a month previous people had started to relax somewhat by Nov. 9 and most were looking forward to Lord Mayors Day. As all the previous victims were murdered in the street it could be said that prostitutes working indoors had gained a false sense of security and JTR looked for a victim with her own place so he could send a message to the East End prostitutes that they were safe nowhere, inside or out.
Author: Scott Hannaford Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:09 pm
When did Mary Kelly die? At 4.00am on Friday 9th November 1888, Mrs Prater, of the room above Mary Kelly in Dorset Street, heard a cry of "murder" from somewhere nearby. This was the death of Mary Jane Kelly, last of the canonical Ripper victims. However, later that day the ghost of Mary Kelly was seen on two occasions. Firstly by CAROLINE MAXWELL, who met Kelly in Dorset Street at approximately 8.30am, when Kelly said that she had the horrors of drink upon her, having thrown up in the gutter. Mary Kelly was then seen in the Britannia Public House at just before 10.00am by Maurice Lewis, who had known her for five years, and described himself as an acquaintance of hers. So, if Kelly died at 4.00am, as commonly accepted, why was she seen and spoken to by people who knew her well? The timing of Kelly's death is usucally determined by two factors: (i) The cry of "murder" heard at 4.00am by Elizabeth Prater; (ii) Dr Phillips examined the body at 1.30pm, and said that the body was just starting the process of rigormortis, and that as this normally sets in 8-10hours after death, then Kelly died at between 3.30am and 5.30am; these two apparently confirm eachother. However: (i) cries of "murder" were not uncommon in the "Wicked Quarter Mile", and Prater could not be sure where the cry came from; (ii) modern pathologists and doctors would argue that rigormortis can set in after 2-4 hours after death, and that according to Phillips' own observation about the body just starting rigormortis, Kelly probably died between 9.30am and 11.30am. As Kelly was seen alive at 10.00am in the Britannia, and her body was discovered by Thomas Bowyer at 10.45am. then we can conclude that Kelly met a client just after being seen by Maurice Lewis, took him back to her room, where he killed and mutilated her. Kelly was seen alive at 8.30am and 10.00am, therefore she did not die until between 10.00 and 10.45am on Friday 9th November 1888. Some researchers have suggested that the woman in the room was not Kelly, but another prostitute, and that Kelly was a part of a plan to cover her disappearance from London, why then would she be so obvious as to be in Dorset Street of the Britannia? Kelly did die, but not until after 10.00am. I would appreciate any comments.
Author: Rachel C. Boland Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:10 pm
As a professional genealogical researcher for 19 years, I became interested in the genealogy of Mary Jane Kelly, from the time I first read about Jack the Ripper in High School. I noticed that the other victims, all had some research done on them, because they had relatives who could give information. Mary Kelly did not. I decided to put my personal and client researching aside for the past 2 years to devote my time and resources into researching the family history of Mary Jane Kelly. What I have found so far is by no means, all there is out there, and my research is continuing. I am at this time working on several very good leads. Research in Great Britain is somewhat of a challenge, due to the fact of their �privacy� laws. Some areas I have found are 150 years, as opposed to the standard 75 years. I did have a chance to get out to Salt Lake City, to do research at the LDS (Mormon Library). Granted, I was quite disappointed in what they had, but I had to make do. I did not use their IGI (International Genealogical Index) as it has a lot of mistakes in it, and is very unreliable as a 'source' reference. The following is what I have found and, I plan on traveling back to London, Rep. of Ireland and Wales this fall. The following is all a matter of public records, so it is easy to research. First off, I found, that most of what Mary told Joseph Barnett was untrue, or the truth stretched greatly. As far as birth records in Limerick, I have found the following, to which I have copies of the original church records. Mary KELLY, born 19 April 1864 in Ballingarry, dist. of Castleton, union of Croom in co. Limerick Father: John KELLY, occupation Laborer Mother: Anne KELLY, formerly McCarthy I also found 2 other children born to John and Anne in the same parish: John KELLY, born 19 Apr 1866 Peter KELLY, born 29 Jun 1868 There are no other children listed, being born to John and Anne in this parish, so this could support the fact that Mary said she moved as a small girl to Wales with her family. On a map of the Rep. of Ireland, I did find Ballingarry (there are several in Ireland), which is southwest of Croom, and Croom is south of Limerick. So, when she said she was from Limerick, this is what she could have ment, and hopefully this is the right family. I have a friend who lives not far from Croom, and she is going to take photos, and do a little checking for me, and maybe even persuade the church to let her view the records before 1864 (the records are considered covered under the privacy law, which I find unlikely). I do plan of studying that area further. As far as records in Wales. I have searched the town(s) where she said her father worked, Carvonshire or Carthenshire. No luck there. She said she was �married to a man named DAVIES.� There are also no records for a Mary or Anne KELLY married to a man named DAVIES. A lot of DAVIES, but none married to a Mary or Anne KELLY, in that time frame. She would have been 16 at the time of the marriage, which is kind of hard to believe, but not impossible. I searched the marriage records for the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth, and at the bottom of every marriage entry, it is printed, � the above parties are of the legal age of 21 years or upwards.� So, it is unlikely she was married at the county level, but a church would be different, but there again, no luck. As far as a child being born, no luck there either. She may have had a child out of wedlock, which was not uncommon, with a man named DAVIES, and he could have been killed before they had a chance to marry. If so, it may not be in the church or public records. If she did have a child, even out of wedlock, it is possible that the child died in infancy. She said that her husband was killed in a mine explosion, which unfortunately was not uncommon, especially in Southern Wales. I found a two volume book set, titled; �AND THEY WORKED US TO DEATH: CASUALTIES OF THE MINES, WHO THEY WERE, HOW THEY DIED, AND WHY� (mines in Monmouth and Glamorgan). In these 2 books, it listed over 100 incidents of multiple deaths in the mines. Unfortunately, in almost every accident there was at least 1 man named DAVIES killed. Their were also rescuers and members of jury's that were named DAVIES (jury�s were convened to find blame or the cause of the accident). The ages also ranged, from the youngest a boy of 5 years old to a man of 80 years old. I checked for explosions between 1879 