Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

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

Most Recent Posts:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Kaz 4 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Kaz 17 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Varqm 24 minutes ago.
General Police Discussion: J Division Fixed Point Whitechapel Station? - by The Station Cat 3 hours ago.
General Police Discussion: Police Orders 1st October 1888 - by The Station Cat 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Michael W Richards 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (29 posts)
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: Police Orders 1st October 1888 - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: J Division Fixed Point Whitechapel Station? - (1 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (1 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Jane Kelly

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:24 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
The question is a useless one, the fact is he stopped...whether he was bored, tired, confused, ....its not relevant. The fact he didn't take what was taken twice before, is.
not really. apparently he already had two and wanted something else.

whats relevant is that he removed an internal organ. he wasn't just taking uteri.

but actually the fact that he took the heart may be relevant in a way different from what your saying---perhaps another clue that the killer knew Mary anf the heart, for obvious reasons, had special significance for him with this victim.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:28 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
Hello Fisherman.

Considering the condition in which he left the remains of her corpse, it is difficult to imagine that there would be much more to accomplish (or desecrate). I'm noting that he did not remove Mary Jane's head from her body (even tho he had ample opportunity), which I believe resolves any lingering question of whether total decapitation was ever part of his original intent. I'm guessing, it's possible that he did not want to risk damaging his blade by cutting into bone.
hi devil
well even if he wanted to take the head he probably would have realized it was too risky to carry such a large body part on him while trying to make the escape (leave the crime scene).
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-22-2017, 01:38 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Robert St Devil: Hello Fisherman.

Considering the condition in which he left the remains of her corpse, it is difficult to imagine that there would be much more to accomplish (or desecrate).

Well, much as I see what you mean, the posters who say that he could have cut away all of the flesh do have a point. He could. But it seems he chose not to. I am suggesting that we may do well to learn from that.

I'm noting that he did not remove Mary Jane's head from her body (even tho he had ample opportunity), which I believe resolves any lingering question of whether total decapitation was ever part of his original intent.

I agree. If he wanted to do it, then realistically, he would have done so.

I'm guessing, it's possible that he did not want to risk damaging his blade by cutting into bone.

Possibly so - but my own take on things is that he would have been able to take the head off without causing any damage to the knife.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-22-2017, 01:58 PM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
hi devil
well even if he wanted to take the head he probably would have realized it was too risky to carry such a large body part on him while trying to make the escape (leave the crime scene).

hi abby

i don't believe that he ever meant to sever any of their heads. i know that there was a suspicion, based on the depth of the throat injuries in the murders prior to Mary Jane, that one of his aims was full decapitation if given ample opportunity. However, given ample opportunity, he didn't. I wasn't so much thinking that he would have wanted to "prize" her head, you're right, the head would be too large to remove undetected. More along the lines of "proving" he could do it, and leaving it elsewhere in her apartment.
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-22-2017, 04:14 PM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I would say both questions are highly relevant, Michael. And I would add that the best answer we can provide is the exact same to both questions; why he did not take the uterus with him and why he cut down to the bone at the thigh in one space only to leave the rest of the flesh on the bone:
Because this was what he WANTED to do.

He WANTED to cut to the bone in one space only on that thigh and he WANTED to leave the uterus with the body (albeit on itīs outside).

We should not loose track of this possibility. We know that the killer seemingly had a good lot of time on his hands, we have no record of anybody disturbing him in his work, and so it must always be a very viable guess that he did all he wanted to and could do, and chose to leave the body afterwards. Job done, everything finished, nothing left to take care of.
Thats precisely my argument for excluding Stride Fisherman, glad you mentioned it, because, as you stated above, there is no record of any disturbance, the last viable sighting of her is 10-15 minutes before she is cut once, and he chose to leave her undisturbed from that point on. So I understand your concept fine.

I would add only that this should apply to all the unsolved murders unless evidence indicates otherwise, and in the case of Polly and Annie, he chose to pretend to be a client, subdue them quietly, slit their throats deeply and twice, and then proceed onto abdominal cutting that in Annies case, resulted in some excisions. Thats what that killer wanted. Your torso killer wanted to kill then take people apart, then try to scatter the evidence so as to confuse any investigation, and Mary Kellys killer wanted to punish her. In what way...well, thats pretty evident, by murder then horrible disfigurement. He didnt covet the abdomen. Neither did the Torso man.

Jon, if you want to live with breast bone down as mutilation of the chest, so be it. I certainly dont see that accurately illustrated within that phrase, but everyone runs their own carnival here.

The facts are that the 2 examples within all the Canonicals that most surely represent multiple homicides are Polly and Annie. They match in every relevant category, they are consecutive and within 2 weeks of each other, ...and we dont have to imagine or use modern serial killer mumbo jumbo to explain why the murders were so different. Because they werent that different at all. They were virtually identical, from Victimology to Method to Weapon to Focus and Signature.... slitting the throats...twice.

