Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through February 12, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Mary Jane Kelly » Mary Kelly or not Mary Kelly? » Archive through February 12, 2004 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1141
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 4:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

The fact that Mary undressed, folded her clothes neatly and hopped into bed, shows that she had no intentions of going back out to find another client. Barnett could have told her that he earned some money playing whist and even if she did want him out of her life once and for all, she perhaps thought that she could 'bleed' him of this money first.

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn

Post Number: 256
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 4:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Sarah,I know we all have slightly different ideas of what the victims were like but to me Mary seems to have been the one who of all of the [say five] who did take up prostitution without much of a blink.From what we know she did come to regret it but previously she had been in a hospital to cure venerial disease in Cardiff where she had embarked upon this life with a relative and had later gone into it in a fairly big way in Knightsbridge.It would seem to me that she had not been forced into it and that that may have been the reason her family were cut off from her[or had cut themselves off] because they had been upset by her lifestyle.Ofcourse Mary could have been an alcoholic which could have led her down a very slippery path unable to control the drinking and needing to pay for increasing alcohol related needs.Such a woman may well have hated the life she was leading and as you point out may well have actually been quite modest and even prudish about such matters.Its difficult to judge from this period of time.If it was she who neatly folded the clothes and not the ripper I think that how you are seeing her is probably the nearest to the true Mary---a young person caught up in a diabolical situation and period of time [for anyone who was poor and cut off from their family].I think its also quite important to try to get an accurate picture of the victims just as it is of Jack because this will help to piece the jigsaw together more accurately.
Best Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 609
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 6:11 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard,

Anyway where would she undress, in that tiny room, without Barnett noticing

There is no evidence that he was in the room when she undressed. You are just presuming he was there so I can't answer this.

it was not passion that he killed her , but pure hatred.

The way her body had been completely mutilated would suggest to me, if Barnett did it, that it was out done out of passion/hatred. If he just hated her then I don't think he's bother ripping her body up to such a degree but that's just my opinion.

Leanne,

The fact that Mary undressed, folded her clothes neatly and hopped into bed

This is not fact. It is very likely, but not a proven fact.

Natalie,

In my mind I see Mary as going into prostitution because her cousin made her think it was a good idea because she had just lost her husband whilst still being very young and naive and didn't know what else to do (this is if what we know about Mary is true). She went to London to a whore house in the West End of London because in that "career" that was the place to make money. I'm not sure why she left there, possibly a disagreement with the Madame after going to France maybe (if that's true too). Anyway I don't think she wanted to be a prostitute after Joe lost his job otherwise she would have done so whilst he was still working, but she felt she had little choice. She apparently kept on telling one of her friends (Julia I think, can't remember off hand) that she hopes they don't go down the same path as her into prostitution.

That's just my view of course.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw

Post Number: 513
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 9:20 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello

One thing that puzzles me is why Mary Kelly would disrobe down to a chemise and start a fire to keep warm? Wouldn't it make more sense for her to wear something more appropriate to bed and use the fire as a second method of keeping warm?

Perhaps she disrobed for a client and moved to the far side of the bed for her client to join her. If JTR was her client I don't understand why he would he alter his routine by failing to quickly render his victim senseless and then cut her throat and go about his mutilations.

Killers like JTR are believed to feel uncomfortable until they have either killed their victim or rendered them senseless.

I believe that one possible answer is that she knew her client to some greater or lessor degree and disrobed before he had a chance to set the stage for murdering in his preferred fashion.

All The Best
Gary
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 7:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

I dont think that Mary would have a problem with undressing in front of joe. If he was there at that late hour he must have been there for a reason. It his not uncommon for ex to hook back up maybe for one night. Mary was not completly naked she did have a slip on. It may have been common for her to sleep in a slip.

I think Mary folded her own cloths. I dont think the ripper would have folded her cloths. I think that she would want to take care of her cloths as soon as she took them off.

I dont think that the ripper broke into her house I feel he was invited in. He would have been takeing a huge risk any other way.

