Something that has bothered me...

[Fisherman]

M&P writes:

"The only reason I can think of for discrediting MJK as a Ripper victim is if your favored suspect is one of the Joes, who quite obviously were not the Ripper."

And to think that I´ve spent all that time believing that Joe Fleming is by far the best bid for the Ripper title!
Please provide me with the conclusive proof you have pointing away from this delusion of mine, M&P, so that I may move on to worthier subjects!

All the best from a very curious
Fisherman

All very interesting, this. I see a progression all the way through, personally. I see Jack progressing to murder from a lesser degree of violence, probably succeeding first time with Martha Tabram - as has been suggested before - I am aware, before anyone falls asleep - he probably started off with a few nasty backstreet robberies first, most probably with company. I think Martha's murder is so frenzied because he'd been working up to it for a while, and it was a release for him, and that he hadn't planned to do it right then, exactly, but he took the first opportunity he saw, which I think actually wasn't the best. I think he liked what he'd done, and got a big thrill out of it. It probably kept him up for a while, just thinking about it to himself. I bet he was really pleased with himself and his new secret and discovered a new confidence and sense of his own power afterwards. But I think he wanted to do more, so off he went to find himself another victim. So then he kills Nicholls, which I still think may have been an opportunist killing, and experiments a bit. Next time he does more.

By this time, all the papers are talking about him, so he feels really bold. I see no real reason to discount Stride - I think he decided to do two in one night, just to see if he could. A lot of planning must have gone into this - I think he had arranged to meet these women, on a pretext. Parts of that worked for him, because he succeeded, but the first one didn't work out so well, because he didn't get the time to do all that he wanted. Yes, he was probably interrupted, but we'll never know exactly why it went a bit wrong for Jack. Bad planning maybe. He did better with Eddowes though, and managed to accomplish a bit more in a short space of time. Jack was by this time getting good at his game.

But what next? Well, he was a success, he had done two in one night and still nobody knew it was him - he probably felt invincible by this time. Next I think he decided to kill indoors - imagine the thrill of that! He could so easily have been caught, and I don't think he knew that he wouldn't be, I think it was part of the game to him. And once again, succeeded.

All that makes logical sense to me as an overview ( a bit sketchy in places, I concede). I don't know what I think about what happens next - maybe he dies, or is physically unable to continue. I wouldn't personally rule out him going to America and killing Brown, as I think it could logically follow on from MJK in terms of bravado - I mean an East End hovel is one thing, but a hotel room is entirely another - far more public and even more dangerous. Possibly.

Well, I expect to get shot down in flames for all that, so I'm ready!

[Blues]

clarification please...

If we forget about all witness accounts Eddowes should not be there.

Before I respond to that, I want to make sure I follow what you mean...For I think Eddowes is the "perfect" Jack the Ripper murder.

Well...there I go responding. I shall wait.

Thanks for the responses Sam and M & P...I was hoping/expecting some responses from those who disagree with me about MJK...explaining why I am wrong in my reasoning. But I shall wait for that as well.

Maybe this has been discussed to death for some...but then if it had been, I don't see how anyone could still discount MJK with my obviously brilliant, flawless reasoning that can't possibly be argued with.

Good evening/morning,

Blues

[Mascara & Paranoia]

That doesn't make much sense, Mitch.

Besides...

If we discount Stride then we have no reason to explain the way JTR mutilated Eddowes.

We do. It's the same reason why Jack lifted Chapman's intestines over her shoulder and procured organs for the first time: progression. If Jack was interrupted with either of the victims, true, it would've been with Nichols, but I just don't think he was interrupted with that murder and he did what he set out to do with her. Her body seemed to have been left a little while before Cross discovered it. But at the same time, if you think that Eddowes' face was mutilated because he couldn't satisfy himself with Stride's corpse, then why would Jack do the same and a hell of a lot more to Kelly? Looking thoroughly at the stuff surrounding her murder, Stride seems an unlikely Ripper victim and is only believed to be one of his simply due to coincidence (namely Jack ripping outside of Whitechapel for the first and only time on the same night).

[Sam Flynn]

If we discount Stride then we have no reason to explain the way JTR mutilated Eddowes.

I don't see that follows, Mitch. Besides, the guy was a nutjob - isn't that reason enough?

[Mitch Rowe]

Eddowes

If we discount Stride then we have no reason to explain the way JTR mutilated Eddowes. We can explain Pollys mutilations with a possible interruption or inexperience. But by the time JTR gets to Eddowes he has already established a pattern. He does this when he murders and mutilates Annie Chapman. He repeats the pattern when he murders MJK.

But.. If we include Stride and the interruption theory then Eddowes mutilations and location of demise makes more sense. We can also see that Strides murder seems to follow the pattern established with the Chapman murder.

They have told me on these forums that Dr Philips opinion was that Eddowes was the odd one out! I dont know what date he made that or if he in fact made that opinion but that sounds about right to me. If we forget about all witness accounts Eddowes should not be there.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Exactly.

Excluding Stride, the canonical victims all make perfect sense and to be the conclusive work of the Ripper.

The only reason I can think of for discrediting MJK as a Ripper victim is if your favored suspect is one of the Joes, who quite obviously were not the Ripper.

Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly all seem to be the evolutionary/progressive handiwork of Jack.

In fact, I find it more unbelievable that some people find MJK to not be the work of the Ripper, as that would mean that there was an even worse killer than Jack at large in Whitechapel at the same time. It's unrealistic and a bit implausible that there were two killers who had an extremely high tolerance of that graphic extent of viscera.

[Blues]

Many people I have seen discuss which murders were Jack's and which weren't seem to discount Mary Jane Kelly as one of Jack's victims because her uterus was left behind. That logic doesn't seem to jibe with what we do know about Jack the Ripper. We have uteri or partial uteri taken from - what? - 2 maybe 3 of the canonical 5? Now Stride must be eliminated from this altogether so out of 4 victims - if we include Kelly - we have:

3 uteri/partial uteri
1 Kidney
1 Heart
4 Disembowled
2 Facial mutilations

When thought of in this way, it seems that Jack the Ripper wasn't necessarily concerned with the uterus/womb only. As he started, he seems interested in them...as he progressed, his intentions/interests seem to vary...by the time he gets to Eddowes, he is interested in kidneys and facial mutilation...Maybe his intended use/fantasy of the uterus didn't pan out...maybe they just didn't "keep" well...don't know. What I do know is that many discount MJK as a victim because of the heart being taken and the uterus being left behind. I believe that the police's idea that this was all one man is valid. When viewed objectively - which isn't truly possible, but try - Jack seems to be exploring/experimenting as we go along culminating in Kelly's death. If MJK is discounted, we must then rethink Eddowes...which is nonsense, of course.

Anyway, that has stuck in me craw for awhile and was just aching to get it out...thanks for the ears/eyes.

Blues