Mary Jane Violence

[Michael W Richards]

It might simply have been because it's easier to remove one or two abdominal organs when you're up against the clock and your "operating theatre" is a public right of way.

"The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body." "There were no meaningless cuts". "My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste." "The manner in which they had been done indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge."

Phillips comments tell us that he believed the organ taken was specifically targeted and cut out in a manner that would allow for that extraction. He was of the opinion that the man knew enough about anatomy to discard the idea it was some kind of grab-what-you-can deal, like Kates extraction may have been.

I think its very safe to conclude that Annies killer sought to kill a woman and take her uterus with him. Now, what other murder, Canonical or other has that premise as a real possibility? None. No evidence in the cuts that Kates killer specifically sought a kidney and partial uterus, no evidence in the mess in Room 13 that Kellys killer murdered her so he could get her heart. That's why in Annies case, and ONLY in Annies case, do we have an investigation then target anatomically trained and knife skilled med students or practitioners for Suspects. And they got some names too. I don't think they needed to look beyond a butcher myself, but those are the facts Sam.

[Michael W Richards]

Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

I hedged in Marys case because I believe he had ample alone time to take off her arms, or legs, or head while in that room. If he can strip her thigh clean with a knife, cutting off the tissues that cling to the bone.. and all that muscle, tendon and fat..he could have easily cut through a thigh bone in the same time, or removed it at the hip joint, or cut off her head. He didn't.





why would he need to? he dosnt need to get the body out of his place this time.[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Because the Torso man makes Torso of humans, that why. Rippers rip, Torso men make Torsos, not a difficult concept to grasp, is it? Oh yeah...you and Fish want them to be the same person...so I can see your problem there.

[Sam Flynn]

2. Chapmans uterus was taken because it was sought out specifically by her killer

It might simply have been because it's easier to remove one or two abdominal organs when you're up against the clock and your "operating theatre" is a public right of way.

[Abby Normal]

Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

I hedged in Marys case because I believe he had ample alone time to take off her arms, or legs, or head while in that room. If he can strip her thigh clean with a knife, cutting off the tissues that cling to the bone.. and all that muscle, tendon and fat..he could have easily cut through a thigh bone in the same time, or removed it at the hip joint, or cut off her head. He didn't.

You're right on the money there.

why would he need to? he dosnt need to get the body out of his place this time.

[Fisherman]

1. That, along with the fact that Kates killer didn't cut specifically to access her uterus like Annies did, might well mean just that.
2. Chapmans uterus was taken because it was sought out specifically by her killer, in Pollys case its likely that he didn't get that far. Every other critical aspect of those 2 crimes is a match.
3. Definitely yes. Not for the reasons you state, because Liz had no additional cuts at all.
4. Since Annies killer wanted her uterus and cut accordingly, one must conclude that if the same someone who now wanted Marys heart he would do likewise. Is that the case? Nope. Annie outdoors, Mary in her own home in bed. Yep, likely 2 killers, unconnected.
5. Funny you keep on these 2, because I cant say that I am 100% on the side of excluding Kate in the real series. Which is for sure 2, maybe 3.
6. Yes, for many, many reasons, including the final pose.
7. You seem angry when people point out that there are major differences in just the Canonical group that very likely indicate differing motives, which signifies most probably, different killers. And you wonder why people get angry when you increase the total by including even more murders that do not fit with the patterns established within, again, even just some of the Canonical Group.

As far as solitude, I guess you really didn't read the post, but Im far from being alone in my beliefs. I just would have no issues if that were the case, accuracy is not dependent on a consensus of opinion. No number of people agreeing on anything means anything empirical. But you know that yourself, Right? StabbingRippingTorso man believer?

I am quite aware that being alone does not equal being wrong. Fewer people out here support Lechmere than the ones who donīt, so I know the feeling. The only difference is that I am quite likely right and you are almost certain to be wrong.

Then again, that IS a major difference...

[Fisherman]

Working indoors was certainly an incentive to butcher Mary Kelly more extensively than any of the Whitechapel victims but it was not the motivation imo.

I think our best guess is that Mary was picked up out on the streets - simply because we know the other victims were, that was part of the MO of the killer.

Ergo, I believe that the killer was not expecting to get the opportunities linked to an indoor killing. I think he simply drew on the advantage that presented itself when Kelly said "Hey, I got a room of my own".

If she had not had a room, my best guess is that she would have been found dead and eviscerated somewhere close to the streets she worked. And that means that the motivation as such would be similar in all cases. And Michael would have had an even harder task to make us believe in an array of competent eviscerators walking the East End streets in 1888.

[Michael W Richards]

Try this angle: 1. There was facial damage to Eddowes but not to Chapman. Does the lack of facial damage desire tell us that there were two killers?