I dont think that sex has changed and you do have to take your cloths off. I think the most likely scenario was she got a client and invited him in. She undressed getting ready for sex. She laid on the bed and the ripper was on her before she knew what happend

Take care,CB
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 534
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 2:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all
This is getting very confusing to me.. To me IMHO !Mary took someone back at the last, that she knew ,and felt comfortable with, aka someone she knew! Taking her clothes off wouldn't have been embarassing at all,I feel that she'd done it 'comfortably' a few times before and was happy with that arrangement..just chums or old 'friends' maybe..don't know but think that the fire may have been lit by the visitor,not by Mry herself..just a thought chaps
Cheers
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1143
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 4:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

Prostitutes were used to just taking off the clothes necessary to service a customer, (lifting their skirts and bending over when it's just in the street for example), so if her killer was already in her room when she hopped into bed, the fire would have already been lit, and she mustn't have wanted to go out and find another one after this one was satisfied.

The fact that Mary's killer didn't render her sensless quickly, (while she was undressing for example), tells me that he didn't want to murder her and may have done it in a rage that he couldn't control.

I don't think the Ripper would have bothered to fold Mary's clothes either.

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 535
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 4:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne G'Day!!
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about the quickies in the street (!).This mystery man who Mary seemed very at home with obviously wasn't threatening at all to Mary..I reckon she folded her own clothes ..after all she didn't probably have that many,probably put them on top of Maria Harvey's things,or at least somewhere in that room!!Seems that a lot of Maria's stuff was burnt though..how much of Mary's supposed clothing was actually found in 13 Mllers Ct??
Cheers
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn

Post Number: 258
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 4:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi All,I think this is certainly one scenario that has been and still is worth considering.But myself I think it just as likely that the ripper stalked his victims.If he lived in Whitechapel
and frequented the same pubs his victims did or secretly watched their movements from the shadowy parts of Whitechapel at night either way he could have noted how the newly alone Mary took customers home and watched her come and go and her clients come and go too.
I once knew of a case heard at Chester Assizes
of a Dutch seaman who had followed an attractive 17 year old maid back to her house from [I think seeing her at a bus station].He waited and watched
her house which was near the Menai Straights in Angelsey and when he thought everyone was in bed he broke in through the bathroom window and then into her bedroom where he murdered her.He had committed other murders in other ports and was actually on the run from the Dutch authorities.
This case has made me wonder how much the ripper stalked his victims after seeing them in pubs say
or just coming out of pubs and following them.
Best Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 669
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 4:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi,
I Believe it is safe to assume, knowing the fear that kelly was feeling during at least the latter part of these murders, that she would not have taken, any person she considered, a possible mad man, back to her room.
She was reported , that it was not her policy at the time, to bring anyone,especially sailors, to her room, and common sence says, that any man of foreign origin, or of unclean appearence, she would not have entertained.
Therefore , i would suggest two points are the most likely.
a] She knew her killer well, or she had serviced this person during the murders, and he was obviously not Jack, for she was still alive.
b] she was certain , like most of the residents, that the killer was, a member of the low working classes, and she , not only for monetary gain, but because well to do clients, was not her idea, of the murderers identity.and because of this false sence of security, met her maker.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 620
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 5:06 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard,

How would she have known what a "possible mad man" looked like? I bet Jack, whoever he was, looked and acted completely normal when he wasn't out killing prostitutes.

With our second option, are you suggesting that if the killer wasn't Joe that he was someone from the upper classes?

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vladimir
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 1:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello All,

Natalie, that is an interesting thought. Stalking the unfortunate ladies. Sounds more like Hutchinson than Barnett.
I think there is much more to Hutchinson's Story than meets the eye. I actually think he was the first person to see her dead on that bed when he walked down into the court to look in the window.
Maybe he even did it, I don't know. But Stalking is what I would call what he was doing that night.

If Mary really wanted JB gone, I do not think there would be anyway she would let him see her undress. While it may take more than a woman undressing to make a man want sex, that is all it would take to confuse a man that still has interest in a woman.

