Did the Ripper ever exist?

** 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 **

Did the Ripper ever exist?

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Did the Ripper ever exist?

Author: Graham Jay Friday, 05 July 2002 - 08:15 am
Hi, There are five widely accepted victims, six if you include Tabram. Now, most people exclude Tabram, a large number exclude Liz Stride, and others exclude Mary Kelly. That leaves three. These remaining three are similar crimes, but none of them are hugely different from many others committed in this great city over the last few centuries. They have been linked together, but if you accept that Stride and Kelly have been wrongly included, why not the others? Has any ever thought that all of these crimes were committed by different individuals and that the idea of a "Jack the Ripper" is itself incorrect? I don't believe that myself - but in one way I wish it was, it might stop some of the dire books on the subject being published.
Author: Monty Friday, 05 July 2002 - 08:25 am
Mr Jay, Included wrongly ??? Different individuals ???? Dire ????? Monty...just toying.
Author: Graham Jay Friday, 05 July 2002 - 08:52 am
I hope you're not suggesting that all Ripper books are high quality, well thought out, and non-dire???
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 05 July 2002 - 09:15 am
Hi Graham! I cautiously suggest that the posthumous mutilation of Mary Jane Kelly was extremely unlike any other recorded London murders. I would add that when compiling the "Murder Guide to London" I found only one earlier case remotely suggestive of the Ripper: that of Elizabeth Winterflood aka Ann Webb in 1807. She was strangled and an exterior part of her genitals was chopped off and thrown aside. It was never solved: the authorities suspected her ponce, "Weeping Billy" Greenaway, and so do I. All the best, Martin F
Author: Graham Jay Friday, 05 July 2002 - 09:27 am
Hi Martin, Do you include the other Ripper murders in that comment? In which case, it would merely help to prove the point that it may be a different killer.
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 05 July 2002 - 02:43 pm
Hi Graham, To the extent that Elizabeth Winterflood's was the closest I found to any Ripper murder, I suppose it would all depend how close does close have to be before you are looking at a hypothetically identical hand. I mean, I can see what your driving at: need a savage rippping with enraged stab wounds in the lower abdomen be by the same hand as an evisceration? Or an evisceration with serious internal "rummaging" and minor facial mutilation? Or a complete cutting apart with the knife? Might this not be the work of more than one person? If so, then by extraordinary chance these two or three extremely bizarre murderers all surfaced in the same short period of eleven weeks, and apparently all went to ground after their one or two strikes. And no similar killer to the murderer/s of Katharine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly has appeared in London since. (I can't offhand think of one to match Annie Chapman and Polly Nichols, either. But I'm being cautious). Add to that the opinion of some psychiatrists that such disordered people may require to intensify their bizarre acts in order to continue enjoying gratification from them, and the crescendo of violence seems more persuasive than the notion of different hands. But I'm not a psychiatrist or a statistician, and I'm not being dogmatic. I'm just cautiously suggesting the reasons why I don't think I'd be inclined to follow your lead. All the best, Martin F
Author: Monty Monday, 08 July 2002 - 08:18 am
Graham, Surely not all...a majority, but not all. Cheers, Monty...not toying.
Author: Howbrow Saturday, 17 August 2002 - 09:09 pm
Graham.Just my opinion,but remember that these crimes happened in the same neighborhood. That alone would reduce the odds of numerous perps. Whattya think?
Author: Graham Jay Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 04:00 am
I take your point Howbrow, but don't make the mistake of thinking that their neighbourhood bears any relationship to the kind of neighbourhood you may live in nowawadays. We're taking about tens of thousands of people crammed into just a few streets - probably enough in that small area to equate to a small town in the 21st century!
Author: John Hacker Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 08:20 am
Graham, The idea that there wasn't a single killer was proposed by Peter Turnbull who wrote a book on the subject called "The Killer who Never Was". There were only 300 copies printed and it's expensive and difficult to find at this point. If you are interested in getting an overview of his theory, he also has an essay the in the "Mammoth Jack the Ripper" which is edited by Jakubowski and Braud. I believe that his basic premise was that a number of different slaughtermen commited the crimes individually as part of some sort of mass hysteria or something. I'm afraid that it all seemed rather far fetched to me. Regards, John Hacker
Author: Howard Brown Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 12:43 pm
Dear Graham.........One reason why I think that the Chapman/Eddowes/Nichols trilogy were by the same perp,is that subsequent to these mutilations ,no other murders resemble them. That does not PROVE that my statement is correct.Although a hell of a lot of SK use the same M.O.,in this case,few murders resemble it,as it is unique in some respects.Whattya think?