2. Chapman lost a uterus, Nichols did not. Two killers?

3. Stride did not have her abdomen opened, Kelly did. Two killers?

4. Kelly had her heart taken out, Chapman didnīt. Two killers?

5. Eddowes lost a kidney, Nichols didnīt. Two killers?

6. Stride lay on her side, Nichols on her back. Two killers?

7. Iīm glad you enjoy your relative solitude because it is not likely to change anytime soon.

1. That, along with the fact that Kates killer didn't cut specifically to access her uterus like Annies did, might well mean just that.
2. Chapmans uterus was taken because it was sought out specifically by her killer, in Pollys case its likely that he didn't get that far. Every other critical aspect of those 2 crimes is a match.
3. Definitely yes. Not for the reasons you state, because Liz had no additional cuts at all.
4. Since Annies killer wanted her uterus and cut accordingly, one must conclude that if the same someone who now wanted Marys heart he would do likewise. Is that the case? Nope. Annie outdoors, Mary in her own home in bed. Yep, likely 2 killers, unconnected.
5. Funny you keep on these 2, because I cant say that I am 100% on the side of excluding Kate in the real series. Which is for sure 2, maybe 3.
6. Yes, for many, many reasons, including the final pose.
7. You seem angry when people point out that there are major differences in just the Canonical group that very likely indicate differing motives, which signifies most probably, different killers. And you wonder why people get angry when you increase the total by including even more murders that do not fit with the patterns established within, again, even just some of the Canonical Group.

As far as solitude, I guess you really didn't read the post, but Im far from being alone in my beliefs. I just would have no issues if that were the case, accuracy is not dependent on a consensus of opinion. No number of people agreeing on anything means anything empirical. But you know that yourself, Right? StabbingRippingTorso man believer?

[Fisherman]

Originally posted by Michael W Richards:

I hedged in Marys case because I believe he had ample alone time to take off her arms, or legs, or head while in that room. If he can strip her thigh clean with a knife, cutting off the tissues that cling to the bone.. and all that muscle, tendon and fat..he could have easily cut through a thigh bone in the same time, or removed it at the hip joint, or cut off her head. He didn't.

Posted by Gareth Williams: You're right on the money there.

Posted by me: You are both correct: the killer did not dismember Kelly, and there is reason to think that he could have done so to at least some extent. The explanation for this can only be one out of three options:

1. He did not want to dismember Kelly.

2. He was not able to dismember Kelly.

3. He did not have the time to dismember her.

Letīs begin by dropping the third option, it is very unlikely.

Now, if anyone can tell me why we would exclude option number one, Iīd be much interested to hear that explanation. What you must ponder before answering is Liz Jacksons fate:

Liz was cut open from pubes to ribs, and the killer then moved on to cut one section of the abdominal wall away from each side of the original pubes to ribs cut. He then proceeded to extract the heart, the lungs and a section of the colon from the body,just as he cut out the uterus together with the placenta and chord. He also cut the foetus out from the uterus.
Once this was done, he proceeded to cut the torso in three sections, one shoulder section, one mid section and one pelvic section.

He therefore did something inititally that was very similar to what the Ripper did to his victims, abdominal flaps, taking out organs of a sexual as well as a non-sexual character and so on.

Only after that did he proceed to dismember the body.

Can anybody tell me what seems to have been the part likeliest to have been something the killer felt an urge to do? Would that be the opening up of the body and the organ taking, or would it be the ensuing dismemberment of the trunk? In other words, did he first do the tedious cutting open of the abdomen and the boring retrieval of the organs only to then move on to his favourite inclusion, the dismemberment? Or did he actually LIKE to cut the body open and pluck the organs out, whereas the dismemberment was a part he did out of necessity and with less joy?

Anybody with something between their ears would easily go for him choosing the organ extracting and having to add the dismemberment. And that alone should put an end to any idea that the killer would have needed to dismember Kelly to be one and the same in both series.

However, although I could pursue that line of arguing and squash the idea about how a dismembered will always dismember if given the chance (which is disproven by reality), I would say that what this killer was about could ALSO portray itself in dismemberment inclusions. But in Kellys case, I believe he preferred not to dismember, and I think he made that choice because dismemberment would ruin the work he did in the Kelly case. He exhibited her exactly in the fashion he had decided to, and that fashion did not entail any dismemberment.

If the torso killer actually always would go for dismemberment on every occasion, then what are the arms of the Pinchin Street torso doing in their places? What was the leg of the 1874 torso doing in itīs place? Iīd say these parts were quite possibly left for shock value - a torso with arms attached are more reminiscent of a real person and therefcore more gruesome to look at. And it was very much about looks for the combined killer if I am not much mistaken.