If JB has really lost in passion for Mary, why keep giving her money, why keep checking on her to make sure she is ok, and why kill her? Isn't the JTR killings considered a sex crime (I know there was not sex, but that does not mean it was not a sexually related crime) and sex crimes are a crimes of passion.

Just my 2 cents (ok more than 2 cents)

Vlad
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I just one more thought. I think there is a possibility that she knew the ripper. She may have seen him around in pups or the street. She may have had conversations with him prior to the night she was murderd. I dont feel she knew him as intimate as some have suggestd. He very well may have been a casual friend or so she thought.

Take care, CB
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 11:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I gary,

That is a good point. Why would he let her get so comfortable before strikeing? Why did he break his routine? Perhapes the answer is simple. He never had the chance to be patient always strikeing outside were speed is important. Here he had all the time in the world.

The fact that he may have known her I dont think it would of made much of a difference on how fast he carried out the murder. Like you say he would have wanted to do it fast anyway.

He broke his pattern in the first place by killing in a home and alot of people think that this would indicate he knew her. I just think he picked up a women who worked out of her house.

I have my own crazy theory as to why the ripper was invited in but I am afraid it doese not have much sand yet. So I will definately consider your suggestion Gary that she may have known her killer.

All the best,CB
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 6:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Natalie, The stalking theory is a possibility. The ripper could of had his eye on Kelly in advance. If I am not mistaken she was an atractive women.

The location of the bodies of the other women would indicate to me no stalking. However he may have followed his victums out of a bar I suppose.

The reason prostitutes are often targeted by killers is there really is no need to stalk. they go with the killer. They take him to the place were they know interuption is least likely.

I dont think Mary was a stalking victum. I dont think the ripper broke in to her house. He would be takeing to much of a risk.

Take care,CB
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn

Post Number: 262
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 4:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi CB and Vladimir , All,I dont think the ripper stalked in quite the way we understand it today.
Watched various women coming and goingthat sort of thing.And took advantage when he spotted a possible victim..
Thinking of Kate Eddowes for example I see her leaving the police station in Bishopsgate and tottering along Hounsditch not quite recovered from the drinking bout.Who should be lurking about around that time and in that area but mad Jack.Now lets just suppose this is Kosminski.This
Kosminski has not yet had the kind of blow out regarding his illness that led him to eat out of gutters etc but hes well on his way and hearing voices.His mother happens to live just round the corner from the police station in New Street-he is "taking the night air" and cant believe his luck so he follows her round the next corner and into Hounsditch and catches up near Mitre Square
or alternatively
hes been disturbed with Elizabeth Stride and is hurrying home to mothers when who should he see coming towards him along Hounsditch but tipsy Kate
anyway
they meet and he and she stand together and Kate puts her hand on his chest and this is seen by a "fellow Jew" Lawende who later gives evidence against him[reluctantly-because he is a "fellow Jew".
After the murder he heads back to mother again
stopping at some point a few hundred yards from his mothers house to drop a bloodied opiece of apron.........
I got carried away a bit there but it fits somehow to me.
Regarding Mary-well he has watched Mary parading of late and followed her to where she lives.He sees her put her hand through a broken window and let herself in.He goes away and it dawns on him he could "have " her.He could just wait[like the Dutch seaman above]until there is noone about and let himself in same way she did...and if she is sound asleep-what could be easier?When hes done he just has to slip along Brushfield Street back home to mother-shell be asleep anyway only this time his minds completely blown and hell never be the same -from now on everybody sees the change in him and knows hes mad.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw

Post Number: 515
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 6:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi CB

Mary Kelly could certainly have known the Ripper by sight or as an acquaintance and thereby felt comfortable enough around him to undress, fold her clothes and get into the bed.

