Slicing Mary's Leg: An Act of Rage?

[perrymason]

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

Hi Wiz,

There are no quotes from Abberline in the article, just the reporters perspective from his sources I suppose. But it is interesting when considering they could not logically have been looking for biological samples, the first sieving would have addressed that....and they may have known Saturday morning that her heart was the only thing found missing.

Whats so small that it might be missed the first time? Or... why do it again? Might they have concluded that a fragment of cloth could be attributed to a known person by using witness friends of Mary to identify it? Maybe...might it be something of a particular color...that even a fragment might be linked to? Maybe...might it be something that was paper and had indentifying marks on the entire surface, so even a small bit might have those identifiers?

Dont know....but I have my ideas....and they tie into the Post Office Robbery on the weekend of the Double Murder. There were illegal groups financing activities in that end of the city at that very moment in time.

Cheers Wiz....not cheese wiz... ...all the best.

[Shelley]

Butchery

I hardly think clothing in the way is going to concern a Killer that will butcher, i mean flesh & bone are more of an encumberance in a factor than a piece of clothing, once a bone has been struck by an axe, a piece of clothing will cut like butter on a knife. Still i think Kelly was already partially undressed when she went to lie down, for comfort giving her condition at the time, before her killer came in through the door, she was used to a bit of drink. As one of her witnesses at least said she often saw the deceased worse for drink ( social & learned behaviour coupled with emotional problems).

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Plus, didn't Jack cut through Eddowes' clothes as opposed to lifting her skirts up to her waist like he did the previous victims?

[Sam Flynn]

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?

Firstly - what else was there to cut away in the previous murders, especially in such a short space of time and the abdomen "inefficiently" opened?

Secondly - how on earth was he to escape from Miller's Court with ALL that he'd cut away? He'd have needed a shopping basket to carry that lot out.

[perrymason]

Firstly - what else was there to cut away in the previous murders, especially in such a short space of time and the abdomen "inefficiently" opened?

Secondly - how on earth was he to escape from Miller's Court with ALL that he'd cut away? He'd have needed a shopping basket to carry that lot out.

Hi Samuel,

On the second point, how did he take part of Annies vagina along with her uterus...or Kates partial bladder with the kidney? This man likes "take out" in the worst possible connotation of the phrase.

To the first point...he could have cut organs out of Kate that would have sped his access, ....and I agree with your perspective on Annie.

But the two previous victims share a donated organ as you well know...one only a partial,...but he left a perfectly good uterus he cut from Mary under her head. With a breast.

Gareth....there are deliberate actions taken with his outdoor organ removal and thefts....there are few in Marys case that are....the only two are arguably the cutting of her throat, and the cutting free of her heart. The rest is just madness.

And thats not just my opinion....many investigators thought and a few "suspects" were added due to formed theories that he went mad in that room. They still think it was Jack...Im less sure.

Cheers Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

there are deliberate actions taken with his outdoor organ removal and thefts....

On the contrary, Mike, there is immense collateral damage in each and every one of the mutilation murders, and wholly unnecessary wounds inflicted. It's all about excess, from Nichols through to Eddowes... the same applies at Miller's Court, and there is nothing there that can't be simply explained by the greater amount of time at the killer's disposal. That'd be true whether it was the same killer or not.

On the second point, how did he take part of Annies vagina along with her uterus...or Kates partial bladder with the kidney?

You've answered a question with a question. What I asked was how one could expect the killer to have walked out of Miller's Court with ALL the organs he'd removed on his person. The answer is that he couldn't have - so there's not much point in arguing that there's any significance in his leaving organs behind.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

He may have only took organs from the others to fully satisfy whatever it was that he was needing to satiate. Mary's murder seems like Jack had reached a climax and so taking a little something with him from that kill seems moot.

I don't think that's the actual reason, but hey, another theory can't hurt.

[Jeff Leahy]

He might have had a 'granny basher?'

[perrymason]

On the contrary, Mike, there is immense collateral damage in each and every one of the mutilation murders, and wholly unnecessary wounds inflicted. It's all about excess, from Nichols through to Eddowes... the same applies at Miller's Court, and there is nothing there that can't be simply explained by the greater amount of time at the killer's disposal. That'd be true whether it was the same killer or not.