and 1885 (just to be sure), in which men named DAVIES were killed. I found 3 major explosions as follows: Dinas - January 13, 1879...explosion 62 dead -Evan DAVIES, widower -Evan DAVIES, un-married Risca New Pit - July 16, 1880...explosion 119 dead -James DAVIES, 18 years old, assistant mason -William DAVIES, 34 years old, stower -1 rescuer named DAVIES, not killed Naval Steam Colliery, Penygraig - December 10, 1880...explosion 96 dead -Charles DAVIES, of Trealaw, wife & 2 children -Evan DAVIES, of Coedymeibion, 49 years old, wife & 4 children -Evan DAVIES ??? -John DAVIES, of Penygraig, 42 years old, wife & 2 children -John DAVIES ??? -John DAVIES ??? -William DAVIES of Ffrdamos, hauler, single -William Roderick DAVIES of Penygraig, 23 years old, single These names may have been duplicate names, since several parishes presided over the burials, at different times. The above mentioned mine explosions, are just a few of the many that occurred. There were also cave-ins, floods, et al. I have records for all of the accidents, which list the causes of the accidents, who was to blame, etc., between 1879 and 1885, as well as maps showing the locations of the mines. I am working with the London Records Office, for men in the Scots Guards, named KELLY, since she said her brother was attatched to them. I found it curious, that she told Lizzie Allbrook that she was �scared� and �wanted to go back to her family in Wales.� Yet, someone said she received a letter from her �MOTHER in Ireland.� I have a feeling Mary said from her �BROTHER in Ireland,� as the Scots Guards were stationed there, and the person relaying the information (2nd hand) got it wrong. There are a lot more avenues I am persuing at this time, and, as I said before, some promising leads have recently come my way. Anyone who reads this is more than welcome to write to me, at my above E-mail address. I would like to hear your views.
Author: Christopher Michael DiGrazia Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 07:10 pm
As John Morrison and Mary Jane Kelly's grave have been mentioned once or twice, I thought you might be interested in knowing a bit about the two. . . "Ripperana" magazine for January 1996 notes that Kelly was buried in an umarked grave (public grave 16, row 67) in St. Patrick's Roman Catholic cemetery in Leytonstone. In either 1986 or 1988 (I have yet to find definite confirmation), Morrison erected a large, somewhat tasteless headstone reading: Marie Jeanette Kelly Age 25 The Prima Donna of Spitalfields and last known victim of Jack the Ripper Murdered Fri. Nov. 9th 1888 Do not stop to stand and stare Unless to utter fervent prayer (Mary Magdalene Intercede) Dedicated by John Morrison Dec 3rd 1986 A photo of Morrison and the headstone can be seen in Terence Sharkey's "Jack the Ripper: 100 Years of Investigation." Morrison, however, had not only erected the headstone without proper authority, he had erected it over the wrong grave! The headstone was later removed, and the cemtery superintendent placed a refurbished 1890 memorial over Kelly's actual grave. Morrison, however, objected to this, and eventually had the memorial removed in favour of the small ceramic cube that marks her grave at the present time. It reads, simply: Mary Jeanette Kelly Aged 25 Murdered 9th November 1888 The interested reader is also directed to Peter Underwood's "Jack the Ripper: One Hundred Years of Mystery" for some interesting comments by and about John Morrison. His zeal in preserving Mary Jane Kelly's memory is praiseworthy, but Morrison has a very disturbing possessive interest in Kelly, and it is rather unsettling to read that he has purchased a burial plot near Kelly's grave so that he may be joined with her in death.
Author: Odista Sunday, 29 November 1998 - 12:13 am
Hello everyone, I'm an amateur ripperologist myself and I would like to throw my two cents in. I believe that at least four of the victims: Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly were definite Ripper victims because of the way all their throats were cut. Each cut went all around the neck and the cut was deep enough to notch the vertebraes as all the medical reports indicate. In some cases, it appears as if the Ripper was trying to decapitate some of his victims. Because of this M.O., Kelly could not be a copycat killing. On page 364 of "Jack the Ripper A to Z," a comment on Dr. Phillips's report reads that "Chapman's neck had been mutilated in exactly the same way as Mary Jane Kelly's." It would be very unlikely a copycat would cut Kelly's throat in "exactly" the same way as the previous murders. I would be interested in hearing some comments on this.
Author: Yazoo Sunday, 29 November 1998 - 06:54 pm
Hey, Odista. I'll jump in since no one better qualified seems to be around. The question I would ask is, even if the same murderer made all the cuts on all the victims, how likely is it that they'd be "exactly" the same each time? I don't understand Phillips on this point; 'exactitude' leaves no room for the slightest deviation in angle/arc/depth/etc...which is humanly impossible. And while Stride's throat wound was not as severe as the others, we are speaking comparatively. Look at Stride's wound alone. It is far from being a small affair, having cut the windpipe and partially severed an artery and other tissue in a six inch cut. In some of the other other cases, there were more than one cuts to the throat, even though the murderer made enough of a cut in the first place to cause death. Best to hang in here, though, till somone else offers some better comments. Welcome, by the way. Yaz
Author: Jon Tuesday, 01 December 1998 - 08:56 pm
Evening Odista & Yaz, I see your starting out on the right track Odista, Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, excellent your studying is paying off :) Now Kelly is a different story, there are so many similarities and yet enough differences to allow any Ripperologist to make a meal of this murder. we can approach this from many different angles. If Jack was after the Uterus (or Uteri) in the first 3 then why trim the thighs off Kelly. And if Jack pulled out the innerds and cast them aside with the first 3 then why carefully remove the body parts from Kelly and place them in selected places, instead of casting them aside also. The fact that her throat was cut was similar but the method of it was different. Facial mutilations like Eddowes and yet not with Chapman. We are all well aware of the age difference between the first 3 and Kelly, but this is not an important issue. But there are many, many more points ....any number of which may be of greater of lesser significance. I think we have to be careful in how we interpret 'exactly' when refering to how the throats were cut, any one used to 'dispatching' in this manner will invariably make the same type of laceration, it may have been understood to be the most efficient method adopted by that certain criminal class. Carry on Odista, I'll be interested to see how your 'view of Jack' developes. (I never mentioned Stride, but Yaz knows why) :) :)
Author: Odista Wednesday, 02 December 1998 - 08:55 pm
To everyone, I'll be posting my comments under the subsection, "Was Mary Kelly a ripper victim? This posting area is getting too long.
