Slicing Mary's Leg: An Act of Rage?

[perrymason]

Hi again all,

I think there are quite a few intelligent and knowledgeable perspectives being offered regarding the emotions that we can see in the victims wounds, in this case Mary's...and perhaps the manner in which he subdued her. That was my point regarding the blood evidence....its not the fact the blood sprayed when he cut, we can see it did at other venues besides 13 Millers Court.

My point was that this is the only murder in the "group" where we have evidence he used the knife while she was conscious.....aside from Liz Strides....(which only is part of the Canonical Group because contemporary investigators guessed she was "Jack interruptus"),....... and apparently able to attempt defensive postures by putting her arm and hand between her face and throat and the knife.

Mary is the only victim that cannot be identified by her face.

Mary is the only victim that was killed in her own "home".

Mary is the only victim that was not fully dressed.

Mary is the only victim among the 5 Canonicals that is seeing 2 men at the same time, having lived with both before.

Mary is the only victim that has a boyfriend that will be certified insane in a few short years, and has over 100 years of family mental illness in his genes.

When it comes to the question of how someone could do the required cutting if not Jack.....I see the answer like this....her attack started out ferocious and bloody, by the time she has had her fatal wound made, she may have already lost much of her facial details. The slicing up of Mary Kelly was much more slowly that he dissected earlier victims, and If the man is someone who is mentally deficient, that may be due to his fascination with the process he undertakes, curious....doing things just to see how they looked after perhaps. Like stripping all tissue off her right thigh....and most of the inside of her left.

Many things that were done to Mary defy explanation.....yet almost all the major injuries to the others were to kill, to open, to remove obstacles, or to sever the organs he will take. That is not the case with Marys corpse.

He does some things.. just to do them, not to kill, remove obstructions or extract any organs.

The only real possible match with that kind of wounding is Kates face, and her colon being sectioned..the second may have even been accidentally severed....and he then sticks the section he takes out between her arm and body.

And its interesting to look at this similarity with the last two victims......in Kates last 24 hours, she was Jane Kelly of Dorset Street, and Mary Kelly of Fashion St. In Marys last 24 hours, she was Mary Kelly too.

The two last victims, the only ones that have wounds that are superfluous to the tasks he has shown he undertakes, both died calling themselves Mary Kelly. We know Kates claim was made just before her release, and we only know she talks to Sailor Man....she may well have still being using the name Mary Kelly....its less than 45 minutes from her release until the time that she is killed.

Cheers all.

[Shelley]

Hi cd,

I think that there are other wounds that better indicate the level or emotion he displayed....the face being a primary one. The fact that he used a knife in his initial attack...the 4 priors do not show evidence that was the case with them,... seems to me that the killer in room 13 either didnt expect her artery to spray blood on the wall like it did when he cut, or in this murder there was less concern about any bloodstaining that would occur.

Caz mentioned earlier in the thread that she couldnt see a man in a rage calmly slicing her up after an attack that likely included rage. How does cutting a victim calm a killer?

Well.....how many of us have experienced a calm after some anger has exploded from us?

I think if you consider a possible perspective here it might make more sense. If her killer knew her.....he was possibly expressing anger and perhaps hatred by the act of killing her. That does not have to be the emotional state he is in when she is cut up. How can a man who may have never killed any other "Canonical" take doing that to someone?

My suggestion is that he vented and killed Mary in rage....then perhaps in a fugue type state, takes actions that will enable him to portray the acts in the room as someone else's work. If Mary had been found dead with only her throat cut and her face hacked.....they likely wouldnt have looked any further than jilted or vengeful lovers initially.

Its important to remember that if the man that killed Mary was known to her and not someone who has killed before, theres no reason to suspect he couldnt have braced himself for the mutilations.....because he did kill Mary in a fight with a knife.... slitting her throat already. If he kills Mary he is likely a man that can do other vile acts too.

When faced with execution or a life imprisoned, could a desperate man who has just committed a bloody murder try this kind of game with the Police....my guess is yes.

Jack the Ripper took 2 of the same organs from 2 of 3 organ donor victims, one intact, one partially. I believe a cleanly excised uterus was found with a breast under Marys head. How can people suggest this was the murderer who mutilates abdomens so he can extract organs.... when he leaves behind the one organ that has been taken twice? And how is taking a heart definitely unrelated to personal emotional issues between killer and victim?

It my contention that people just see "madness" in the photographs, and believe that this level of madness must be in short supply in London at the time. That is not the case murder evidence makes.....not only were there other killers who did similar things to victims....see Alice McKenzie....there was also a person or people who were cutting arms, legs and heads off women...leaving their Torsos around to be found.