Why you would muddy the waters by adding Liz Stride to this list is still after all these years beyond me. Or why you would want to add other ill fitting murders and acts to this phantoms list.

All those hungry, violent, poor, angry, lonely men in that area of town...thousands of em with the general description, age and height of anyone seen with the victims just before death, all the known violent offenders, all the known murderers, anarchists, bombers, spies ....and its just this one guy who stabs, and dismembers, and slices open all the unsolved cases... all by his lonesome? Please.
__________________
Michael Richards

Last edited by Michael W Richards : 11-22-2017 at 04:16 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-22-2017, 04:14 PM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 754
Default

I know that Mary Jane did not die in that position, Fisherman. That he moved her body from the far side of the bed to the middle, that he set her legs outwards, that he lifted & turned her head, and he placed her hand in her abdominal cavity. Since he placed the organs specifically about her body and under her head, I don't think he had the intention of flipping her over and removing more flesh off her backside. Nothing remains of her face, and he's obviously not a decapitator. It seems like he was focusing more on cutting into her side closest to him (eg the cuts on her left arm, denuding the left thigh moreso); the left arm being the only appendage remaining to be cut, but I suspect cutting the arm would have been intricate, time-consuming work. Then, there's the possibility that she cried "oh murder!" Rather than finding an Elizabeth Stride-style murder, the cops found the grotesque mutilation, meaning he obviously didn't get spooked by her supposed shout and continued on . So id contend that he was finished, and he wasn't about to be spooked away.
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-22-2017, 04:19 PM
c.d. c.d. is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Had Polly not had her abdomen opened, or had Annie not had her abdomen opened and the uterus taken, or had Kate not had her abdomen opened and a partial uterus taken, I might agree cd. It seems to me however that the victims I mentioned had killers who were obsessed with abdominal cutting, and this resulted in the same organ being taken from 2 of the three. The chest area of the victim was never attacked until Mary Kelly.
Hello Michael,

If we follow this line of reasoning then we have to conclude that Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888 was home to uterus takers, kidney takers and chest cutters. All of whom were focused on their own individual trophy. We also have to conclude that for anyone prior to Kelly cutting the throat of a woman and taking out her internal organs would somehow consider the chest area off limits because that would just be sick and kind of icky. Very hard to believe.

c.d.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-22-2017, 04:23 PM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
I know that Mary Jane did not die in that position, Fisherman. That he moved her body from the far side of the bed to the middle, that he set her legs outwards, that he lifted & turned her head, and he placed her hand in her abdominal cavity. Since he placed the organs specifically about her body and under her head, I don't think he had the intention of flipping her over and removing more flesh off her backside. Nothing remains of her face, and he's obviously not a decapitator. It seems like he was focusing more on cutting into her side closest to him (eg the cuts on her left arm, denuding the left thigh moreso); the left arm being the only appendage remaining to be cut, but I suspect cutting the arm would have been intricate, time-consuming work. Then, there's the possibility that she cried "oh murder!" Rather than finding an Elizabeth Stride-style murder, the cops found the grotesque mutilation, meaning he obviously didn't get spooked by her supposed shout and continued on . So id contend that he was finished, and he wasn't about to be spooked away.
I am very satisfied with this explanation Robert....the "oh-murder" was exclaimed by Mary after she was woken.. drunk.. and padded to the door to see who knocked, the sound that woke Diddles. When she opened the door a crack, thats when the cry was made, it was exasperation...which was heard by one witness" as if at my door", and a second witness " as if from the courtyard". He was let in without further protest. Which for me makes him either a boyfriend or lover.

We know she was seeing someone aside from Barnett. We dont know who that was....some assume its Flemming. I dont. I think it might be Issacs.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-22-2017, 05:19 PM
SuspectZero SuspectZero is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: New York City
Posts: 217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
I am very satisfied with this explanation Robert....the "oh-murder" was exclaimed by Mary after she was woken.. drunk.. and padded to the door to see who knocked, the sound that woke Diddles. When she opened the door a crack, thats when the cry was made, it was exasperation...which was heard by one witness" as if at my door", and a second witness " as if from the courtyard". He was let in without further protest. Which for me makes him either a boyfriend or lover.

We know she was seeing someone aside from Barnett. We dont know who that was....some assume its Flemming. I dont. I think it might be Issacs.
wow...that's a lot of detail, which comes from where? I have a lot of respect for you, but these comments are certainly stretching the imagination a bit...

Last edited by SuspectZero : 11-22-2017 at 05:23 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-22-2017, 07:05 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuspectZero View Post
wow...that's a lot of detail, which comes from where? I have a lot of respect for you, but these comments are certainly stretching the imagination a bit...
lol. Isaacs?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.