Mary Jane Violence

[Michael W Richards]

There's no mimicry between the Ripper murders and the torso murders, as they're entirely different in nature, timing and location. I note that Fisherman is still banging on about the torso killer(s) being an "eviscerator", but that's not the case. On the few occasions where a torso was eviscerated, it was almost certainly done for very practical reasons relating to the disposal of the body - it wasn't to scratch some kind of "eviscerator's itch".

Sorry Sam, I wasn't clear there...I suggest possible mimicry exists within the Canonical Group, I didn't mean eviscerating and disarticulating are examples. In fact Ive been suggesting that the 2 acts are very unlike.

[Michael W Richards]

Heart, uterus and kidney are ALL internal organs. They have that in common. How likely is it that in Whitechapel in the Autumn of 1888 that there would have been a killer who was specifically targeting hearts, one that was specifically targeting kidneys and one that was specifically targeting uteri? Seems extremely unlikely.

c.d.

ONLY in Annies case did the physician who examined her suggest that her killer...just hers....killed and cut in a manner specific to locating and obtaining the specific organ he eventually took. He wanted a female uterus. Specificity. There are so many potential symbolic reasons for that specific uterus choice,(the only thing taken from 2 victims),....for the kidney, none that come to mind...with the heart, very different potential symbolic inferences. In that case, the fact that evidence exists to suggest that Marys killer was on intimate terms with Mary might well help in identifying what symbolic meaning her heart had to him.

The fact that other organs are taken from later victims doesn't negate that simple fact about Annies murderer. So, if you want to have all the organs explained, you need to look for reasons for taking them...or accept what Ive been saying, its possible the victims after Annie had internal materials removed and taken away is just because the killer or killer in those cases knew of Annies physical damages and sought to "hide" their crime in those details. Trying to imitate an unknown killer with a decided pattern of activity in order to hide the real motives for a new murder is in my opinion, not only possible here...its probable. And pretty clever too.

[Abby Normal]

There's no mimicry between the Ripper murders and the torso murders, as they're entirely different in nature, timing and location. I note that Fisherman is still banging on about the torso killer(s) being an "eviscerator", but that's not the case. On the few occasions where a torso was eviscerated, it was almost certainly done for very practical reasons relating to the disposal of the body - it wasn't to scratch some kind of "eviscerator's itch".

Hi Sam
why did he gash the face of Tottenham cutting off the nose just like Eddowes? was that for practical reasons too?
was the vertical gash to pinchins torso just for practical reasons?
scalping the face of the 73 victim for practical reasons?
was lugging the Whitehall torso into the highly risky and difficult to access vaults of NSY for practical reasons?

[Fisherman]

There's no mimicry between the Ripper murders and the torso murders, as they're entirely different in nature, timing and location.

That is of course untrue.
The nature of the two series both involve cutting out hearts and uteri, they both involve cutting from pubes to ribs, they both involve ring taking, they both involve cutting away the abdominal wall in flaps, they both involve prostitute victims and so on - so claiming that they are entirely different in nature is an uniformed and misleading statement that needs to be disallowed in any rational exchange. But it´s nevertheless - hilariously - par for the course!
Deny away - maybe it will work. Not.

The timings are essentially 1874-1889, so that is not something that can in any way exclude a sole killer.

The location is something we cannot establish - because we have the killing sites in one series and only the DUMPING sites in the other. However, how is Pinchin Street "entirely different" from the Ripper grounds?

Maybe you wanted to say that the two series are somewhat different in some respects and very similar in others? The way any honest and rational poster would? And then it came out wrong?

I note that Fisherman is still banging on about the torso killer(s) being an "eviscerator", but that's not the case.

Yes, it is. The killer cut out uterus, heart and lungs from Jackson, and cutting out organs is what is known as eviscerating. We have been over this before and it has not changed since I corrected you last time.

On the few occasions where a torso was eviscerated...

But wait! Wasn´t it the case that the killer was NOT an eviscerator? Then how could his victims possibly have been eviscerated? Didn´t the organs plop out for entirely different reasons, all totally unconnected to - ugh - evisceration?

, it was almost certainly done for very practical reasons relating to the disposal of the body - it wasn't to scratch some kind of "eviscerator's itch".

Yes, becasue it is infinitely easier to dispose of a body with the liver, spleen, kidneys and intestines left inside it but with the uterus, heart and lungs removed. Tell me, somebody: can an argument be less valid than this? Can it get even more nonsensical?

We also know for a fact that there were parts missing from other torso victims, and it seems a given that the Rainham victim - butchered and parted in the exact same way a Jackson with the torso taken apart in three sections - was ALSO eviscerated, having lost (would you believe it?) the EXACT same organs as Jackson, but for the uterus.

