If There Were Multiple Killers Wouldn't We Expect to See More Killings?

[c.d.]

"That is, if the killer really was up to that sort of symbolism and/or pathos, which of course is just a bit of speculation on my part."

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there, Boris. All we know is that he took her heart. We can also speculate why he cut off her breasts and cut the flesh from her thigh but the fact is that it is simply speculation.

c.d.

[bolo]

Hello Michael,

The location dictates that Mary was not found accidentally. Its like a lobster trap for a killer.

Miller's Court 13 was a risky location, only a flimsy door and some old coats over the windows shielded what went on in there from the outside world. A simple knock at the door by a friend or neighbour of Mary's and the killer would have been in deep trouble.

However, this could be said about most of the other crime scenes as well, like Mitre Square or Berner Street, the latter was almost as risky a location as Miller's Court 13 in my opinion, with the exception of a possible escape route via the fence(s) to other courts.

Hello c.d.,

If you look for differences, you are going to find them. That is pretty much a given. Is is really such a leap to believe that a killer who killed on the street might also kill indoors or that a killer who took a uterus might also take a heart? You are trying to find a Jack that behaves like a robot and carries a script with him that he cannot possibly deviate from.

The absence of Mary's heart has a certain symbolic ring to it, as if the killer wanted to say "you took my heart and broke it, now I've destroyed you and took yours". In terms of symbolism, there's a difference between that and taking out uteri or kidneys in my opinion.

That is, if the killer really was up to that sort of symbolism and/or pathos, which of course is just a bit of speculation on my part.

Regards,

Boris

[lynn cates]

sic

Hello CD.

"Is is really such a leap to believe that a killer who killed on the street might also kill indoors"

No, not unless you are claiming what he wanted to do, really, all along, was to kill indoors. Then there may be a problem--given he ALWAYS had the opportunity.

". . . or that a killer who took a uterus might also take a heart?"

No problem--unless one made clean cuts and the other not.

"You are trying to find a Jack that behaves like a robot and carries a script with him that he cannot possibly deviate from."

Not at all, except that the first two WERE as if from a script.

"If we look at the killings of the Yorkshire Ripper and BTK could we not do a similar analysis and point out all the differences in the killings?'

Perhaps. But could we find two that were so alike in technique as Polly and Annie?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Michael,

If you look for differences, you are going to find them. That is pretty much a given. Is is really such a leap to believe that a killer who killed on the street might also kill indoors or that a killer who took a uterus might also take a heart? You are trying to find a Jack that behaves like a robot and carries a script with him that he cannot possibly deviate from.

If we look at the killings of the Yorkshire Ripper and BTK could we not do a similar analysis and point out all the differences in the killings?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi

I don't think there is a personal link in the case of MJK, I think it's just a case of progression and pushing the boundaries. When we compare MJK to Eddowes, all the signs are there, face mutilations, removal of organs and and even the specific areas where he placed the intestines for example. This is even apparent in Chapman but there were no facial mutilations, To me it's a case of natural progression and the result being Kelly where he had time and location to progress even further. I do think mutilating the face is personal but this could have been his growing hatred not the fact that he knew them.

Hi Nic,

What youve done with the above is summarize what many people who study these crimes assume also. The problem with those assumptions are that they negate all the various new features of the murders that are only present when you include Kate and Mary. The killer of Polly and Annie clearly had opportunities to disfigure their faces...but didnt. He could have taken their hearts instead...but he didnt. He could have taken Liz Stride back into an empty stall and carved her up without any interference or "interruption", but he killed her just feet from the open gates and the street. The killer of Polly and Annie could have passed on them because they had no home that he might indulge himself in...many street women did have their own rooms and in Marys case it was rented, and in her name.