Author: Bob_c Friday, 11 December 1998 - 08:44 am
To Rachel Boland Hi Rachel, I had liked to have sent you an e-mail, but the link is not operating. Your excellent work on Mary Kelly has promted me to try to contact you. I am investigating as much as I can about MJK from all sources and am trying to establish some link to Kelly in Wales and her alleged marriage. Having read your post from 15th Nov., one point occurred to me. As I grew up in England, our neighbours had the name DAVIS and were Welshmen. Could it be that Kelly's husband's name was so written instead of Davies? Or have you already exhausted this possibility? I would be pleased to hear from you, Bob Court
Author: Daviebabe Monday, 04 January 1999 - 03:55 am
I am from Australia and also are quite into this gastley case... so many unanswered questions... what of "DR" John Netley??? was the investiagtion just closed after the killing of Mary Jane Kelly or covered up... did investiagtions into this matter occour?? Are anyother pictures available... maybe these cound render more assistance.... please email me if you are aware of such...Daviebabe@hotmail.com thank you..and i look foward to your seponce
Author: Christopher-Michael Monday, 04 January 1999 - 02:45 pm
Daviebabe - Welcome to the Casebook. By your identification of John Netley as "Doctor" Netley, I am assuming you have your information on him from the Michael Caine "Jack the Ripper" film. The truth, I am afraid, is rather more prosaic. In 1975 (or thereabouts), the BBC was preparing a documetary-type film about the Ripper crimes. Researchers seeking confirmation of details imparted by a man named Joseph Sickert came across the records of a man named John Charles Netley, born in 1860, who was a carman who died in a traffic accident in 1903 when he was tossed by mishap underneath the wheels of his own vehicle. This man (about whom, I should add, almost nothing is known) was identified by Sickert as an amoral, ambitious private cab owner who ferried Prince Albert Victor to his visits to his commoner lover Elizabeth Crook. He further claimed that Netley drove Dr Sir William Gull around the East End on his mission to slaughter the five canonical victims (as in the film). Now the difficulty here is that none of the above has ever been proven, and as Joseph Sickert's own story has changed over the intervening years, Netley's guilt or innocence in the Ripper crimes has altered as well. At this date, we simply do not know how Sickert heard the name of an obscure driver who died before he was born, and we are not even sure that the Netley found by the BBC is the same man accused by Sickert. It is a lovely story, but absolutely untrue, so as you can see, there was no need to "cover up" anything after Kelly's murder as far as John Charles Netley is concerned. With regards to pictures: there is a picture of a man said to be Netley in "The Ripper and the Royals" by Melvyn Fairclough (ISBN 0-7156-2444-X). You can also find out further details other than those I have provided in "The JTR A-Z" by Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner (ISBN 0-7472-5522-9). I hope this helped; I'll be happy to answer any other questions you might have. As ever, Christopher-Michael
Author: Kirsty Pickersgill Thursday, 07 January 1999 - 02:17 am
hi all. first time in here. just a thought to scott Hannaford, if Mary was killed at 10am and not discovered until 10.45am, do you thinkit is possible to do that much damage in such a short amount of time? Also, going by the ripper diary that has turned up (not that i nessaceraly believe it), could iit be the woman James Maybrick was having an affair with was actually Mary Kelly?? which could explain why she let him in the room wwith her. Just a few thoughts from a interested person.
Author: Bob_c Thursday, 07 January 1999 - 10:26 am
Hi Kirsty, First of all, hearty welcome to the JTR board. If Kelly was killed at ca. 10.00 am, and found at 10.45 am, we must leave the killer about 15 minutes to get clear (or not). 'Not', because he could have still been in the room as Thomas Bowyer arrived to collect rent. The larger window to the left of Kelly's room seen from Millers Court was covered by a pilot coat serving as curtain. Why a curtain is logical, Kelly being a whore. The killer could have hidden there and scrammed as Bowyer ran to fetch McCarthy. So we have a time span from at least 30 minutes. I believe that Jack was Kelly's murderer as well as Eddowes. The speed with which he probably ripped up Eddowes gives us a clue. Eddowes was claimed to have been seen alive by Joseph Lawende, Joseph Hyam Levy and Henry Harris at the corner of Duke Street and Church passage at about 1.35 am on the day of her murder (Sept 30th). Her body was discovered by PC Watkins in Mitre Square at 1.45 am. Assuming the witnesses not to have been mistaken, Jack had less than 10 minutes to disembowel Eddowes, remove the famous kidney and to escape. And that in more or less darkness. For Kelly he had at least half an hour. A point which I raise to the whole board. I can find no evidence at all that Eddowes was a prostitute. Newspaper reports indicating that are the usual shallow jumps to conclusions that so infest the mass media even today. Witnesses claim that she was only intimate with John Kelly, her partner and in general that she hardly walked the streets, if at all. Even her attempts at Hop-picking, the writing and selling of 'Gallows Ballads' and her continuos scrounging indicate that she tried at least to support herself without prostituting herself. So, you other believers, let slip the dogs of war. Of course, that would also not have been necessarily known to Jack, so there is no reason why he should believe he was killing a non-prostitute. The Maybrick story is another thing. You will notice that the Diary Antagonists reach from those who hold the diary as being the Holy Covenant to those who hold it as being just a bit lower than used toilet paper, with all shades of grey theory in between. I hold the diary for a forgery, as do many of us. There is no evidence that Maybrick was in London at the time, and there are evident one or more other chronological errors in the diary that reduce it's credibility. Be that as it may, who knows? Regards Bob
Author: Christopher-Michael Thursday, 07 January 1999 - 03:21 pm