I have said this before but I donīt mind repeating it: My belief is that the murders were all about disassembling bodies, taking them apart. I can think of no more efficient and powerful way to take total control over another human being than to turn him or her into a jigsaw puzzle that the killer can play with at his leisure. And control over another person is what serial killing is mostly about. In this context, being able to take out a kidney and put it back at will, is an expression of the exact same thing as taking an arm from a body and being able to put it back again.

The ripper/torso killer would accordingly not feel frustrated by not dismembering Kelly. He set out to open her up and pluck all the little bits and pieces inside her out, leaving them alongside her as if he had given an anatomy class - and that was what he achieved too. He made her his toy, his belonging.And this is why the organs are not described as being cut in pieces or hacked or anything such - they were carefully and deliberately lifted out of the body unharmed it would seem, just as the eyes of Kelly were left unharmed by what some regard as a furious effort to annihilate her identity.

Things are not always what they seem to be.

[Fisherman]

You know it wouldn't faze me to know I was the only one who sees things this way Fisherman, so you best look for another Achilles heel. I have however had many discussions off line and on about what some posters believe privately, and my abbreviated Canonical ideas have some traction out there. Im not threatening to people who still want the solo phantom menace, 'cause I do see one in there as well, I just find it fascinating how this became what it is today and why people would rather imagine a continually morphing man when its abundantly clear that.. excluding a possible sighting outside Mitre Square.. this guy was succeeding spectacularly doing just what he did. And in that Canonical series I see deep throat cuts, agreed, but I do not see any disarticulation desires other than..perhaps...Mary Kelly. As a matter of fact, in one, there aren't even mutilation desires. I hedged in Marys case because I believe he had ample alone time to take off her arms, or legs, or head while in that room. If he can strip her thigh clean with a knife, cutting off the tissues that cling to the bone.. and all that muscle, tendon and fat..he could have easily cut through a thigh bone in the same time, or removed it at the hip joint, or cut off her head. He didn't.

I think that people are correct when they see someone plunging into the abyss in that room, whomever did this was never the same after it, but I don't believe that it has to be interpreted as a result of prior murders culminating in a masterpiece of gore...I think someone was very angry, then curious. I think there may well have been an attempt to make this look Ripperish after the murder itself, and this guy didn't understand these acts true significance to the real Ripper. Breast under the head, uterus between the legs...Annies killer had no time or interest for such rubbish. The intestines were in the way, thats all.

Your idea of a collection of eviscerators IS your Achilles heel, Michael, whether you realize it or not. The reason I prefer accepting a "morphing man", as you put it, is that the morphing involved a large number of consistencies and similarities inbetween the cases. I also add my insights about the rarity of this type of killer, and that is all it takes, actually.

I agree that there were no disarticulation desires on stage when the Ripper killed. Then again, there are numerous examples of killers who dismember on some occasions and not on other. In the latter cases, there are just as few disarticulation desires evinced as there are in the Ripper cases. How can that be? Any ideas?

Try this angle: There was facial damage to Eddowes but not to Chapman. Does the lack of facial damage desire tell us that there were two killers?

Chapman lost a uterus, Nichols did not. Two killers?

Stride did not have her abdomen opened, Kelly did. Two killers?

Kelly had her heart taken out, Chapman didnīt. Two killers?

Eddowes lost a kidney, Nichols didnīt. Two killers?

Stride lay on her side, Nichols on her back. Two killers?

You see, we can always find difficulties - if we go looking for them. But differences can never be as decisive as similarities. And these were evisceration murders, a rarity in the world of criminology. Plus we know that the police and medicos accepted a common killer, meaning that the cutting and the damages was so much alike as to make the conclusion the likeliest one.

Iīm glad you enjoy your relative solitude because it is not likely to change anytime soon.

[Harry D]

Working indoors was certainly an incentive to butcher Mary Kelly more extensively than any of the Whitechapel victims but it was not the motivation imo.

[Fisherman]

It doesn't nag me. Take the time to watch some of "the material involving him" -- then maybe you'll find my comment was maybe less negative than what you perceived.

"He who dares, wins" -- true for the Ripper as well, right? His audacity served him well.

I did not perceive your comment as either negative OR positive - how could I? I never heard about Rust Cohle.

But I agree that the Rippers audacity served him well.

[Sam Flynn]

I hedged in Marys case because I believe he had ample alone time to take off her arms, or legs, or head while in that room. If he can strip her thigh clean with a knife, cutting off the tissues that cling to the bone.. and all that muscle, tendon and fat..he could have easily cut through a thigh bone in the same time, or removed it at the hip joint, or cut off her head. He didn't.

You're right on the money there.

