Slicing Mary's Leg: An Act of Rage?

[c.d.]

I was thinking about Barnett as Mary's killer (which I don't think he was) with jealousy as his motive and anger/rage the driving force in the actual murder. I can see slitting her throat and the cuts to her face as being done in a rage as well as cutting her abdomen and removing her organs. All cutting, slashing motions that seem consistent with someone out of control and in a furious rage. But to me, the slicing of the flesh off her leg seems more of a calm, deliberate act. Not one fueled by rage but by someone with a very sick mind, i.e., Jack.

Any thoughts?

c.d.

[protohistorian]

I was thinking about Barnett as Mary's killer (which I don't think he was) with jealousy as his motive and anger/rage the driving force in the actual murder. I can see slitting her throat and the cuts to her face as being done in a rage as well as cutting her abdomen and removing her organs. All cutting, slashing motions that seem consistent with someone out of control and in a furious rage. But to me, the slicing of the flesh off her leg seems more of a calm, deliberate act. Not one fueled by rage but by someone with a very sick mind, i.e., Jack.

Any thoughts?

c.d.

It could in fact be rather deliberate if the killer is experimenting with what gets him off. I think that what many have interpreted as overkill, or rage driven, is in fact many experiments
on the same victim. A form of psychotic frugalness.

[Limehouse]

I agree cd. The injuries to MJK seem much more like the act of a very sick and perverted mind and to some extent a raison d'etre following what seemed to be an escalating appetite. I know this sounds a lot like an echo of McNaughton's ideas but to me, it makes sense.

[Sam Flynn]

Actually, CD, if you look at the pelvic wounds, the flesh that remains seems to be rather crudely hacked. I used this diagram yesterday for a different purpose, but if you look below and to the left of the red "X" you'll note that it appears that a number of small, choppy cuts have been employed to detach the flesh:



Within the green circle, below what are arguably smooth slabs of white skin from the belly, there is a heap of flesh with the same apparently coarse-grained appearance as the residual flesh between the thighs.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Just a blunt thought;

if MJK managed to kick him first, then...

All the best
Jukka

[ChrisGeorge]

Actually, CD, if you look at the pelvic wounds, the flesh that remains seems to be rather crudely hacked. I used this diagram yesterday for a different purpose, but if you look below and to the left of the red "X" you'll note that it appears that a number of small, choppy cuts have been employed to detach the flesh:

[ATTACH]4471[/ATTACH]

Within the green circle, below what are arguably smooth slabs of white skin from the belly, there is a heap of flesh with the same apparently coarse-grained appearance as the residual flesh between the thighs.

Nasty thought: could the "apparently coarse-grained" substance be fecal matter and not flesh?

Chris

[Sam Flynn]

Don't think so, Chris. The intestines were heaved wholesale onto the bed to the right side of the corpse, and any faecal matter would have spilt into the abdominal cavity. My guess is that the grooves in the flesh on the table would have fitted crudely back into the corresponding grooves in the flesh that remained attached to the genital/thigh area. In other words, I sense that Mary's killer "whittled away" at the flesh between the legs, rather than removing it with a smooth action of the knife.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

I hope you realize that you are shooting my theory all to hell here.

c.d.

[Suzi]

Hmmmmmmm messy old stuff here!

While I think Chris may have a point with the FM (faecal matter not Florrie) -I'm not going there- whatever it was was pretty unpleasant whatever it was!

As to the mutilations- well where do we start- I imagine the scene this....MJK asleep having been out on the wazz- probably not feeling her best after 'a night' and a few 'sings' - with face turned to the partition (asleep or not- maybe just dozing - thinking 'Oh I don't feel that good here'....

.... Enter 'Chummy' (probably letting himself in- either with a key (!) of via the window method) --

Now 'Chummy'- a friend or a regular (someone I'm starting to think had 'been ' with Mary before, maybe on a semi regular basis - and if you take the other canonicals as part of this - also with them too so that they were 'familiar ' with him /her and felt comfortable and not threatened - despite the 'horrors' at the time)

She turns- 'Ello dearie'- maybe after a cuddle - he whips out 'the weapon/knife'-she defends herself for a very short time (Hence the defensive wounds) and gives out the cry that Dids heard .