You are perfectly welcome to claim that you reason that it may be that this was all done for practical reasons. But stating it as a near certainty is undressing intellectually. Not a pretty sight!

[Fisherman]

Trying to imitate an unknown killer with a decided pattern of activity in order to hide the real motives for a new murder is in my opinion, not only possible here...its probable.

You got that wrong again: it is possible (only just) but not probable. When three houses burn to the ground in the same village in ensuing weeks, it may be that there were three pyromaniacs involved, copycatting away. But it can never be a likelier suggestion than that of a single one.

The world is like that.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

If the killer of MJK wanted to disguise his crime as work of "Jack The Ripper", would he need to eviscerate her, and at any rate, why to that extent?
Stride was accepted at the time as a victim of the same killer. Several female deaths after were thought of as being the same killer. If someone wanted Mary dead and for it to look like a serial killing, all he had to was kill her. The police and press would have undoubtedly linked it. They included Tabram and Smith at the time.
I'm not arguing for one, two or however many killers, just seems unlikely for a cover up by someone known to her.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry Sam, I wasn't clear there...I suggest possible mimicry exists within the Canonical Group

It's possible, I suppose, although I don't incline to that conclusion.

[Fisherman]

If the killer of MJK wanted to disguise his crime as work of "Jack The Ripper", would he need to eviscerate her, and at any rate, why to that extent?
Stride was accepted at the time as a victim of the same killer. Several female deaths after were thought of as being the same killer. If someone wanted Mary dead and for it to look like a serial killing, all he had to was kill her. The police and press would have undoubtedly linked it. They included Tabram and Smith at the time.
I'm not arguing for one, two or however many killers, just seems unlikely for a cover up by someone known to her.

The idea goes that the supposed copycat was so anxious to have the murder written up on the Rippers account that he overdid things. Apparently, he was well en ough read up to know that Chaman had had her abdominal wall removed in large sections. And this is where I quote the magnificent Steve Earl: If you believe that, we´re gonna get along just fine!

[Abby Normal]

Yes, becasue it is infinitely easier to dispose of a body with the liver, spleen, kidneys and intestines left inside it but with the uterus, heart and lungs removed. Tell me, somebody: can an argument be less valid than this? Can it get even more nonsensical?

We also know for a fact that there were parts missing from other torso victims, and it seems a given that the Rainham victim - butchered and parted in the exact same way a Jackson with the torso taken apart in three sections - was ALSO eviscerated, having lost (would you believe it?) the EXACT same organs as Jackson, but for the uterus.

You are perfectly welcome to claim that you reason that it may be that this was all done for practical reasons. But stating it as a near certainty is undressing intellectually. Not a pretty sight!

bingo fish
and people need to keep in mind that the ripper wasnt just an eviscerator. as in.. he didnt just pluck out internal organs. he also cut throats, gashed faces, cut off noses, flayed flesh to the bone, slashed arms, cut off breasts.

[c.d.]

If the killer of MJK wanted to disguise his crime as work of "Jack The Ripper", would he need to eviscerate her, and at any rate, why to that extent?
Stride was accepted at the time as a victim of the same killer. Several female deaths after were thought of as being the same killer. If someone wanted Mary dead and for it to look like a serial killing, all he had to was kill her. The police and press would have undoubtedly linked it. They included Tabram and Smith at the time.
I'm not arguing for one, two or however many killers, just seems unlikely for a cover up by someone known to her.

Hello A.B.E.,

Trying to disguise a killing by making it look like a Ripper killing is a non-starter. The only way it could work is if the police were absolutely certain who the Ripper was. Let's say for example that the police were certain that Bill Smith was the Ripper and were doing everything possible to catch him. If that were so, then Bob Jones could kill someone in Ripper fashion and hope the police would blame Bill Smith for the murder. The reality was however that the Ripper could have been anybody including Bob Jones so his ploy couldn't work. It's not like the police said Mary's killing appears to be a Ripper murder so Joseph Barnett is off the hook. How would they know Barnett was not the Ripper?

Your initial point is a good one. Mary's killer could have easily done less evisceration and it still would have looked like a Ripper killing. Why spend more time than necessary in Mary's room? Make it look like a Ripper killing and get out of there as quickly as possible.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Except that we have no idea why the WM took any organs in the first place let alone specific organs.

Trying to imitate an unknown killer with a decided pattern of activity in order to hide the real motives for a new murder is in my opinion, not only possible here...its probable. And pretty clever too.

Except that that cleverness required that the imitator take a knife and rip open a woman's abdomen and remove her internal organs. That is a little different from grabbing purses on the street.

And I doubt that the police would appraise a likely suspect and conclude "no, he can't be our man. He's a kidney man. We're looking for a uterus man."

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

all a copy cat killer would be doing is putting himself in the frame for the rest of the ripper murders. but its a moot point any way because copy cat killers are basically non existant. the only one ive ever heard of is someone tried to make a killing look like a manson murder, but thats the exception that prooves the point.

