Slicing Mary's Leg: An Act of Rage?

[c.d.]

c.d.,

you said "and we know this how?"

Read the post.

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.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

c.d.,

you said "and we know this how?"

Read the post.

[c.d.]

,

The person who killed Mary hated her personally...
BW

and we know this how?

c.d.

[Blues]

Or...

...In a new environment, Jack let things get out of his control - he IS human after all. MJK lays down and now Jack can't get behind her to strangle her so he takes his chance with the blade directly at the throat - which was a Master stroke! Slashing at the front and still striking the carotid? Hardly the work of an amateur. Now - rather than someone who is know personally to Jack, hence the intense mutilations - Jack is PISSED that the situation is what it is and takes it out on Mary's body. How dare she strike him back? How dare she ruin his good time by not playing by his rules?

And this from me - someone who was really hot on Barnett for a long while. Barnett had no idea that Jack laid his meat out in the way he did...no one outside of the police did...If the doctor is to be believed, the body was moved to the position we see in the photo - maybe Jack lost track of the uterus in the mess. Once he put her head on the pile on the pillow, maybe he got worried and beat feet...? Not sure, but not just anyone can do this kind of work so proficiently wild.

Blues

[BLUE WIZZARD]

I truly admire Perrymason for his insight into the Kelly murder.

Jack controlled the victims spray from the throat cut by killing them before cutting the throat, strangle them, but cut the throat incase the victim was not dead to stop them from screaming.

I believe he got behind them and strangled them with his forearm, then laid them down on the grown and cut the throat, evidence show no head bruising from a fall, victims that have a throat cut do no always fall down, but some can run from the killer, so Jack needed to control that.

Jack was in control, when he started to cut them up Jack was being himself full of rage and anger, he was not in blind fury but in control of everything he did, after he was done with the victim he would have to get back into being what he did not like, he had to become the average person again. A person like Jack loves what he does more than anyone could understand and considers victims as he personal property to do with as he pleases; he hated people that could not understand that. When you are different you hate difference.

As an example, Superman was pretending to be Clark Kent a bumbling clumsy, poor excuse for a person, this is how he perceived people other than himself, superman was pretending to be what he was not. He would much rather be Superman than to be Clark Kent.

Jack did the same thing in order to blend in with society, in reality he was a killer disguised as a common person, this was not comfortable for him, because he hated, not being himself.

People like that can be spotted, because trying to be what you are not has to be a practiced look, not normal in appearance. Sorry to offend anyone but a gay person trying to hide his gayness may show what he perceives as normal appearance. He hates not being himself.

Mary's killer did not control spray, that would have him completely covered in blood, the walls in her room showed spray, this was not the work of Jack.
But he was someone who did not know how Jack functioned with his victims.

The person who killed Mary hated her personally, now if she feared that Jack was going to kill her, why ask Joe to leave and let Harvey stay in his place? Did she fear Jack or Joe?

BW

[JSchmidt]

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

Yes, but there is a difference between having those impulses and living them out like that. Why cut up and disembowel Mary to this extent when even some cuts to her abdomen would have sufficed to make the murder look like JtR's handiwork? The main motive would be to not get caught and to leave the place as soon as possible. But guessing from extent of the wounds that poor Mary's body shows the perpetrator took his time.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Hmm. I guess, at a stretch, that Jack could've known Mary, it's certainly not impossible. But there's nothing to indicate that Mary knew her killer - nothing.

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.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

It's possible.

Though I think if any of the murders were a copycat or someone having killed one of the women to make it look like Jack did it, then that victim would have been Stride, not Kelly.

[Nothing to see]

I'd have thought that Jack was in the 'wrong' place at the right time, given that Mary was in her home. xD

But I agree with your views on her murder; she's definitely Jacky's handiwork. I find it a bit laughable actually that people are of the opinion that there was yet another killer in Whitechapel at the exact same period who was capable of even worse damage than the Ripper (the Torso Killings not included as those were quite obviously someone having disposed of the bodies, whether or not they shared the same killer).