You've answered a question with a question. What I asked was how one could expect the killer to have walked out of Miller's Court with ALL the organs he'd removed on his person. The answer is that he couldn't have - so there's not much point in arguing that there's any significance in his leaving organs behind.

Sam,

I dont think youre accurate on some of the above.

As I mentioned and again was ignored, Pollys injuries were below the breastbone and in the area he clearly shows interest in after her. Additional stabs and cuts to that specific same area have nothing in common with facial slashes or flesh stripping from bone at all. You seem to suggest that just because 2 of 3 organ donors were obviously murdered to mutilate their abdomens doesnt means he is an abdomen mutilator. The last of those three had her abdomen hollowed and not one thing was taken from all he excises within.

I wouldnt expect that the killer who mutilated Mary intended to take all the organs he excises.....then again, I wouldnt expect that he would extract organs just to place them under her head or by her feet.

Whatever your view Sam, facts are facts, and the majority of what was done in Room13 has little or no commonality with the type of attack and region focus he has already made clear he desires before Mary.

And until Mary.....he does not cut any organs out... that he is not intending to take.

I would say that in general Sam you often just dismiss points, you dont counter them. Saying the murder of Polly would have been just like the murder of Mary if she had been killed indoors in bed is pure and unsupported guesswork....and thats exactly what you are saying when you suggest that the room venue changed his whole recorded methodology on mutilation, and his desire to do acts unrelated to objectives.

If Liz Stride was not killed by Jack the Ripper, then every other victim but Mary had their abdomens and internal abdominal organs as the primary focus of the mutilations. And any abdominal organ that was cut free... left with the killer.

Before you say but Kate had her face cut.....remember I am talking primary, not ancillary.

I dont think you'll be able to just dismiss this...but who knows.....the preceding victims that have at least some indication that they may have been murdered by the man called Jack....which means excluding Liz, all have any organ removed taken from the scene. In Marys case, he took a new chest organ and left all the other abdominal organs that he cuts out.

That alone differentiates the crimes.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, I dont think youre accurate on some of the above.

I don't think it's a question of "accuracy", Mike - more one of interpretation. We're both looking at the same evidence.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

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[?].

Hi Mascara & Paranoia,

If you have access to police photos of woman who were beaten up by boy friends or husbands, what you would see is facial beatings more than body bruises or cuts, the reason is that it is very personal, a great deal of hate goes into the beating of the woman's face, it is very personal to the one doing the beatings, at that time he hates her face more than anything. using a knife is more personal say than using a gun, it is up close and personal, most people when they get into a fight, target the face because it offends them more than anything at the time.

Maybe Joe said to Mary during one of his heated arguments, that he would rip her face off and tear her heart out.

He may have scared her enough to want him to leave.

And like an abusive boyfriend he would keep returning to her and try to patch things up.

BW

[c.d.]

Hi Wizzard,

If cutting Mary's face signified a personal relationship, what is the significance of slicing her leg and pulling out her intestines?

c.d.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

But, Wizzard, going by that argument you must believe that Eddowes' murder was also personal, regarding the facial mutilations.

To me, MJK's death seems like the 'natural' progression/escalation of Jack's rippings.

[Sam Flynn]

If cutting Mary's face signified a personal relationship, what is the significance of slicing her leg and pulling out her intestines?

... not to mention completely removing the flesh from her abdomen in panels, cutting the muscles from between her stripped ribs, and scoring a deep gash down the inside of her left calf. Compared to the carnage wrought elsewhere on her body, her face really fared no worse.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

... not to mention completely removing the flesh from her abdomen in panels, cutting the muscles from between her stripped ribs, and scoring a deep gash down the inside of her left calf. Compared to the carnage wrought elsewhere on her body, her face really fared no worse.

Sam,

He was not satisfied with just cutting her face up, the rest was simply a follow up of his anger and rage.

Sam,

Kein Nachdenken auf Ihnen, aber einigen der Leute auf dieser Seite ist einfach im Verstehen der Wut, zwischen Ihnen und mir ungebildet, es treibt mich das verrückte Versuchen zu erklären, was ein grundlegendes Verstehen dessen sein sollte, über welches persönliche Wut alles ist.

BW