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 03:30 pm
No Jack the Ripper? An example of 'reverse engineering', surely?
Author: Rebecca L. Spadaccini Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 01:10 pm
New Member I understand that this response is to a post from July but being a new member, I only now read it. In response to Mr. Fido's post, perhaps Mary Kelly's murder stood out as the most gruesome because Jack the Ripper's serial killing was eventually leading up to her death anyway. He probably knew her better than he knew (if he knew any) of the other women.
Author: Brian Schoeneman Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 05:13 pm
Rebecca, Welcome aboard! Sounds like your a Joe Barnett fan. Since he knew MJK better than anyone else, he'd fit your theory. As I've read, most serial killers don't have a "goal" - although some of have. Personally, I think the Ripper was really only doing it to get his jollys, and knew the women only as his fantasy for the night. B
Author: David Jetson Monday, 30 December 2002 - 06:50 am
I think we can safely say that at least 3 of the murders were definately done by the same person, and I think it's likely that the canonical 5 plus Martha Tabram were all killed by the same person. So that's six: 3 definates and 3 probables. Leaving aside the probables, three definate victims are plenty. Even if they were the "only" three, three people murdered is still a big crime. Whether we think he killed 3 or 6 or 102, we are definately dealing with a serial killer. And since we need to have a name, why not Jack the Ripper? We all know the name was made up by a hoaxer, but so what? There definately was a JtR, it's about the only thing that almost all of us agree on. I don't think there can be serious doubts. I agree with Brian S, above, that the victims were all likely to be strangers who happened to be what Jack was after: vulnerable women. I don't see any evidence that Jack was after anything more specific than vulnerable women. Maybe specifically prostitutes, I don't regard even that as definately proved. To me, the victims seem to fit the category of "wrong place, wrong time" - with the possible exception of MJK.
Author: Rebecca L. Spadaccini Monday, 30 December 2002 - 11:08 am
I do agree that JtR might not have had a purpose. I mean this man/woman (depending on your theory) was obviously sick-minded and psychopathic. However, I think the killer must have had some sort of a goal for a number of reasons, the chief one being that here you have numerous unfortunate woman who have been murdered. Yet it is believed ( I am not sure if it is proven) that no signs of intercourse were present. JtR (in my opinion) had a distaste for prostitutes otherwise advantage of them would have been taken before their slayings. There are hole's in my thinking, I am sure, but I just don't know that someone would be doing this just for fun, although it is not inconceivable. I do understand that my theories all intertwine with each other but I am still learning about this vast and complicated chapter in History. Thank you for your patience!
Author: Brian Schoeneman Monday, 30 December 2002 - 04:38 pm
Rebecca, Keep in mind that many sexual serial killers do not have sex with their victims. For example, David Berkowtiz - Son of Sam - would kill his victims, and then go hide and wait for the police to arrive. He would sit there and watch and masturbate. Many other serial killers are the same way - they don't use the bodies for sex, the use the bodies to complete their fantasies and then go take care of themselves somewhere else. So not having intercourse with the victims or their corpses doesn't mean it wasn't a sexual crime. Check out any of John Douglas's "Mindhunter" non-fiction books - they are trashy, but interesting. Also, check out "The Anatomy of Motive" by Douglas - it's his best one in my opinion. And don't worry - 90% of us on here are amateurs, and the 10% who are pros just smile and nod while we learn. B
Author: Rebecca L. Spadaccini Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 08:36 am
B, I didnt know that about serial killers. I always thought that they had to rape/have sex with their victims in order for it to be considered a sexual crime. I will check out those books also. I also have yet another question.. How many women are actually considered Jack the Ripper victims. I have heard numbers ranging from 3-10. I have heard also that some of the women killed around this time werent killed in JtR's "style" and thus probably werent him. However, do you think he could've altered his killing style a bit top throw off police? Or would you say that they were copycat crimes?
Author: Philip Rayner Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 10:00 am
Surely we must bow to the people 'on the ground'in 1888. The wisdom of our ancestors is that these crimes constituted a series and the MO was similar enough for the crimes to be attributed to one person. I would not gainsay those who attribute less than 5 as I have no proof but Elizabeth Stride's murder always seemed slightly less than 'Ripperish' to me. Having said that most of the people who were involved in the case were convinced that one person was responsible. In fact if you leave out Stride, the remaining murders could be seen as a psychopathic learning curve culminating with Kelly. This is not an original idea nor my own but it makes sense. More so if you count Tabram as a first attempt.