A swift carotid slash against the wall where she has been turned----- and then..!

IMHO he starts with the face,disfiguring anything that could be Mary (or whoever it was!) for reasons various- another thread there! .

Then he works his way down for a quick disembowel .....,maybe for some form of sexual gratification* of some sort- and a swift throw out of the 'slurry' onto the table -(carefully avoiding the bolster of course!)....

........Seeing his chance - and maybe somewhat tantalised in one way or another-by the idea, he skins and exposes the bone of the right leg.. maybe thinking time was short he places bits and pieces in what he imagines the police may think are 'interesting' places..... and disappears into the night/morning and history.

Just a few thoughts

Suzi x
* As to the 'sexual' aspect here....who would actually know in 1888 amongst that mess


Then of course he left the Baphomet statue amongst the mire!!!

[caz]

Give us a Clue-Do

Hi All,

I always find it terribly hard to reconcile the "embittered lover" - who is meant to flip and destroy Mary in "a rit of fealous jage", attacking and killing her before hacking away at her now dead body pretty much at random, with the "ripper copycat" who finally emerges - having taken early advantage of the fact that he used a nice sharp knife to cut her throat to begin with (and didn't hit her instead with the lead piping, candlestick or spanner ), followed by some spur of the moment decisions about what bits and pieces to remove, what to do with it all, and how to leave the scene looking as ripperish as possible.

I can grasp the concept of method in madness. But method during full-on emotional turmoil?

Love,

Caz
X

[BLUE WIZZARD]

The butchering of Mary shows a great deal of anger and rage, the killer cutting from Mary, what he disliked about her, in a punishing way.

Of all the customers she had, why would anyone want to harm her in such a way?

Jack was an outdoorsman, he liked the thrill of all most getting caught, this killing of Mary in my opinion was not Jack, for many reasons. This was not his M.O. There was no thrill in the killing and mutilation of Mary for Jack.

In all of the kills that have taken place after Jack, up to today’s kills shows that Jack would not have done Mary with out the thrill of possible capture.

Yes Jack would have escalated his methods and taunt the cops with how long he could stay with the body. He was getting bolder, but not careless.


BW

[caz]

With all due respect, Wizz, that's a complete pile of baseless speculation about a man whose head you couldn't possibly get inside. All we have to go on is the comparative damage inflicted on the various victims. You of all people should be looking for what is, and not for what you think should be.

There are no clues as to what emotions - if any - the killer or killers felt as the damage was being inflicted on each occasion. We don't even know how much time the killer was willing or able to spend on the mutilations before calling it a night and making himself scarce. Did he take his time or was he in a tearing hurry, for example?

Look again at the recent case of serial rapist and murderer, Robert Napper. Rachel Nickell was stabbed multiple times outdoors (shades of Martha Tabram), while Samantha Bisset was attacked in her home and practically filleted, very much like the scene that would have greeted firstcomers to Mary's room in Miller's Court. No way of telling the degree of rage or thrill (or both) involved in either case, and no suggestion that Napper was any more than a stalking stranger to all his victims.

Why would anyone have wanted to harm Rachel or Samantha in such a way? There are no easy answers there either, but it happens - time and time again.

Love,

Caz
X

[Nothing to see]

I can't think of the name at the moment but I'm sure someone can help me. I was reading 'JTR A to Z' and they mention in there a surgeon who said that a hatchet or something similar had been used to cleave the flesh off Kelly's legs.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Caz,

Are you telling me that you do not see the anger and rage in the mutilation of Mary, look at her face, does that look like someone on an exploratory mission?

You said "baseless speculation about a man whose head you couldn't possibly get inside"

Caz, you couldn't possibly get into his head, because you would be afraid to or perhaps you would rather use your own logic to figure him out, Caz I have read your logic and, it simply does not work.

No offense Caz, I admire your imagination for what it is worth. but you need to read more into the physiology of crime rather than just the cases.

Hopefully still your friend

BW

[c.d.]

Hi Wizzard,

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make here? Are you saying that the mutilations that were done to Mary show anger and rage but the previous murders did not?

c.d.