Bob - Nice answer to Kirsty, and I can't fault it. The only reason I have ever been loath to consider Kelly having been murdered at a time other than 4.00am is that the more time Kelly's murderer spent in Miller's Court, the more chance there was of someone coming by to knock or push aside the pilot coat on her window. Unless he was familiar with Kelly and her routine (another question altogether), how could he be certain he wouldn't be disturbed? And why take such an almost suicidal chance as doing it in the morning on the day of the Lord Mayor's parade? Yaz will get me for this, but it's the same heedlessness that leads me to disregard Stride as a victim. In regards to Catharine Eddowes: as far as I know, the only one who ever said she was a prostitute was that old rogue Major Smith, who claimed that her beat was small and well known to many constables (I'd give you the exact quote, but I'm not near my books). Surely if her beat was a small, well-known one, wouldn't the police at Bishopsgate Station have known who she was and not have had to ask her name? I think we tend to assume Eddowes was a prostitute because a) she was very poor and b) the Ripper killed her. Even the level-headed Philip Sugden tends to brush off this minor question by averring that no-one wanted to speak ill of the dead and John Kelly would hardly have admitted to living off of Eddowes' immoral earnings. And yet, if she really was a soiled dove, I've never seen the proof of it. Perhaps the answer lies - as it so often does - in the tittle-tattle of the press? As ever, Christopher-Michael
Author: Bob_c Friday, 08 January 1999 - 01:44 am
Hi Chris Thanks for the flowers. Just a quick thought. We all say, well most of us, that Jack only killed prostitutes of about 40-45 (Kelly as exception). Now Polly Nichols was 44, but she looked like 34. Eddowes was probably no prostitute. Stride (sorry Yaz) was probably not a Jack victim (but see Yaz's and my double man theory). What do we have? The ideas we have about Jack seem to start crumbling. Prost! Bob
Author: Yazoo Friday, 08 January 1999 - 10:29 am
Hey! If we must, let's go back to the Stride topic and discuss her. I'd like to discuss Kelly, but not until Stride's ghost has been set to rest. I think we have to ask Stephen to create a Part 2 for Stride. The circumstances of Kelly's death (including the "heedlessness") are shared with Chapman and Eddowes...and not even especially Stride, but her too. Eddowes may have been no more of a prostitute than Chapman, who also tried to get "regular" work when she could. Eddowes was found dead in a place known to be used by prostitutes and their clients, at a dubious hour, with no sign that she was forced there. If Lawende and friends saw Eddowes and her killer talking, what was she doing in Mitre Square with him that couldn't honestly have been done where Lawende saw her last -- trading secret sewing tips? Part-time prostitution to supplement income seems fairly common amongst a good proportion of the female poor of the district -- and they took it up for survival, not always to support a drug habit or alcoholism. Yaz
Author: Bob_c Friday, 08 January 1999 - 11:04 am
Hi Yaz, The very fact that Eddowes was in Mitre Square dosen't make her a prostitute, no matter what she was doing and why, but I admit that it doesn't prove she wasn't. We shouldn't forget, however, that she had someone (John Kelly) who paid the rent and gave her money for food, someone with whom she lived. She, unlike Nichols and Co., had an income. Her last words in the police station included 'I shall get a fine hiding when I get home.' This indicates that she knew that John Kelly had a thorough interest in her and her doings. She may have been thinking of the misused rent and that she had used all the money John had given her for varitee visits and drink as she said that. It is, of course, thinkable that she went prostituting to try and recover the money, but I hold it for unlikely. Not impossible. You don't mention anything about Polly Nichols. According to reports she looked ten years younger than her 44 years. In light of Kelly's age, it may seem that Jack's apparent chose of age be circumstantial. Any thoughts there? Bob
Author: Yazoo Friday, 08 January 1999 - 12:15 pm
Hey, Bob, No thoughts on age really. All we know is what we see in post-mortem photographs and subjective testimony (if any) as to the victims' looks. Not much to go on. When I first saw the horror of Eddowes' post-mortem photographs, all I could think of was the pictures of unwrapped Egyptian mummies -- the association still stays with me. All the others look like old women to me. If you want to pursue other avenues about Eddowes, try her other comments from the press reports (?) that she had an "appointment" that night to discuss the Ripper -- I think that's what they said. You might also check out Andy Aliffe's interview, especially this part: "The list of contents found on the body of Catherine Eddowes includes a printed card bearing the name "Frank Carter, 305 Bethnal Green Road". What was his occupation ? When you have discovered this, ask yourself why would Eddowes have such a card ? " But I think it simpler and more likely she was turning a trick in a well-known prostitute trysting place (love those euphemisms), with a man, at a dubious hour to be conducting any other business. Yaz
Author: Christopher-Michael Friday, 08 January 1999 - 08:20 pm
Of course, the great conundrum here is that according to Kelly, Eddowes said she was going to try and borrow some money from her daughter in Bermondsey. However, her daughter had moved and not told Eddowes where she had gone so as to avoid this kind of feckless scrounging. Why, then, did she lie to John Kelly? A more conspiratorial-minded man than I might use this as a building block in a theory that Eddowes really did know the Ripper, just as she said. Of course, I have always considered that remark (if she really said it) as a joke. She'd come back from Kent because there was no work to be found; maybe she said "I've come back because I know the Ripper" in the same way we might say "oh, I went home to get ready for my date with Princess Anne." Yaz - I agree, we really should return to the Stride discussion. E-mail me, if you will, and say where you'd like to start up, and I'll begin a part 2 on the appropriate board. Or you can start it yourself, and we'll set things up for Bob to join us. Now, let's leave any further discussion of poor Katy Eddowes to her own board. This is supposed to be about the Prima Donna of Spitalfields, after all! CMD
Author: Bob_c Saturday, 09 January 1999 - 07:14 am
Hi CM, Hi Yaz, Funny how you get carried away on the ripper board and land up discussing those who have nothing to do with the topic, CM is quite right. See you on other topics. Hey, CM, watch out for the postman! Bob
Author: Yazoo Saturday, 09 January 1999 - 07:49 am
Hey, CM and Bob! Let's start where you'd like on Stride. I'm convinced she provisionally belongs to the series, so it would be hard to start an argument against my own beliefs. (That is the weasel's way out of the dilemma, isn't it though? heehee) Yaz
Author: Jeff D Saturday, 09 January 1999 - 11:52 am