Author: Brian Schoeneman Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:10 pm
Philip, While I grant that it is a good idea to rely on the contemporary feelings, they aren't always accurate. The press didn't have all of the information available because the police didn't release it, and the police weren't familiar with this sort of killer. For example, the press continued to consider Emma Elizabeth Smith as a Ripper victim, when it was obvious that she wasn't - she was killed by three men, and she didn't even die during the attack. She went to the hospital the next day and died. Then there was the whole Fanny Fay business. So according to some press accounts, by the time time of MJK's death, he had killed 8 women. But we know that 2 of those couldn't have been victims. There's no real answer to the question. Sugden put it best: "At least four, probably six, possibly eight." B
Author: Brian Schoeneman Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:14 pm
Rebecca, There were a number of other killings in the area during the Ripper killings. For example, the Whitehall torso killings - a number of women were found hacked into bits, one of the bodies being dumped in a construction area in New Scotland Yard which was still being built. The same day as the double event there was a domestic homicide. Emma Smith was killed by a band of ruffians. 1888 was just not a good year to be a woman in the East End. Then you've got the Coles, Mylett and MacKenzie killings in 1889 and after. In my opinion, the Coles and MacKenzie killings were copycats, their killers mimicing weakly the Ripper's signature to throw the police off. So there were a number of other unrelated murders - unrelated in the sense that the police didn't consider them connected, and neither have many latter day Ripperologists. B
Author: Philip Rayner Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 08:48 am
Brian, I agree that like most other questions surrounding the Ripper case, we are no further on with this than they were in 1888. I feel however that your final assessment is correct. This was one serial killer but only the number of his victims is in doubt. Wherever JTR is he must be having a good chuckle at our attempts to answer all these questions.
Author: Rebecca L. Spadaccini Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 06:00 pm
1888 certainly wasn't a good year for the women and it is sad that their murderer was never brought to justice and never will be (unless he is the oldest living man) however I certainly hope that this stream of murders can still be solved. Out of curiosity, did anyone see Patricia Cornwell on Book Tv, I believe the...29? Very interesting. She was discussing her new book: Potrait of a Killer and it was quite interesting to hear her point of view. If you see it on, watch it because they might air it again. Take Care
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 10:46 am
I think most years in the slums of London were pretty bad for women - and everyone else. I suspect brutal murder actually comes pretty low down on the causes of avoidable death through disease, malnutrition, poverty etc. However, I find the number of deaths issue a fascinating one, and from all the things we don't know can I put forward for debate three things I think we know? 1) There was more than one serial killer operating at the time unless the Torso murders were also perpetuated by JtR 2) The series(s) of murders did stop, whether with Kelly, McKenzie or Coles. 3) The murder of Mary Kelly is a highly unusual crime even in the annals of murder/mutilation/dismemberment, and is significantly unlike any other murder in the series. Dismemberments are usually to hide the body, gross mutilations usually frenzied axe murders or similar where the purpose is to take out rage on the body, lesser mutilations usually follow some more obvious pattern of souvenir taking. But the semi-intelligent taking to pieces that was inflicted on MJK is I submit virtually unique. I don't say you can't explain away MJK so she fits, but you do have to have an explanation. Especially so if you have the Ripper still around long after the event like Sickert, for example. I would also like to add that I think there is no one murder that can definitely be ruled in or out without more information, and that whatever murders you do include in affect your criteria for including or excluding others, so there really is no independent way of assessing the total number of killings that should correctly be attributed to Jack. For example, if you attribute MJK to someone else, the perhaps we are looking for 'Torso Man' as responsible for the Torso murders, , 'Leather Apron' the killer of the first three or four canonical victims and/or Tabram, a frenzied wife/lover murderer for MJK, and a copycat of a fictional JtR for the late members of the series and into 1891. So, I would like to amend Philip Rayner's very sensible conclusion to read "There was at least one serial killer and the number of killers and their responsibility for any particular killing is in doubt"
Author: Dan Norder Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 07:32 pm
MJK was "significantly unlike any other murder in the series"...? Not really. It was extremely similar to the Eddowes killing. Any minor differences are easily and summarily explained by the fact that it was indoors and Jack had more time to do his thing. But then I know some people like to try to separate that one out for a variety of unlikely theories. I agree with the first two points though. Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