The facial mutilations on Kate are mocking and cruel...the wounds on Mary are savage and angry...the face is essentially erased on Mary Kelly. The killer of Polly and Annie placed internal materials off to the side to get them out of his way...Marys killer placed a breast, one of the earliest carvings, and her uterus I believe, one of the later,... under her head. He also placed other items between her legs. Polly and Annie killer can only be accused of some minor superfluous cutting, the main objective guided where and how deeply he cut. Once he reached his goal, they were cut no more. Kates killer made many superfluous cuts, face included, and did not extract the uterus cleanly, the organ most probably sought twice before. Marys murder includes mutilation that has no other purpose than to be self serving, its superfluous and shows signs of anger. He also cuts far more sloppily on Kate and Mary. Mary Kelly has one thigh stripped of flesh, and the other is stripped only on the inner thigh...neither action conducive to achieving any other objective than satisfying the killer...Polly and Annies killer cut to kill, and cut to open and extract. Not to play, or dawdle...like was done with Mary.

I could go on obviously but Im sure the point is made.....Ill end with 3 factors that to me distinctly separate Mary Kelly from the other so-called Canonicals .... 1, the location and environment of the murder scene...... Mary undressed, on her own bed, in her own room, in a small courtyard off the beaten path... accessed by a stone tunnel some 20 feet long. The location dictates that Mary was not found accidentally. Its like a lobster trap for a killer. #2, the killer leaves the organ that Polly and Annies killer killed them for. And #3, the killer in room 13 was almost certainly left handed, and Polly and Annies killer was not.

Cheers Nic, all.

[Wickerman]

The method of removing the heart is also interesting. A maniac might be expected to have attempted to break through the ribcage with his knife.
Reaching up through the bottom of the ribcage suggests he was thinking.

Notice, no mention of how it was removed, whether 'with care' as in the case of Eddowes kidney, or just pulled out tearing all the attachments, artery's, etc.

This recalls a scene from London Hospital (Victorian Drama) where in response to a patient dying of heart failure?, the surgeon sliced across his abdomen below the ribs and reached up beneath the ribcage, and with his hand massaged the heart. The stories were apparently taken from real cases.
He saved the patients life.

It makes you wonder...

Regards, Jon S.

[Nic1950]

Hi

I don't think there is a personal link in the case of MJK, I think it's just a case of progression and pushing the boundaries. When we compare MJK to Eddowes, all the signs are there, face mutilations, removal of organs and and even the specific areas where he placed the intestines for example. This is even apparent in Chapman but there were no facial mutilations, To me it's a case of natural progression and the result being Kelly where he had time and location to progress even further. I do think mutilating the face is personal but this could have been his growing hatred not the fact that he knew them.

[c.d.]

Hello Errata,

Thanks for your response. I just don't see anything personal or symbolic in Mary's murder. Look at what happened to Kate. According to Dr. Brown's report "a piece [of intestine] was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm apparently by design...the face was very much mutilated." Don't we see the same thing in Mary's killing but just to a greater extent which can easily be explained by her killer having more time?

If we attach symbolism to the heart being taken, what symbolism should we attach to Kate's kidney being taken? Isn't it natural for a collector of any kind to want most what he doesn't have in his collection?

I think way too much weight is given to the mutilation of Mary's face. After all, there was only so much flesh to work with. Why do we readily accept that a killer can cut a throat and rip out intestines but are then shocked when he mutilates a face?

Just my opinion. Thanks again for your response.

c.d.

[Nic1950]

Hi all,

Personally, I think Stride is a ripper victim. No mutilation tells me that he was interrupted or realised maybe that the location didn't give him enough time to carried out more injuries hence Eddowes. For some reason I'm not getting that JTR knew MJK personally, I feel it's more a general dislike for women probably women who lead that life of prostitution/alcoholism etc. The injuries inflicted on MJK just tell me that this is someone who has made the most of the location (less likelihood of interruptions and more time to spend). The other victims locations were enough for him to carry out his mutilations sufficiently but not as much as a room with a locked door.

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

What do you feel was personal and highly symbolic in Mary Kelly's murder?

c.d.

The facial mutilations were extensive, but spared the eyes. External sexual characteristics were targeted. Really, if you were going to punish a woman for having sex with other men, the most symbolic parts of the body would be the lips, the breasts and the genitals. All of which were targeted on her, but not the previous victims. And her heart was taken, but not the uterus. It isn't inherently more convenient to take a uterus as opposed to a heart. It just requires slightly different tools. So if he wanted hearts, he could have had them at any time. She was also staged to a ridiculous degree, complete with organs under her head like a pillow. I think she was also propped up afterward, her hands on (or in) her abdomen as though at rest. She is in a fairly natural pose for someone who has been eviscerated, flensed, and generally cut up. With the blood involved, there is no way the killer would have thought that she could be mistaken for being asleep b a passerby. So he had to do it for his own reasons, and peacefully composing a body typically indicates a feeling of guilt. Which combined with everything else makes it look personal. At least to me.