I dont believe its reasonable to suggest Jack the Ripper had any markets cornered on savage, murderous impulses.

Best regards all.

I agree with Michael here and he makes very good points, however i will say for this level of violence to occur it has not been uncommon for a man who is in love with the woman, by ' In love ' i mean the survival mechanism ( strong chemicals released for sex), which is more descriptive to give it the label ' Passion ' and it shows the extreme passion in butchering her. My guess is Mary had jilted him and knowing that she was taking bedmates for money and refusing him, he went...er...Mad. With the recall of bedsheets twisted and used as a garrot on her neck, my guess is who ever this fellow was, he has either done this before, or helped someone dispose of a said body in this fashion and picked it up, with the area being semi-vicous criminal it's easy to understand and draw this conclusion. Personally i think it's possible that it could have been a man younger than Joe Barnett, and i didn't hear of anyone say that the police suspected Joe Barnett and Joe identified the body of Mary, still it could have been Joe all the same. Any bits missing from Kelly could have been dumped in the thames, or if there was a nearby river.

[Sam Flynn]

Mary is the only victim among the 5 Canonicals that is seeing 2 men at the same time, having lived with both before.

We know that, Mike?

[Sam Flynn]

The two last victims, the only ones that have wounds that are superfluous to the tasks he has shown he undertakes

What was "non-superfluous" about Nichols' wounds - the slashing of the abdomen without organ removal; the near-decapitation? Was not the removal of three flaps of flesh from Chapman's belly wall, and her near-decapitation, somewhat extravagant, too?

[Sam Flynn]

Many things that were done to Mary defy explanation.....yet almost all the major injuries to the others were to kill, to open, to remove obstacles, or to sever the organs he will take. That is not the case with Marys corpse.

So, emptying the abdomen and cutting upwards through the diaphragm wasn't somehow clearing the way to removing the organ he "wanted" to take away, namely the heart?

[Sam Flynn]

Mary is the only victim that was killed in her own "home".

She's the only victim to have actually had her own home.

Mary is the only victim that was not fully dressed.

She was indoors, the others weren't. Unless the Ripper had a "down on streakers" it's hardly surprising that this was the case.

[perrymason]

We know that, Mike?

Ill address the points in point form like you.....(you know alI really need is a good editor and I can shave these down some)... ...

Anyway, we know that until the end of October Joe Barnett lived with her and saw her daily, and we hear from Julia that she is also seeing another Joe. Joe Fleming, the man believed to be the other Joe lived with Mary a few years back....and as you also know, its said by a former landlady that she thought he would have married her if she'd agree.

On to the next...cheers Gareth...kinda fun in bursts.

[perrymason]

What was "non-superfluous" about Nichols' wounds - the slashing of the abdomen without organ removal; the near-decapitation? Was not the removal of three flaps of flesh from Chapman's belly wall, and her near-decapitation, somewhat extravagant, too?

The additional wounds to Mary Ann Nichols were in the region that his interest lay in, known by later murders to be. Near decapitation in her case leads one to surmise he hadnt yet figured out how to just slit the throat yet. He overkilled due to his inexperience....and the fact they are almost standing in the street,...he had to be sure that part was over.

Arguably the removal of flaps of skin from Annies abdomen can be seen as similar intentions as displayed by pulling out the intestines and placing them over various shoulders. It was a quick fundamental answer to access issues.

Cheers...#3 on the way.

[JSchmidt]

Am I imagining things or didn't JtR have to partially unclothe his victims before Mary to cut them? Having her partially clothed only makes his "work" easier. Essentially we are also arguing about how narrow his focus was in organ removal and extent of injuries. I think there is more room for variance there, but that is of course only my personal opinion. I also just had the grisly picture in my mind of the culprit looking down on Mary's body and the wounds he inflicts with the curiosity of a child. And handling her flesh like shiny new toys. I think that is partially to blame on the Gull portrayal in the movie "From Hell".

[perrymason]

So, emptying the abdomen and cutting upwards through the diaphragm wasn't somehow clearing the way to removing the organ he "wanted" to take away, namely the heart?

You missed the most vital part of that statement....he excises organs he takes,.....other than intestines, just what organs did he leave behind in the priors that he cuts out of them? In Marys case, its like eating the whole box of cereal just to get to the prize at the bottom....when dumping it out and replacing it later, or turning the box upside down seems more sensible.

With Mary Kelly, so much is cut free and left behind....some under her head...including a uterus intact, they had to rebuild her just to be sure anything was missing.

