Mary Jane Violence

[Fisherman]

Perhaps I am a simpleton, but I have always thought the simplest explanation for MJK's murder being so much bloodier is simply because being indoors afforded the killer more time and security.

I´ll help you out - you are not a simpleton. Arguably, the seclusion and time offered played a big role.

[Fisherman]

Thanks Sam. I agree a number of the Whitechapel murders outside the C5 are unlikely have been committed by Jack.

I also agree, like when it comes to Coles, for example. But that does not mean that the likeliest thing is NOT a single killer. It is not until we produce weighty evidence to the contrary that we can afford to opt for a different killer. So Coles stays a logical victim of the Ripper, although my own hunch is that she was not.

[Fisherman]

That anomaly also happens in Liz Strides case, so a precedent for incorrect identifications happens on the very same night. I suppose I meant that in her case the person who was closest to her at that time had no issues ID'ing her as his Kate. Barnett admittedly could identify only 2 features on a woman he has been sleeping with until a few days earlier. That's the contrast Im referring to, Mary was almost unrecognizable, Kate wasn't. Kate was marked, Marys face was slashed to such an extent that a flap of her forehead covered her eyes.

So the clincher is to have a flap of flesh hiding your eyes? I see.

[Fisherman]

good posts fish
and I agree here too-and bringing back to Mary as is the subject of this thread-the amount of damage done to her and specifically cutting away of breasts and flaying flesh down to the bone. Is this really so incredibly different than cutting off limbs? not to me it aint.

It all boils down to the incentive, the inspiration grounds. The acts can be wildly different, but they can also be two branches on the exact same tree. And I think they are in our case. It´s all about disassembling, as far as I´m concerned.

[Michael W Richards]

Oh, it's ok, many of *my* claims are known to be snotty (as the ex used to say).
Evidence concerning...?

1. MJK's tenure at a West End brothel is one of the few claims she is alleged to have made, which are confirmed by two sources (one naturally being mr. Barnett).
2. MJK's parents failing to meet the funeral on time is validated by all newspaper reports.
3. McCarthy's claim that he had received a letter from her mother has not been confirmed by hard evidence, therefore falls under the "potential BS" category.
As all her "family background" info -- solely provided by barnett on hearsay.
4. MJK probably invented herself -- nothing surprising here. But it hardly makes a case of a random/innocent victim.
5. McCarthy acting as indirect pimp --- I don't know many "professional" landlords allowing their tenants to fall "conveniently" way way behnd on their rent, unless other "Services" are provided. And god knows MJK did provide service to many.
6. Two major landlords resided/acted in that area --- both of their lodgings have been linked to canonical and pre-canonical attacks/murders.
I find that too glaring of a coincidence to pass by -- as too many others in this case whom some simply brush off as "random"/coincidences.

Just to help me address the points above I numbered them, and so:

1. I don't believe anyone disputes Marys past included brothel work.
2. Even if we could be sure who she was really and where she hailed from, there would be no guarantee that any family would, or could, make a trip to London for the funeral.
3. I also doubt some of what Barnett claims.
4. I also think her re-invention is her own, but I do think its likely some people knew who she really was. I find it lacking imagination to take an alias such as Marie Jeanette though, might speak to her education.
5. Landlords have always had difficulty when their leased premises fall in arrears, this is nothing remarkable. I don't see any evidence that "McCarthy's Rents" was a haven for prostitutes, nor that he gained anything from the ones that did.
6. When opportunities like reduced value in real estate happen, people with money will be there. Nothing remarkable there either.

What is possible in this case is that the woman has been intentionally representing herself as Mary Jane Kelly because she didn't want to be found by her real name.And maybe, just maybe, Kates cryptic...in my opinion..use of 2 aliases containing "Mary Jane Kelly, _6 Dorset Street" in her last 24 hours might be a way of suggesting the woman that some people might be looking for could be found in Dorset Street...and maybe Kate knew Dorset St wasn't enough info to give her away.

[Michael W Richards]

So the clincher is to have a flap of flesh hiding your eyes? I see.

No, the difference is a few cuts vs slashing back and forth. Surely that's not an incomprehensible difference.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

It all boils down to the incentive, the inspiration grounds. The acts can be wildly different, but they can also be two branches on the exact same tree. And I think they are in our case. It´s all about disassembling, as far as I´m concerned.

To be fair guys, When I started the thread the gist of it was really to discuss the motive for the destruction of Mary, the need for that level of violence and wether the killer was venting personally against MJK or was she a stranger to him and just unfortunate to be the subject of his lust?
Personally, I find the Thames Torsos fits the discussion, the same question applies to whoever commited those brutal killings.
And the Scotland Yard thing is one hell of a mystery.

[Sam Flynn]

No, the difference is a few cuts vs slashing back and forth.

The number and severity of the cuts is proportional to the degree of privacy, the ambient light and time available. Eddowes' face was pretty badly slashed, given that it happened in a public place, in dim lighting and in a short space of time.