[Michael W Richards]

In your world, perhaps. But that is a world in which the fewest cohabitate with you. That is not to say that you must be wrong, although I certainly believe you are. There can be no rational reason to discard the evidence pointing to a shared identity, only cramped efforts to explain them away. Which is what I am seeing here.

You know it wouldn't faze me to know I was the only one who sees things this way Fisherman, so you best look for another Achilles heel. I have however had many discussions off line and on about what some posters believe privately, and my abbreviated Canonical ideas have some traction out there. Im not threatening to people who still want the solo phantom menace, 'cause I do see one in there as well, I just find it fascinating how this became what it is today and why people would rather imagine a continually morphing man when its abundantly clear that.. excluding a possible sighting outside Mitre Square.. this guy was succeeding spectacularly doing just what he did. And in that Canonical series I see deep throat cuts, agreed, but I do not see any disarticulation desires other than..perhaps...Mary Kelly. As a matter of fact, in one, there aren't even mutilation desires. I hedged in Marys case because I believe he had ample alone time to take off her arms, or legs, or head while in that room. If he can strip her thigh clean with a knife, cutting off the tissues that cling to the bone.. and all that muscle, tendon and fat..he could have easily cut through a thigh bone in the same time, or removed it at the hip joint, or cut off her head. He didn't.

I think that people are correct when they see someone plunging into the abyss in that room, whomever did this was never the same after it, but I don't believe that it has to be interpreted as a result of prior murders culminating in a masterpiece of gore...I think someone was very angry, then curious. I think there may well have been an attempt to make this look Ripperish after the murder itself, and this guy didn't understand these acts true significance to the real Ripper. Breast under the head, uterus between the legs...Annies killer had no time or interest for such rubbish. The intestines were in the way, thats all.

[Sam Flynn]

I still looking for that specific reference Sam, in the meantime I found this in the Nov 12th Times "Shortly afterwards, when inside her father's house she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice, and she alleges the sound came from the direction of Kelly's room." ... That seems to indicate that Elizabeth could hear things from, at the very least, the immediate area of Mary Kellys room. We know that there was an upper window above the 2 that Marys room had, I contend that may have been a hallway window

I don't doubt that a scream/shout could have got through the partition and up the stairs, to be heard in Prater's room at the upstairs front. No need to posit a hallway window, either; apart from her bedroom door, which I doubt was soundproof, there was nothing but air between Prater and the thin, porous partition against which Kelly's bed abutted. Perhaps it was the sounds of a brief struggle on that bed, and/or briefly raised voices prior to Kelly's scream, which alerted Prater's cat. But a tap on the door or window? Not very likely.

[Michael W Richards]

She also qualified her statement by saying that she often heard such cries "from the back of the lodging-house, where the windows look into Miller's Court". Well, Kelly's room's windows looked into the Court, and Kelly's room was at the back of the house, so it would have been quite natural for someone living at the front of the house to perceive that the sound emerged from somewhere in the direction of the Court, and to describe it in similar terms.

If Prater's room actually overlooked the Court (i.e. it was above Kelly's), then she'd have said "I often hear such cries in the Court, outside my window"; in other words, Prater would not have referred to the back of the lodging house if she also lived at the back of the lodging-house.

But she didn't, of course. She lived at the first floor front room (Daily Telegraph 10th Nov), above the shed (Daily Telegraph, 13th Nov), from which vantage-point a mere tap on Kelly's window or door was extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for Prater or her cat to hear... especially from behind a shut (and barricaded) door.

Can you point me to those sources? I don't doubt what you say, it's just that I can't find them using the Casebook press reports search function.

I've no problem with that but, whatever disturbed Diddles, it wasn't a mere knock on Kelly's door or a tap at her window.

I still looking for that specific reference Sam, in the meantime I found this in the Nov 12th Times "Shortly afterwards, when inside her father's house she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice, and she alleges the sound came from the direction of Kelly's room." Sarah Kennedy/Lewis establishes a likely source for the cry, and we know Elizabeth hears that same call out at approximately the same time, without colluding. That seems to indicate that Elizabeth could hear things from, at the very least, the immediate area of Mary Kellys room. We know that there was an upper window above the 2 that Marys room had, I contend that may have been a hallway window with minor floor plan issues, and that its also possible the window over the archway accessed a niche like corner in Elizabeths room. Im not sure what the reason would be for a window there if its just an archway.

As to sounds from inside the house, considering what we know of Victorian creaky old furniture, boots on hardwood, what dragging a bed across the floor might have sounded like from rooms up above, whether she was oriented towards the front of the Dorset facing house or not, she probably heard lots that was going on inside the house. Ill find that specific..."I could hear when Mary moved things about..."