Author: Timsta Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 08:59 pm
Peter: I would agree with Dan that certain aspects of the Kelly murder may represent an escalation of some of the features of the Eddowes murder, specifically the facial mutilation. So-called 'experts' on serial murderers readily identify this characteristic - it's known as 'overkill', roughly defined as 'unnecessary additional mutilation', and it is I believe quite common to see facial mutilations - but sadly I don't think anyone actually agrees on what it means in terms of being able to analyze a killer's motivations and/or mental state. Regards Timsta
Author: Brian Schoeneman Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 10:30 pm
Timsta, There are lots of arguments over "overkill", but the general consensus, as far as I can tell in the literature, is that overkill is typically seen in a situation where there is significant emotion put into the killing (duh), and that significant emotion generally means that the killer knows the victim and/or has some kind of relationship with her (or him in a homosexual lust crime). Whether or not that's a legitimate read of what "overkill" means, I won't comment on. But that's how it is defined. B
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 10:43 pm
Hi all, Dan and I have gone round and round on this one before - and I don't post this with the hopes that we shall do so again. The Kelly killing is different from the others in the series in many ways, not the least of which it was indoors. Dan says that the Eddowes and Kelly killings are extremely similiar. However, there are those of us who disagree. It is a debatable point. Dan has expressed the view that the differences between the Kelly killing are minor and explicable. My view is that they are significant and, perhaps, explicable but any explanation is conjecture. My view is that Kelly may have, or even perhaps probably, was killed by the same person who murdered Eddowes. Yet, the differences give me pause that she may have been killed by someone else. If I have misstated your position, Dan, I apologize. I respect you and your opinion and was simply trying to describe in a neutral way the differences you have with those of us who have doubts about Kelly. Regards, Rich
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord Friday, 03 January 2003 - 07:39 am
Hi Dan FWIW, I personally favour that MJK was killed by the 'JtR' killer, and that it was probably his last killing (although I have a not-very-likely alternate theory that he went back to street kills because the inside one was an accident and didn't somehow 'work' for him), I also favour that he killed the canonicals with the possible exception of Stride. I have an open mind on earlier victims. But I was trying to highlight a few 'facts' which contrast with the conjecture we are forced to make in so many areas. I am still trying, probably unwisely, to work out 'whodunit' - since its likely we'll never know, all I'm aiming at is understanding what is possible (Poor immigrant, local guy) and what isn't (Prince Eddy). And it seems to me that which murders you talk in or out are critical to that, as are some minor but concrete details such as the absence of money at any of the crime scenes (the farthings I believe are a red herring - I think someone pointed this out) I would still maintain that MJK's murder is a most unusual crime, and not just 'overkill'. Perhaps I'm over affected by the pictures, but I've seen other pictures of murder victims whose bodies have been severely mutilated - Sam Sheppard's wife, for example - and I really can't think of anything similar. Someone I think once said it was like a ghastly version of a spoiled kid with someone else's toy box.
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Friday, 03 January 2003 - 04:35 pm
"overkill is typically seen in a situation where there is significant emotion put into the killing (duh), and that significant emotion generally means that the killer knows the victim and/or has some kind of relationship with her (or him in a homosexual lust crime). " Brian, At grave risk of reopening the Balkan war that was the disorganized/organized thread, I will cite The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers as saying that the disorganized killer often knows his victims, and that disfiguring the face is often done to depersonalize his prey. I raise this point in reference to Eddowes' statement at Shoe Lane that she had come back to earn the reward for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer, as she thought she knew him. (The A-Z, p. 122-123). Perhaps here is an explanation for the severe facial mutilations visited upon Eddowes. Then again, perhaps not. Sir Robert
Author: Gregory Boston Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 07:01 am
yes
Author: Jeff Hamm Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 03:19 pm
Mutilations of the face, is just one of many forms of "depersonalisations" that can occur. Alone, they don't necessarily indicate a relationship, and there is a tendancy in the crimes for the "body area" of the mutilations to increase (apart from Stride if you include her). This could, of course, be a complete red herring, as there is the possibility that the Ripper was "interrupted" for Nicholes and Stride (again, with the caveat that you include Stride). If the Ripper left Nicholes before completing the mutiliations he "intended", then the escalation is not in the "intended violence", but may reflect the Ripper learning to select more and more secluded areas - give himself more time. The global scope of the Ripper's mutilations is to entirely destroy the body. This kind of rage, when repeated multiple times, seems to reflect a hatred of women in general rather than the "stand in representative" that is the specific individual victim. Mind you, I'm not an expert in such analysis, so take that into consideration as well! - Jeff