Hello All ! I think Mary Jane (Jeanette) Kellys' murder is an incredible topic for discussion in it's own right. We have Geo. Hutchinson alledgedly witnessing a man meeting up with Kelly and going back to her room. Hutchninson then waits outside on a damp, cold night for about 45 minutes. This is very unusual, and I do understand why Mr. Hinton has picked up on this matter as reason to question Hutchinsons' motives and actions on the night, as something very suspicious. If Kelly was simply sevicing Mr. Astrachan, 45 minutes would be a great deal of time. I would think that prostitutes do try and service the client in as quick a time as possible, time is money as they say ! Then there is the fact that if Mr. Astrachan was a client, where did the money go ? "Show me the money!" Very strange, and we know that George was very much destitute himself, which can cause one to wonder. I'm not putting Hutchinson in the frame just yet, but his actions, and the events of that night do need consideration. Mr. Astrachan was supposedly with Kelly for at least 45 minutes, did he then leave shortly after Hutchinson, and only then did the Ripper arrive ? The thing is, Kelly did properly undress, and then neatly folded her clothes and put them on the chair at the bottom of the bed. This action has got to suggest that either she turned in for the night, or was going to sleep the entire night with Mr. Astrachan, who then murdered and mutilated her. I don't think Astrachan did this at all. If he did exist, he knew very well that there was a witness to him picking up Kelly, who had an excellent view, and could probably describe him, but I think there has to be a lot of questions about Mr. Astrachan, and Mr. Hutchinsons involvement that night. If Mr. Astrachan was a Customer, as was Mr. Blotchy-Faced carrotty mustache quart can-of-beer, where was the money Kelly would have earned ? A real interesting point, is Mary Kellys' neatly folded clothes. This really does suggest that she was ready to turn in for the night. Kelly was heard singing that night until quite late. She obviously went out again at some time, on her own, at a time when women were very afraid to walk the streets alone, but her movements after Geo. Hutchinsons vigil are still a big question. If Kelly was in bed, or whatever, she was quite clearly finished, and had closed shop for the night. She either let someone else in, (someone who she knew), or her killer let himself in. Either way, it does suggest familiarity. The killer was either familiar with Kellys' room, and the means of unlatching the door, or Kelly let him in in a state of undress. The most horrific point to consider about Kellys' last moments, is the fact that she must have tried to defend herself somewhat. With due respect, the other victims were either strangled unconcious, or already dead before the knife was used. Kelly has defensive wounds on her forearms which does suggest she did try and cover, or defend herself. The bloodstains up on the corner of the bed, indicate that she must have cowered up into the corner. It was here that her throat (right carotid) was slashed and the blood spurted all over this corner of the bed and walls, but in these minutes before, she was very much alive, and knew what was happening. Trying to imagine Kelly's last thoughts and actions is quite distressing to me actually. She knew what was happening, she tried to defend herself, but could only manage a slight scream of "Oh murder!" It must have been a very sudden, vicious onslaught. Cheers All, as ever ... Jeff D
Author: Yazoo Saturday, 09 January 1999 - 12:37 pm
Hey, Jeff! I don't question Kelly's worth as a discussion, but her death is much, much more complex than the relatively simple Stride death. My point is that if I can't get Stride in the series, I stand little chance of dealing with Kelly. You outline or imply all the problems to be faced in looking at Kelly's death. I do believe though that George saw her murderer. That the man paid for the night and his only complication was whether the aggressive George would burst in. He stole whatever money he gave Kelly, then took that and any she had from the man with beer after he killed her. Petty theft appears to be part of JtR's character. I had one of my unfortunate fights with Stewart Evans over whether Kelly's wounds are defensive or mutilations (I wish Stewart were back...I swear I'll leave him alone...I won't even say "Hey" to him). I can't be sure they're defensive, even with the (to me, dubious) testimony of the cry "Oh, Murder!" What Bond says -- and if anyone in JtR research belives in Bond besides myself -- will be important as to how and when Kelly died. And any analysis of Kelly has to take into account what JtR did with all the organs and tissue, post-mortem. I firmly believe there is a meaning to what he did, I have a theory, but I don't think my theory at all definitive. That's all for me on Kelly, Jeff. I'll watch the discussion that progresses but I have an appointment (hopefully NOT in Samarra) with Stride, CM, Bob, and whoever else who's "fur er agin" including Stride. Yaz
Author: Jeff D Sunday, 10 January 1999 - 05:50 am
Hello Yaz ! It's interesting to note that you believe Mr. Astrachan is the villain. I shall always endeavour to keep an open mind, and until proven differently always consider your valid comments. Certainly, Mr. Astrachan appeared to be a man of sufficient means, raising a great probability that he could afford to ask Kelly to do just about anyting he wished. In this scenario, maybe Kelly did totally undress for him, as part of Mr. Astrachans needs, rather than a quick jump up against the fence (crude, I know!, please excuse me) I still ponder the neatly folded clothes thing. You know, sometimes when you've had a long day, are tired and just can't wait to jump in the sack, you just rip ('scuse the reference) your clothes off, and leave them were they lay, on the floor by the side of the bed, slung over a chair or wherever. Folding her clothes could have been something she was doing while undressing for her client, like she was performing a sort of sensual strip-tease or something. Just a thought, maybe Kelly neatly folded her clothes every night like I do (ha ha!) I think though, that Hutchinson is a great deal more suspect than Mr. Astrachan. If this supposed sighting was so positive, and immediately relevant to the murder enquiry, I just don't understand why George sat on this information for days before he went to the police ? I think this is as big a question as anything we can raise on Astrachan. If someone I knew, even remotely, was found brutally murdered, and I saw anything in the build up to the crime, I'd be down at the police station quicker than