I firmly believe Kelly could have known her killer without coming to the conclusion that the killer was necessarily Joe Barnett. However, this still begs the question of why he waited for her to undress. Perhaps a plausible explanation is that she was in the process of undressing for bed and intended to put on something warmer to sleep in, when JTR surprised her by opening the door through the window. If he produced a knife she would have had just enough time to withdraw to the corner of the bed and shout 'murder'. He could have then covered her mouth with his hand and her face with the sheet and cut her throat on the far side of the bed before moving the body more to the middle of the bed so he could carry out his mutilations.

I had better stop as I am confusing myself by trying to picture the scenario as it may have transpired.

All The Best
Gary
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1154
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 7:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Gary,

We're all trying to picture the scenario, mate!

What 'something warmer' could she have put on? The man's coat hanging over the window? That would have let the cold-air get in.

No one could have surprised her by reaching through the window to open the door, because that in itself would have taken about two minutes.

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe

Post Number: 145
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 8:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne,
Two minutes? Please explain. (Hmm, have to use more words -- would it be a violation of board rules to put in a plug for my novel? Forget the question, I'm over the limit.)

Don.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw

Post Number: 516
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 9:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Leanne

I would expect that MJK would have had something to wear over a chemise on cold, damp winter night. I don't recall whether an inventory of her clothing was ever made public but I would assume she would have had petticoats she could have put on.

Would it really take two minutes to spring the lock through the window? You have done more research into this than I have. If you are correct, we are back to the most plausible situation being that Kelly came in with the killer or let him into the room.

One thing I have never understood is the fact that the door was locked when the body was discovered. As I recall they had to take a pick-ax to the door to gain entry. Is it not possible that Kelly could have found the key unbeknownst to Barnett and the others who testified at the inquest?

The murderer could then have found the key, locked the room on the way out, and left with the key. Conversely, Kelly could have just left the door open if she did not fear for her safety. As improbable as this latter suggestion sounds, Kelly may have felt she was safe from the Ripper because she was indoors in a secluded room down a passageway and the killer appeared to work only on the empty streets. This However, does not explain how the door was locked.

All The Best
Gary
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 2085
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 9:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Gary, everyone

My hypothesis (only a hypothesis!) is that GH's man, or even some other client who came along later, let himself out after having sex with Kelly, and Kelly couldn't be bothered to get up and push the door to, thus locking it. Then she nodded off. Along comes JTR - some shambling loony maybe - and Kelly's just got time to wake up and scream "Murder"....

However, a night time scenario falls through if Shannon's blood argument is right.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 6:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Natalie,

Thanks for your response. Your theory about Kate is completely possible and I think most likely. I would not doubt that the ripper spotted victums on the street and went after them.

I still think that Mary let her killer in. However, Ted Bundy broke into a sorority room because of desperation.

I dont think your theory on Kozminski is far fetched and good for you for trying to logically reason the case. In my oppinion Kozminski is a viable suspect.

All the best,CB

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 10:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

I read on the boards on one of the Kelly threads that the door would lock automatically when closed. I have no idea and it may have been someones theory. I wonder if they had doors that were abl to do that?

All the best,CB

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vladimir
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 2:23 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Natalie,

I was not thinking JTR stalked his victims in the sense we use it today. I think there was something about them that drew JTR to them. It could just be they were there, but in the case of MJK, I think he saw her, followed her (Maybe even had seen her before) and when he realized she was alone and inside went totally bezerk.

I do think that finished off what little grasp he had on reality and that is why he stopped.

Vlad
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vladimir
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 2:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne,

Two minutes? If it was Barnett as you say, don't you think he would have been more practiced than that? I think it would be much quicker than that. I can open my car door with a hanger in less than two minutes. (Not every time, but most times) And that is harder than reaching through a window and unlatching a door.
Also you would think it would be easier, or harder, for a man to reach through the window and unlock the door. Easier as men are generally taller and therfore have longer arms. Harder because men have generally thicker arms. So depending on the size and exact placement of the whole, the killer should have gotten in almost as easily as MJK. (her having more practice would help her to open it faster)

Sorry, off on another tangent.

Vlad

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.