Author: Caroline Morris Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 02:20 pm
Hi All, If you try to imagine the man who killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, and then imagine he meets a genie who grants him one wish, what do you think he would wish for? Me, I think Mary Kelly comes pretty close. So if Jack didn't get to kill Mary, but was still around to hear the tale, I wonder what he thought about the guy who got the early Christmas pressie? Maybe he threw himself into the Thames in a fit of jealous rage and despair. Or maybe not. Love, Caz
Author: julienonperson Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 02:59 pm
Hi Caz, Cute little scenario re JtR and the genie. I know where you are coming from and no doubt there are more folks who will state that Kelly was a Ripper victim than not. But I am bothered a great deal about this murder, I don't know if it is because of the over-kill, the time factor, indoors the fireplace or what. It just doesn't seem to fit as far as I am concerned, but heck I wasn't a witness.Hutchinsons presence is another WHY??to me. If we were to take a hypethetical situation where it was able to be proven that Kelly was not a Ripper Victim, it would open a new door of suspects, eg: those who were cleared due to the fact that they were incarserated at the time, be it an asylum or detention. I still think that much more will come to light once the asylum records are opened in 2030, if I am quoting correctly. Love to hear back, but be gentle,I'm a rookie to the board. (Ha!) regards julie
Author: Richard P. Dewar Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 12:56 am
Hi Julie, Thank you for a sensible and polite post - and you have said nothing unreasonable to my mind. I too have my doubts about Mary Kelly as a victim of Jack the Ripper. There are a lot of differences in that murder from the others in the series - admittedly those who opt for Kelly have good explanations for those differences. Nonetheless, for me, that murder is in the questionable column. Stewart Evans, one of the most important authorities on the case, has written about his doubts that Kelly was a Ripper victim. So, Julie, your opinion is shared by good company. Regards, Rich
Author: Caroline Morris Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 04:09 am
Hi Julie, I'm always gentle with gentle people. I do try to keep an open mind on the subject of Kelly as JtR victim. And I don't want to adopt the mindset of the police at the time, many of whom appear to have favoured suspects on the basis that the ripper definitely killed Kelly; was a sexual sadist (that bit I would agree with); and that because of the extreme brutality of Kelly's murder, he had to have killed himself or gone mad shortly afterwards (that bit I don't). (For me, there's a paradox here with Tumblety, in that Littlechild calls him a very likely suspect who was believed to have committed suicide after the murders came to an end. We can only guess how much this suspicion was based on Kelly being the last victim, or the erroneous belief that Dr. T took his own life afterwards, and whether Littlechild would think he was such a likely suspect if he was ruling Kelly out as a victim. And of course, there's the little matter of Dr. T leaving Kelly's womb behind if Littlechild included her as a victim.) Anyway, that's by the by. My gut feeling is that whoever killed Eddowes couldn't believe the window of opportunity he found himself with when alone in that room with Kelly. Add to that my gut feeling that, if Jack didn't kill Kelly, the known suspects for her murder have very little going for them in terms of evidence that they had it in them to commit a one-off crime of this magnitude and horror, against a woman they knew personally, and face it out so well afterwards. Even if a Joe could have acted like a Jack for the murder itself, how likely is it that he could have kept up the act of a serial killer in the aftermath, and done the cool Peter Sutcliffe thing? Love, Caz
Author: Richard P. Dewar Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 04:26 am
Hi Caz, I may report you for being gentle with a gentle person - I think you are supposed to show you are superior and insult the person's intelligence and, for good measure to shake them up, persecute them for their religious faith in order show you know more about the case. In any event, do you mean to suggest that you do not think the killer of Mary Kelly could have done such an act and not repeated it? Regards, Rich
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 11:08 am