a rat could run up a drainpipe. Also, cold damp, tired and broke George Hutchinson stands at the entrance to Millers Crt., for 45 minutes....... Why would he do such a thing ? I have not read Bob Hintons' book, I haven't been able to obtain a copy just yet, but I am interested in this theory, and would like to get a copy for my collection. If Bob Hinton still does frequent these boards, which I do believe he does make the odd guest apearance, I'd like to ask a personal favour. Without being offensive, forward or rude in any way, I believe Mr. Hinton is based in Sth. Wales, just as myself. I would love to ask if there was any way I could get a personalised copy of his book, if he were to be so kind. It would be something I would hold in great esteem, so... Mr. Hinton, and I can't apoligise enough, if I am totally out of order here, but is there any chance you could contact me by private email ? I am interested in your theory, I would just like to obtain more facts before I charge ahead and discuss the possibilities, here on message boards. As I said in my previous post, I don't yet have sufficient conviction to put Mr. Hutchinson in the frame just yet, but I do think his involvement is interesting, and his actions very suspect. I am also leaning toward the possibility that the Ripper did work in collusion with someone, regardless I still enjoy the study, and am interested in all viable suspect studies. Cheers Yaz & all !
Author: Jeff D Sunday, 10 January 1999 - 08:33 am
Oh ! Another point on the Mary Kelly neatly folded clothes thing. I know that being indoors does create a whole new set of possibilities, but undressing as Mary Jane did, was certainly not a prerequisite for the Ripper. As Ever.... JeffD
Author: D. Radka Sunday, 10 January 1999 - 11:42 pm
Jeff, my boy-- I thought it had been understood that Hutch stood out in front of Miller's Court because he had no other place to go, having spent his doss money in Romford that day. When he got tired of his Kelly watch, he curled up in some rags or tarpaulins in a nearby alley, and got a few hours' rest. Not hard to understand. David
Author: Kim Tuesday, 26 January 1999 - 03:28 am
This is my first visit to this site and I need to do alot more research, but was Mary Kelly the only victim killed indoors? Could this be why she was so mutilated? The killer had more time to work? KIM
Author: Bob_c Tuesday, 26 January 1999 - 05:19 am
Hi Kim. Welcome to the ripper board. As far as we know, Mary Jane Kelly was the only possible ripper victim to be killed indoors, but here you'll find there are as many views as to what really happened as there are people who write on the board. It is known that the attacks of such serial killers as Jack increase in ferocity with each killing. Kelly may have been chosen as victim that time because she had a house, or at least a room, of her own where Jack could chop her completely up in private without too much danger of being observed. Perhaps he would have mutilated the others far more if it hadn't have been so risky in the open street. Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. I'm fairly new to the board as well, but have learnt quite a bit since. Don't worry about putting any of your views on the board, other points of view are always welcome. Regards Bob
Author: Christopher-Michael Tuesday, 26 January 1999 - 10:55 am
To be technically picky about it, Martha Tabram was also killed "indoors," as she was murdered (or certainly found) on the first floor landing of George Yard Buildings and was thus not outside on the cold, hard ground. Of course, this depends on whether or not you accept Tabram as a Ripper victim! And welcome to the Casebook, Kim. Christopher-Michael
Author: Robert Tuesday, 26 January 1999 - 02:41 pm
The query as to Hutchinson's behaviour was raised on the old message boards (it's amazing how the same topics keep cropping up again at regular intervals but I guess that is because of new participants joining the discussions). If the older readers can recall, a very good argument was made for Hutchinson(with not a penny to his name) seeing the opportunity to rob Kelly's client. This would explain his detailed noting of the gold watch chain worn by the guy, and his fairly good description of him (he was weighing him up to assess what sort of resistance he may have been capable of putting up). With this in mind he followed Kelly and the guy thinking he could attack him as he left Miller's Court. In the event he gave up waiting after the guy had not come out again after 45 minutes. It would further explain his initial reluctance in approaching the police with his story, he could hardly admit that he was waiting to rob him! Whether his conscience got the better of him,or he thought of an excuse, or perhaps he thought Sarah Lewis had seen him (after she gave her evidence at the inquest), and it would look better if he went to the police of his own volition. This is certainly more likely than Hutchinson being the Ripper.
Author: Bob_c Tuesday, 26 January 1999 - 03:14 pm
Hi CM, Hi Robert, CM. Quite right, of course. I forgot to mention Tabram. She was killed on the landing, and was thus not completely in private like Kelly, but indoors in spite of that. Robert, That explanation for Hutch is as good as any other. I tend to think he may have had interest in Kelly ans thus been hanging around, but that is just a feeling, nothing more. Regards all, Bob
Author: Carole Melis Monday, 01 February 1999 - 05:44 pm
Hello. I just wanted to post that having read a few of the discussion groups under this Casebook, I am impressed and delighted with the quality of the discussion. I previously tried a free offer with aol, and was disgusted with what passes for a "chat room". What you have going is what I was hoping for when I signed on at last with the net. Probably a non sequitur, but I was living in Seattle when Ted Bundy was on the prowl. I remember my aunt commenting, while looking at the newspaper's pictures of the victims to that date, that the killer must be good looking to have been able to get close enough to kill such nice looking girls. It makes me think that JtR had to have been the sort that the prostitutes of the east end would not have questioned. As I remember them, at least the women who were undeniably prostitutes were not young or attractive; therefore, wouldn't they be unlikely to attract a "gentleman" as opposed to a laborer? Wouldn't that therefore eliminate at least some of the possible suspects? I feel that Mary Kelly's dismemberment was an opportunistic attack, since she she could be killed in a more private place than the others. Well, anyway, this is fascinating - I've had a delightful afternoon reading your postings. I'll check in again. Thank you.