[Michael W Richards]

The number and severity of the cuts is proportional to the degree of privacy, the ambient light and time available. Eddowes' face was pretty badly slashed, given that it happened in a public place, in dim lighting and in a short space of time.

I disagree Sam, the differences here are the result of targeted cutting...even in the dark... and random contact with flesh due to back and forth slashing. Eddowes nose was cut badly, but as you yourself have said, the chevrons might not be intentionally placed cuts. They may be collateral. So really...did Kates killer actually intend to cut those chevrons, cause if not, then he may have only targeted cutting her nose. Dissimilar to Marys facial wounds.

[Michael W Richards]

To be fair guys, When I started the thread the gist of it was really to discuss the motive for the destruction of Mary, the need for that level of violence and wether the killer was venting personally against MJK or was she a stranger to him and just unfortunate to be the subject of his lust?
Personally, I find the Thames Torsos fits the discussion, the same question applies to whoever commited those brutal killings.
And the Scotland Yard thing is one hell of a mystery.

You have additional information here that helps with clarity Al....the man took Mary apart after arriving at her room after midnight, being in her presence while she is in her underwear, a situation shich she apparently allowed, and then she went to bed, turned on her side to face the partition wall, and slid over to the right hand side of the bed. That, and the wounds, let us know she knew her killer, and that he was mad. As in angry.

[Abby Normal]

Just about every part WAS found, though. And once the killer noted that this happened, why would he keep feeding the Thames with floating parts - if disposing was all it was about? And why would he go through the trouble of putting a torso in the cellar vauts of the New Scotland Yard? There must have been a million easier ways to dispose of a torso, right? And just how much hope did he have that the torso in Scotland Yard woudl go unnoticed and disappear...?

yup.
or dumping Jacksons torso in the park, but then going out his way to toss the leg in the shelley estate.
or dumping the Tottenham torso very riskily in front of a building heavily used and patrolled by police.
or pinchin in the heart of ripper territory in between police beats

no torso man was definitely not trying to hide the bodies/parts when he was done. and neither did the ripper. odd and shocking places all of them.

[Abby Normal]

It all boils down to the incentive, the inspiration grounds. The acts can be wildly different, but they can also be two branches on the exact same tree. And I think they are in our case. It´s all about disassembling, as far as I´m concerned.

yup
fish do you think torsoripper was trying to recreate the anatomical venus museum display, which interestingly shut down right before the first torso in 73, or at least was inspired by it?

[Curious Cat]

To be fair guys, When I started the thread the gist of it was really to discuss the motive for the destruction of Mary, the need for that level of violence and wether the killer was venting personally against MJK or was she a stranger to him and just unfortunate to be the subject of his lust?
Personally, I find the Thames Torsos fits the discussion, the same question applies to whoever commited those brutal killings.
And the Scotland Yard thing is one hell of a mystery.

I believe the killer's motive was driven by the satisfaction of causing a particular response rather the kill itself. The murders were a means rather than the ends.

To include the torso case and infer it's the same killer removes the idea of escalation. It switches methodology and it's very unlikely for a serial killer to - if you pardon the phrase - chop and change the way they dispose of the body/evidence. There may be similarities in the way some victims were killed - there are only so many ways to commit a murder when the weapon of choice is a knife - but what happens post mortem is purely signature to the killer, whether it's how they dispose of the body or hide/not hide the evidence.

[Sam Flynn]

Eddowes nose was cut badly, but as you yourself have said, the chevrons might not be intentionally placed cuts.

I think they were intentional, inasmuch as random cuts can be said to be intentional. However, I've pointed out that the chevrons were peeled-up slices caused by the knife being slid under the skin, not delierately "carved" inverted V's cut into the skin point-downwards, as some people have thought/think. (That they might have been caused collaterally when the knife cut the nose was Jon Smyth's suggestion, not mine.)

[Michael W Richards]

yup.
or dumping Jacksons torso in the park, but then going out his way to toss the leg in the shelley estate.
or dumping the Tottenham torso very riskily in front of a building heavily used and patrolled by police.
or pinchin in the heart of ripper territory in between police beats

no torso man was definitely not trying to hide the bodies/parts when he was done. and neither did the ripper. odd and shocking places all of them.

If there were symbolic reasons for leaving some of the pieces where they were found, that's a message in effect....like the cloth and GSG might have been. That's not an issue Fisherman, doing rapid abdominal field surgery on murder victims and then leaving them to be found within, in some cases minutes is categorically different from luring or subduing someone, taking them off the street somewhere private, taking who knows how long to dismember the victim, then disposing of the pieces in various locations. One of these acts takes place in minutes in open air with the threat of discovery lingering over the scene...one takes place over who knows how long without any imminent threat of discovery. We have one killer who coveted the abdomen and its internal organs, ...and one who threw those away.

I believe the New Scotland Yard materials were deliberately placed to be found, but again, the urgency of the Ripper crimes isn't here at all.