OK, I will trot it out again. Assuming JtR is an opportunist sexually motivated killer (not the only possibility by miles, but just for a moment bear with me). Normally he accosts old sad ladies of the night, goes where they lead him for sex, and offs them in the open, in conditions of considerable danger. This gets his rocks in ways we hopefully cannot fathom. One lucky night, after a short enforced holiday for some reason (increased police activity or more careful prostitutes after the double event or he was away on a boat, for example)) he lands MJK, a little younger than he usually likes, but he's a bit desperate. She leads him to a dark little court, he assumes for sex outside. But she takes him in her room. He kills her in the usual manner, but this is not fulfilling - perhaps not dangerous enough, even though he carries out the advanced mutilations from the last murder. He sits there for a while experimenting in horrible ways with the body, but still nothing. So he wanders off into the night, perhaps frustrated, perhaps puzzled and concerned he might be losing it. Now, after such an event he might commit suicide, but he might also try to go back to street killings, or he might even think he is now impotent and give up. Or he might ponder for a bit trying to work out what to do next - and since he is a nut (to avoid technical terms which might lead to argument) what he decides on next could be just about anything. How 'bout that? Regards Pete
Author: julienonperson Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 09:06 pm
Hi All I apologize for not acknowledging posts that have been directed to me over the past day and a half. My computer was out of commission. I just now got on after many hours. There were 113 messages waiting for me in one mailbox and 36 waiting in another. I figured rather than respond to each indivually I would send my apologies and try to get back on track. bestregards julie
Author: richard nunweek Monday, 13 January 2003 - 01:16 pm
hi everyone. jack the ripper in my opinion was not a sexual killer nor a random or opportunist murderer. but a sadistic individual who stalked his victims for some time before completing his vile act. he i believe was the sort who would befriend his victims , gain there confidence ,obtain small gifts for them ,then attack and savage them completely by surprise. polly nicholls remarked what a pretty bonnet she had ,annie chapman had no money for her doss house ,surely could have obtained 4d for one before 4or 5 in the morning was she waiting to meet someone ,liz stride was all dressed up complete with button hole and hanging about berner street .mary kelly was still walking about at 230am and just happened to meet a client who she appeared to know judged by her attitude and if the discription of hutchinson was correct must have trusted. i believe the killer got his kicks by playing mind games with his planned victims and that he planned his killings very carefully set the dates of execution,and carried them out ruthlessly . catherine eddowes may not have been a intended target , but sheer frustration at not being able to complete his act on stride she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time ,the reason for that is in the telegram sent to abberline on nov 21 88. the person claiming to be the killer mentions kelly then stride no mention of eddowes ,because killing eddowes did not give him the same satisfaction as the others because she was not planned. regards richard
Author: Chris Novack Monday, 13 January 2003 - 01:23 pm
Hello all. I have been a regular lurker for years, and am new to posting. Lately I have been entertaining an idea: Suppose MJK herself was the Whitechapel murderer, responsible for Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes, and was herself killed in retribution with the killer exacting upon her the same as she dealt to the others, only more so? "Black Mary" was known to be territorial, belligerent when drunk, possibly a lesbian (I point this out ONLY for any possible link as a sex related crime), the murders started after Joe Barnett lost his job when he and Mary Jane started arguing, and Mary Jane having to resort to the lowest form of earning a living ("heartily sick of the life she was leading"), perhaps taking one of Joe Barnetts knives with her, and stalking her competitors who all shared the same customers at the Britannia, for money or imaginary revenge? Perhaps in a drunken stupor she talked to the wrong person, and a member of the low class society at the time chose to take justice into its own hands, since the police had difficulty venturing into the semi-criminal areas. MJKs killers' anger is evident in the facial mutilation. Obviously I am not looking at a "real" suspect here, just supposing... Maybe it will make a good novella one day! Best regards, Chris PS 'Whatever you do don't you do wrong and turn out as I did.'
Author: David Radka Monday, 13 January 2003 - 06:03 pm
Chris, I've got an even better idea, and more elegant suspect-wise at that! MJ was the ONLY murderer! That's right, her last "job" was her own suicide. Just imagine the thrill of turning the knife upon herself, hacking her own head mostly off, skinning her own torso, scraping her face clean off her head, and cutting off her own breasts! How many women could do that? Makes for eye-popping bedtime reading, don't you think? David
Author: Howard Brown Monday, 13 January 2003 - 10:23 pm
Not really,Radka.....Just about the most despicable post you ever concocted. I told you I will help you...Call me.
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 01:26 am
Howard, It gets worse instead of better!!!
Author: Chris Novack Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 10:03 am
Mr. Radka, Hmmm...Is that the best you can muster? Considering your "reputation", I expected better. You disappoint me... Chris
Author: Paula Wolff Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 09:56 pm
To answer the question, yes. Ta, Paula

Add a Message