Author: Hoodoo Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 04:14 am
Well, this is more fuss than I expected! I've been a fan of the Casebook for a year or two now, but never checked out the message boards before. I'm not even going to attempt to offer any opinions right now, but I just thought I'd say Hi and express my utter amazement at the amount of stuff I've picked up in one reading that I'd never heard of before. I just checked in to do a little research on a wee project I have going and I'm stunned with what I see. Thanks for the info guys, even tho you've made my life far more complicated than I'd expected :)
Author: Caroline Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 10:02 am
Hi Carole, I was interested by your post regarding Ted Bundy and JtR's choice of victim. I read somewhere that our Ted made a point of asking the police how they were getting on with their efforts to catch him! How like my own JtR suspect! As to the ripper's victims, I think he chose them deliberately for his particular 'series' according to their age and looks. Mary Kelly was either just a different 'part' of the same series, or was indeed killed by someone other than Jack. Can you imagine how a middle-aged woman of the streets may have felt, to be flattered and charmed by a handsome and witty young man, with gifts of flowers and fruit, and perhaps the promise that he was going to 'take her away from all this'? Even if it all sounded too good to be true, wouldn't they take the risk of meeting Jack again to find out? They were in the business of huge risk-taking already! Did they go to meet him, in their poshest new bonnet and suchlike, with a spring in their rather ungainly step, and a tune in their heads which just wouldn't be silenced? After all, flattery has always got men places they didn't ought to be going, particularly with women who are not used to getting much (flattery that is!) Keep posting, Carole, you are doing a great job! Love, Caroline
Author: Bob_c Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 02:10 pm
Hi Caroline, Your bit about witty, hadsome young men (ahem!) is also valid for Kelly, since Joe got the boot she had no one to pay the rent. She owed 29s, a large amount and, let us put it delicately, would have needed a pretty strong constitution to earn it at 4p per 'guest' in time to prevent eviction. She had the room, which was a lot more than the others, but was in great danger of loosing it and landing back in the gutter, which would have caused her great worry. Why should she not do what she had done before, find someone to support her? I believe that Kelly knew her killer at least a bit, he may have been in her plans as a future 'husband'. Of course she wouldn't have had quite the same feelings about him if she had known his disturbing habits. Love, Bob
Author: Caroline Thursday, 11 February 1999 - 05:52 am
Absolutely Bob. Couldn't have put it better myself. I think (I've just learned IMHO!) that JtR1 did the charm bit on Kelly, the reconnoitering, if you will, even down to teaching her about violets plucked from mama's grave. Unfortunately, not being of the right persuasion, our Jack was not about to give Mary what she had come to expect! Waiting in the wings as usual, JtR1 keeps a lookout, while sending 'son of Jack' in to do the real dirty on the poor wee girl, spurring him on with his own thoughts about what unfaithful women deserve in general, and what treacherous wives and mothers deserve in particular! I must get away for a few days now. Half-term for little Caz beckons, and she wants me to ROM (read only mummy!). I will be listening out for a chorus of Happy Birthdays on Saturday. Little Caz says I share it with Robbie Williams which she thinks is cool! I must also get down to some serious research as my notes and library books look like an epidemic has hit the house. I must say that the Casebook has been one of my favourite Xmas pressies. In the words of Messrs Grayson and Cholmondley-Warner, it has been most 'educative and informati-tive'. Behave yourselves while I am away. I don't want you all sending Mr wiseguy anonymous round in ever-decreasing circles only to disappear up...... oh, I don't know though. He's more than halfway there without any help from us! See you in a couple of weeks no doubt. Love, Caroline
Author: Jeff D Thursday, 11 February 1999 - 04:54 pm
Take Care Caz ! ..... have a Happy Birthday ! look forward to seeing you back ASAP. Jeff D PS Hello to Li'l Caz !
Author: Carole Melis Friday, 12 February 1999 - 01:43 am
Caroline, thank you for your cordial welcome, and indeed, a very happy birthday to you! Is it a given that all of Jack's victims were alcoholics? Had the gin robbed them of every degree of self-preservation? Somehow, from the brutality of the murders, I can't see Jack as the smooth-talking seducer you painted. I wonder if all the inducement he needed was the price of their next cup. As far as Mary Kelley goes, is much credence given to the testimony of the witnesses to sightings of her after 8:30 a.m.? I haven't yet run into any discussion of that point, although I certainly haven't read all the topics here yet, so I may have missed something. Considering the degree to which the victim was butchered, is there any possibility that it was not she in that room, and Mary kept silent as to her survival for some reason? Like, she knew Jack and was terrifed of him, so left London permanently? I just can't make that slaughter scene fit with a late morning attack in my head. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Bye for now. Carole
Author: D. Radka Friday, 12 February 1999 - 02:03 am
A point to ponder: Seems like you're taking a very concrete position on Jack the Ripper, the same as we think did several unlucky others in 1888. I guess it would seem unthinkable to a concrete inclination that a man who could brutally cut up a woman on the one hand could be her smooth-talking seducer on the other. Could something here be the same as it ever was? David
Author: Bob_c Friday, 12 February 1999 - 03:54 am
Hi Carole, Hi David, I think Jack chopped up prostitutes, not alchoholics. The Ladies were indeed heavy drinkers, I can imagine it was the only way they had to stand the hard life they had to lead. Of course it made it a lot easier for Jack to quietly dispatch them when they were befuddled by alchohol, maybe he even sorted them out according to that, but Eddowes was stated to have not been drunk at the time. She had been roaring drunk earlier in the day, leading to her arrest and half a night in the cells, but at the time of her death her stomach was said to have no trace of alcohol in it. Eddowes may even have not been a prostitute. Regards, Bob
Author: Rotter Friday, 12 February 1999 - 04:56 am
I'm not so sure about George Hutchinson eyeing up the Astrakhan Man with an eye to robbery. Like a starving man looking at an overflowing banquet table, he may have simply been gazing enviously at the goods on display, contrasting them with his empty pockets. Although Whitechapel seems to have been overflowing with evil characters--Maybrick, Chapman, "Leather Apron," et al,there were (and are) decent poor people in the majority.