I think you had one more.....

[perrymason]

She's the only victim to have actually had her own home.

She was indoors, the others weren't. Unless the Ripper had a "down on streakers" it's hardly surprising that this was the case.

And shouldn't that fact be very relevant when stalking a killer whose demonstrated forte is outdoor gruesome deaths?

The 4 priors were actually true Unfortunates....as I understand the term....Mary Jane Kelly had a room in her own name. Other than Maria or the courtyard counterparts, we know that to be a rather uncommon thing in those parts. Why would there be the number of Lodging Houses on Dorset alone if every "bonnet" had a home?

The fact that she is partially undressed is important for at least this reason.....it is well within the confines of the known data to suppose that her killer may have entered her room and spent time not killing her. If she is asleep and left the latch off, he has to get in....and kill her before she can utter a sound....and the only potential fit for that was followed by silence,...which is highly unlikely knowing that she attempted to fend him off. If she is awake....then she allows him entrance despite the fact that its quite possible she was dressed as found...sort of anyway.

Ok....your new tactic works....Im tired,....Goodnight Sam Flynn,....where ever you are. Gotta love Durante.

[perrymason]

1. Am I imagining things or didn't JtR have to partially unclothe his victims before Mary to cut them? Having her partially clothed only makes his "work" easier. Essentially we are also arguing about how narrow his focus was in organ removal and extent of injuries. I think there is more room for variance there, but that is of course only my personal opinion. I also just had the grisly picture in my mind of the culprit 2...looking down on Mary's body and the wounds he inflicts with the curiosity of a child. And handling her flesh like shiny new toys. I think that is partially to blame on the Gull portrayal in the movie "From Hell".

Hi JS...I didnt mean to monopolize and drown your post.

On the two points I highlighted, I think 1, he has only to shove or cut the skirts up..and since he tears and cuts and apron piece at some point, I dont think he needed them undressed at all,...his focus was below the breastbone. Until Mary...of course.

I was stoked when I read "curiosity" there, those are my impressions as well. Almost like marveling about the various textures, layers, and substances which make up a human being. Its suggested he spent at least 20-30 minutes there....and for my money, since we dont know precisely when the murder occurred...he could have taken an hour or more during the witnessless hours, and there would be no-one awake to see or hear anything.

I also think he burned something of his own after...and the additional clothes were intended to create a forest of ashes his garment could be left hiding in. Inspector Abberline returned Saturday morning....with Reid, and others, and he re-sieved the ashes that were sieved less than 24 hours earlier.......think they thought something in there was a vital clue?

Cheers JS


edited to add....if for example, they were hoping to find traces of a garment or something of the killers....what good would it be if they didnt know who owned it? Lets say it was gloves....would it be possible to have one of Marys friends identify a glove fragment that was burned but identifiable? Like say Barnetts leather work gloves, or some fine leather ones like old Astrakan has...Would that be small enough to be missed in a sieving?...if likely not....then why do another?

[BLUE WIZZARD]

I did. I still have to ask how do we know this or were you simply speculating? If you were speculating (which is fine) you need to make that clear.

c.d.

What do you think?

I have wrote about it in many post. you are the only one that can not figure it out.

Read the post, you need to figure it out yourself, please do not become a burden.

BW

[Mascara & Paranoia]

All of those arguments for Mary's murder being a personal thing just aren't strong enough for me. I'm sorry, but how does not taking a trophy equate to her having known her killer? Jack took nothing from Nichols (though admittedly he was probably interrupted in that instance).

The M.O. Jack used on the other three victims (excluding Stride) was to silence the women. Why? Because he was outside. Now I'm not saying Mary's room was soundproofed or anything, but do you really think (forget about the suspect you have in mind as her killer for a moment) that Jack would strangle Mary, push her down onto the floor of her room and then cut her throat and carry out the mutilations on the spot like he did the others? It would make more sense for him to just kill her while she's on the bed and unexpectant, like he evidently did.

Let's come clean now, the only reason you think Mary's murder was personal is because of your preferred suspect, isn't it? Being Joseph Fleming[?].

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Good question Michael,

What were they looking for in the ashes?

Maybe Abberline found something in the room that he thought may have an adjoining part to it, something that made no sense to him by itself, so he goes back thinking maybe Jack tossed it into the fire place but unbeknown to Jack it had come apart.

Abberline figured it belonged to the killer.

What could it have been?

My guess is something a man carries on his person that he uses to fix things with or something that has significant meaning for him. Perhaps Abberline found a chain missing a Medallion or something.

Did Abberline ever say what it was he was looking for?

BW