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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

"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."

He also ALWAYS had the opportunity to take their shoes and he didn't do it. Should we cansider that significant? Nobody knows why he killed indoors or why he would have chosen to kill Mary indoors. A quite REASONABLE assumption is that he did so because of increased patrols on the street and/or he wanted more time to be with his victim.

Yes, there are differences in the murders but if we can offer a reasonable explanation to explain the differences then to me they are not significant. My opinion only.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Sorry, I meant to say that we don't know why he chose to kill outdoors.

And it is "consider" not "cansider". Bad typying.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

You describe the cuts to Kate's face as being mocking and cruel. Dr. Brown said the "face was very much mutilated." That seems much more in line with what happened to Mary.

c.d.

[Nic1950]

Hi,

After removing other organs from previous victims, isn't the heart the ultimate prize?? There are clear links, injuries inflicted on Kelly are also seen on Eddowes, injuries on Eddowes are seen in Chapman, Chapman in Nichols and so on. Overall they're very similar, only as they progress do they become much worse. Cut throats and then mutilation with the exception of Stride whom I still think was at the same hand. My opinion is this ... He looks for a victim , knows he can't do it in his own home or workplace so next best location that he knows best is the streets. Comes across Nichols, fairly quiet time of night in a particular fairly quiet street and carries out enough to satisfy him for now. Week later he wants to inflict more injuries and luckily enough he finds Chapman and even more of a bonus it's secluded so more time hence worse mutilations. He waits or has to wait 3 weeks and his urge is stronger and finds Stride, again somewhere secluded but this time he's interrupted so he leaves unsatisfied. Desperately wanting to fulfil his desire he finds Eddowes and added bonus ends in a quiet location, a square where the traffic is minimal so he is able to carry out even worse mutilations. At this point his urge is heightened and to really achieve what he wants he thinks maybe its too risky on the street and the only way he can really do what he wants to do is indoors and uninterrupted hence Kelly. It might seem a bit far fetched for some but that's how I see it. Love to here more opinions please???

Nic

[Wickerman]

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.

Might that suggest the killer had a facial disfigurement of his own?

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

explanation

Hello CD. Thanks.

"He also ALWAYS had the opportunity to take their shoes and he didn't do it. Should we consider that significant?"

Not likely, unless it has some bearing on the case. If, however, shoes were later missing . . .

"Nobody knows why he killed indoors or why he would have chosen to kill Mary indoors. A quite REASONABLE assumption is that he did so because of increased patrols on the street and/or he wanted more time to be with his victim."

But surely there were many patrols out the night of the "Double Event"? And, don't forget, there was about a 6 week lull here.

"Yes, there are differences in the murders but if we can offer a reasonable explanation to explain the differences then to me they are not significant."

Very well, I look forward to a reasonable explanation.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;253576

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.


Regards, Jon S.[/QUOTE]

It had to be with a relative degree of care, since the description is that the pericardium was empty. Just cutting the blood vessels and yanking out would take the heart with the pericardium. But the pericardium was opened, and heart taken out. Which isn't necessarily hard, but it requires some care.

[Abby Normal]

Might that suggest the killer had a facial disfigurement of his own?

Regards, Jon S.

Blotches perhaps?

[RivkahChaya]

A facial disfigurement of his own? How on earth do you derive a motivation for mutilating the faces of murder victims from that? Do you think he removed a kidney, because he was missing a kidney?

Besides, women were alert to anyone who was odd-looking, since that was what they associated with odd behavior, however wrong it may have been. I think women would have been avoiding people with scars, limps, stutters, and other visible signs of problems, while JTR easily blended in, because there was nothing distinct about him.