I agree with you. There was one Jack, working in the East End in Aug/Sept/Nov 1888.
Actually, there's a thought. What if Jack had come across a competitor?

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Kelly was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'd have thought that Jack was in the 'wrong' place at the right time, given that Mary was in her home. xD

But I agree with your views on her murder; she's definitely Jacky's handiwork. I find it a bit laughable actually that people are of the opinion that there was yet another killer in Whitechapel at the exact same period who was capable of even worse damage than the Ripper (the Torso Killings not included as those were quite obviously someone having disposed of the bodies, whether or not they shared the same killer).

[Nothing to see]

I've looked at that photo of what was left of Kelly over and over again. I'm not in medicine, it's not my field but I've looked at the green and the red where a previous poster had pointed things out and I still can't make out where all the bits fit in. Anyway, that's my problem. Damn, if CSI had existed then, Jack wouldn't even be interesting.

Kelly was killed by Jack. Not by someone with a grudge against her.

All the murders were in such a small area. I didn't realise how small until I walked it. Kelly was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Like all Jack's gets.
Her murder wasn't personal. Jack was doing what Jack did.

[JSchmidt]

There is something problematic with the notion that the Kelly murder was too personal and close for JtR. If it was indeed someone with a personal grudge against Kelly, then she knew someone that was perfectly capable and perfectly willing to not only kill her but to mutilate her body in a very gruesome way. And that leaves us either with a very coldblooded person that does this as a deception or a raging madman.
Where would that person come from? I think it is very unlikely someone does something like that out of the blue, with no history of violence before. To me it seems more likely that it was indeed JtR and not a hypothetical killer from Mary's past. Because JtR has that history of violence and that acquired numbness to manage something like defleshing her leg as if she was just a piece of meat.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I don't see how Mary's murder seems like a personal thing to some people. No offence, but the only reason this is is because of the extent of her mutilations and because hers is the first murder that Jack committed inside. Well, of course the extent of mutilation would've been extreme under those circumstances. The escalation in mutilation ties in beautifully with Eddowes' facial mutilations previous. Think, if Eddowes had been murdered in a remote area that wouldn't have been prone to interruption for long periods of time (say an hour and a half) and she had been as extensively mutilated as Mary, would her murder then be classed as personal? I very highly doubt it. But I do think that if Eddowes was single and invited Jack into her room (pretending for a moment that she had a permanent place to live) that her body would've been in the same state as Mary's.

[Christine]

Christine,

You strike me as very sweet person, which looks for the good in everyone.
And I know of someone that has the very same nature as yours.

Jack was a murderer and he enjoyed the kill, he was by no means a lunatic.

At the time of the kill he would have gone into a rage, triggered by whatever he needed for the kill, after which he would have to get himself back in control so as not to be noticed by the average person he would pass on his way back to his home.

If Jack were a Lunatic, he surely would have been seen by people as he walked by them, he would have been like a crazy man, Jack was always in control of himself and that is not something a lunatic can do.

A lunatic (colloquially: "looney" or "loon") is a commonly used term for a person who is mentally ill, dangerous, foolish or unpredictable: a condition once called lunacy.

I highlighted the word foolish because Jack was not foolish.

BW

BLUE_WIZZARD,

Thanks for you kind comments.

I realize that there are different definitions of lunatic, but Jack clearly met the legal definition as used until the first part of the 20th century: so dangerously mentally ill so as to be a danger to himself or others. The popular notion of a lunatic is someone jumping up and down and screaming incoherently. While many untreated mental patients will act this way, not even the sickest of them do this all of the time. If you take the other part of your quote: or unpredictable. He seems to have been more unpredictable than foolish, but how can you call cutting women up "not foolish?" It sure ain't smart. Likewise, how can call cutting up women "being in control of oneself?" That's about as out-of-control as I can imagine. The fact that he wasn't obviously so ill, twenty-four hours a day, doesn't change the fact that he behaved in an extraordinarily angry, stupid, and out of control fashion about once a month during the fall of 1888.