[c.d.]

Hello Errata,

What do you feel was personal and highly symbolic in Mary Kelly's murder?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

reasoning

Hello Nic. You might look at my reasoning in "Possibly the work of an imitator" in Don Souden's "New Independent Review" number 4. I have laid out many reasons why I think Kate was killed by a different hand.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hi

If there were 2 killers, would that be based on the victims injuries or are there other factors to consider? I personally don't think so but I would be interested in the logic??

In the end, no matter what logical dressing we put on it, it comes down to gut. I think that Elizabeth Stride's murder and Mary Kelly's murder are different enough to question if they were killed by the same man, but admittedly if you dig deep enough in any of their murders, you will find differences.

Liz Stride had her throat cut. As did the victims of Jack the Ripper, but it was not a totally uncommon way to kill a person, especially women. I just don't think there is any evidence that actually links her death to the Ripper. Mary Kelly's murder seems super personal to me. And highly symbolic. Also not consistent with Ripper killings. But I have admitted elsewhere that if Jack knew Kelly, and her death was personal, she would have been killed by the Ripper, but not for the same reason the other women were killed. But I think whoever killed Kelly wanted something different that the Mand who killed Chapman.

But mostly it's gut. I'm not going to lie.

[RivkahChaya]

If there were 2 killers, would that be based on the victims injuries or are there other factors to consider? I personally don't think so but I would be interested in the logic??

Age and body type. Looking just at the C5, Nichols and Chapman were stout, Eddowes and Stride were thin, and Kelly looks to be slender by modern standards, even if she looks much better nourished than Stride & Eddowes.

Then, there's age. The first four were about the same age; Kelly was significantly younger.

Age and "type" (meaning size, hair color, and general appearance) are usually important to sexual serial killers. Ted Bundy's victims look like they were all sent up from central casting for the same role. Jeffrey Dahmer liked well built men in their mid-30s, and, unusually, race was not important to him, although, someone once pointed out to me that he seemed to like white men who were tanned, or olive skinned, and black men who were somewhat lighter-skinned, and generally, they all had neat, short hair, and a sort of collegiate appearance. He also had Asian victims. It's worth noting that one of his victims, his youngest, was a wide deviation from his usual, but more importantly, was older than the picture the press kept using. The papers kept using a picture of him that was two or three years old, when he was 15, and looked younger, and not above the age of consent, which he was when Dahmer brought him home.

Yes, I realize it's a very small thing to say "At least Dahmer wasn't a pedophile"; it's important, though, if you want to use him in discussions of victimology.

There have been quite a few serial killers that have travelled around but I think what is more confusing about JTR is that we have no solid evidence that he has killed elsewhere yet I believe he has.

You are probably right. One thing about talking about more than one killer, is that if we look for a pattern seen in the C5 (or even C5 - Stride), we see escalating mutilations that pretty much dictates we look for something like another MJK, or at least an outdoor victim with mutilations progressing beyond Eddowes.

However, if we think in terms of multiple killers for the C5, then we can look for later victims that look like Nichols & Chapman, without a progression to facial mutilations. If we look for a progression beyond MJK, I'd look for women in dire straits, who lived alone, and disappeared. I think a progression beyond MJK would be a similar degree of butchery, but with more organization, and the ability to conceal the body, or dispose of it in a way that it wouldn't be found with Victorian technology.

[Nic1950]

Hi again

Just had time to read full thread, something I picked up on was that there is a possibility that the killer moved to a different area/county even country. There have been quite a few serial killers that have travelled around but I think what is more confusing about JTR is that we have no solid evidence that he has killed elsewhere yet I believe he has. The only reason serial killers stop committing these crimes is because they are caught for their crimes and imprisoned or that they are dead or they are incapable of carrying out anymore murders due to ill- health. I find it difficult to believe after MJK he decided to retire, someone who is capable of such a murder cannot simply fall back into a normal life.