Author: Bob_c Friday, 12 February 1999 - 06:41 am
Hi Rotter, No, CGH may indeed not have been checking out a possible mug. If all in Whitechapel were like Chapman & Co., the place would have been extinct within a week. I have a slight suspicion that CGH may have lied about if, or when then how long, he waited, and did he really take a good look at the man? Where is there any corroboration of that claim? Was he just a busybody wanting to make himself important by claiming such things? The description of the man he gave could be false. He claimed to know Kelly and we may assume he did, at least by sight. If he knew her better or not is probably a matter for conjunction. Regards Bob
Author: Ashling Friday, 12 February 1999 - 07:09 am
Hi all. ROTTER -- Has anyone ever put forth the idea that George Hutchinson hung out on the street corner for so long waiting for Astrakhan Man to leave -- so he (George) could: 1) Borrow the money Mary would have then earned to get himself a doss room for the rest of the night. 2) OR asked Mary to let him sleep on the floor of her room. 3) OR sneaked into the shed outside Mary's room to sleep. He probably didn't want to publicly admit to intentions of sponging off a woman. Perhaps thought Joe Barnett would be angry, maybe get jealous. And if the landlord found out the shed was being used as a flophouse, it would be more securely locked up, preventing future use. Or conversely, George might have fabricated the whole deal, hoping to collect a reward (were any reward offers made?) Maybe get his 15 minutes of fame in the bargain. Why didn't he have a plausible story ready to explain his hanging about for ages? Dunno. Maybe brilliant planning wasn't his strong suit. Later -- Ashling
Author: Carole Melis Friday, 12 February 1999 - 09:45 am
I had hoped to be early enough on the line to post this before anyone else is up -boy you guys are early birds! Anyway, my posting is this: I promise in the future to try to do my best to keep myself from posting my insomnia-induced late night maunderings! Of course Jack would not be a Mr. Hyde with evil emanating from every pore, much as I would like him to be. Caroline's point is well taken, and had Jack been as I would like to think he was, or even if any of the possible suspects (or anyone else for that matter) been wearing a neon sign saying "EVIL" he might have been lynched. So, Jack was a charming, smooth-talking, harmless appearing individual, someone who would not send up the ladies' radar. That makes sense in light of Ted Bundy - the evil that he was capable of was certainly not out there for anyone, particularly his victims, to see. I guess I was trying to put myself in the victims' places, and I was having a difficult time of picturing myself going with Jack unless royally confused by liquor. By the way, what was the beverage of choice? Gin or beer and ale? But then, of course, I'm not a woman living on the edge in Whitechapel in 1888, doing whatever I can to simply survive - so that's a huge leap for me to start with. Oh, well, maybe morning maunderings make no more sense than late night ones. Thanks for your comments, though. Carole
Author: Bob_c Friday, 12 February 1999 - 10:20 am
Hi Carole, Me and early bird....... I just live where the sun comes up a lot earlier. The popular, or mode, drink of the time was gin at 3p or 4p for a large glass. There were so-called gin palaces, glittering halls where you could drink gin all night, supposing, just like today, that you had the money and the stomach for it. The destitute prostitutes of that time tended to have the motto 'I don't worry about the ripper. It's either Jack or the bridge (suicide) for me' indicating the position they were in. As destitute, they were the scum of the street, as prostitute they were the lowest of the low. As women they were even more discriminated against. I can imagine that a woman who has reached this stage would really only care about the next drink, and maybe a filthy bed for the night to be able to survive maybe one day longer. She would not care much with whom she had sex, and probably not care much if the man had a disease, just the money for the next drink, bed, or maybe a bit of food. They really were poor devils. Regards Bob
Author: Rotter Friday, 12 February 1999 - 03:29 pm
Yes, definitely. You hear this kind of fatalism in the very poor. You can hear it today with regard to AIDS for example. These people did have their eyes open, they saw what happened to their peers ie an early end, and they knew what was coming for them.
Author: Not Anon Friday, 12 February 1999 - 07:32 pm
Tabram, Chapman and Kelly all drank beer. The terms ale and beer were already interchangeable at the time.
Author: Bob_c Saturday, 13 February 1999 - 07:03 am
Hi Not Anon, Seriously, where is the source of this information, or is it conjecture? I haven't claimed that the three drank gin, only that gin was the mode drink of the time. Regards, Bob
Author: Carole Melis Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 01:58 am
Hi, again, all. I've been trying to be good, and read all the postings elsewhere on this board systematically so that I don't ask stupid questions in the wrong forum...but I'm not good at delayed gratifications. Does anyone know how active the streets were on the night to morning of the Kelly murder? Were the respectable denizens of Whitechapel heading off for work at around the same hour the less respectable ones were falling into their beds? I'm still not making sense of Mary Kelly being seen alive in the morning, where elsewhere people have discussed the"night" of her murder; nor the moxie JTR would have had to have to risk interruption after dawn. Also, why the fire in her room, if not to light his work? Finally, even though she was dead before he started to butcher her, how could he be so sure he wouldn't get blood on himself that would be seen in daylight? Are any of you hunters who have gutted a deer in the field? How much blood is in a warm carcass when one is reaching into the abdomen to remove organs? Again, if the answers to these questions are elsewhere, and the subject is boring, please point me in the right direction on the board. Thanks.