[Fisherman]

all a copy cat killer would be doing is putting himself in the frame for the rest of the ripper murders. but its a moot point any way because copy cat killers are basically non existant. the only one ive ever heard of is someone tried to make a killing look like a manson murder, but thats the exception that prooves the point.

True enough - but I would point out that I do believe that there is a category of killers inbetween the original ones and the copycat killers. Maybe we can call them followers, or something such. On the whole, I think that society´s way of reporting these types of crimes in different media is something that functions as a ground of inspiration for a number of people who are killer material, but who have not found their true inspiration grounds. Once they hear or read of somebody who has been killed in a particularly gruesome manner, their fuse is ignited and they go out and kill in a way that is reminiscent of the reports they have taken part of.
I am not opposed to thinking that murders like the Beadmore case, for example, can be a reflection of this mechanism. I remember reading Donald Rumbelows book, where a murder was mentioned that took place in our own modern day, and where the killer had written "I am Jack the Ripper!" on a wall in a room where a woman was found dead and mutilated (if memory serves me).

These are not copycat murders, of course - but they are killings inspired by other murders and in many ways recreating them. In that respect, the Ripper murders will - at least to my mind - have been the perhaps single most powerful source of inspiration throughout criminal history for weirdos with underlying urges to kill.

Copycats as such, though, who emulate a murder in order to cast guilt on somebody who has a clear-cut (sorry) and specific MO, will normally be much more the stuff off fiction than of reality, just like you say.
If there is anybody who comes close to a copycat murder in our context, then I´d say that William Bury would likely be that man. The cutting of the abdomen of his wife seems tentative and a reluctant decision - then again, it may also have been a case of the kind of "follower" inspiration I mentioned earlier, cut short (did it again...) by how Bury suddenly realized that it is one thing to gain inspiration from matters like these - and quite another to put it into practice.

[Trevor Marriott]

The idea goes that the supposed copycat was so anxious to have the murder written up on the Rippers account that he overdid things. Apparently, he was well en ough read up to know that Chaman had had her abdominal wall removed in large sections. And this is where I quote the magnificent Steve Earl: If you believe that, we´re gonna get along just fine!

Try applying logic with regards to the WM alone and not anything to do with the Torsos

Take away the organ removal factor, what is left? Simply a series of murders with in some cases extensive mutilations, which were as a result of ferocious attacks, starting with Tabram no attempt to remove organs. then moving onto to Nichols, abdominal mutilations on small scale, no attempt made to remove organs, then Chapman Eddowes, severe mutilations, where it is suggested organs were removed, but if the same killer, and that killer did remove organs, then Eddowes and Chapman are very different to the remainder, and very different from the later murders that followed and we have to ask why no attempt to remove organs from any of the other victims? One killer for Chapman and Eddowes, or two killers, or one killer for all who did not remove the organs from the crime scenes?

Finally Kelly, ferocious attack severe mutilations, on a par with Chapman and Tabram, but no organs taken away, same killer or copycat? and if it is accepted that no organs were taken away from Kelly then that shows that she was either the victim of a copycat, or the killer of Eddowes and Chapman did not take away their organs.

These murders are much more easier to understand and work with, if you look at them as straight murders if you remove the organ removal factor.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Try applying logic with regards to the WM alone and not anything to do with the Torsos

I´ll give it a shot, and we will see!

Take away the organ removal factor, what is left?

Five victims with intact organs?

Simply a series of murders with in some cases extensive mutilations, which were as a result of ferocious attacks, starting with Tabram no attempt to remove organs.

Okay. And?

then moving onto to Nichols, abdominal mutilations on small scale, no attempt made to remove organs,

But it seems the killer may have been disturbed, right?

then Chapman Eddowes, severe mutilations, where it is suggested organs were removed, but if the same killer, and that killer did remove organs, then Eddowes and Chapman are very different to the remainder, and very different from the later murders that followed and we have to ask why no attempt to remove organs from any of the other victims?

Well, they are not very different to the remainder, because Kelly did have her organs taken out, although they were left on site. Then again, so was the colon section taken from Eddowes, and there is a very real possibility that Kellys killer took her heart.

One killer for Chapman and Eddowes, or two killers, or one killer for all who did not remove the organs from the crime scenes?

One killer for all five, Trevor.

Finally Kelly, ferocious attack severe mutilations, on a par with Chapman and Tabram, but no organs taken away, same killer or copycat?

Same killer, absolutely - he took away the abdominal wall from Kelly, just as he did in the Chapman case. That is extremely powerful evidence.

and if it is accepted that no organs were taken away from Kelly then that shows that she was either the victim of a copycat, or the killer of Eddowes and Chapman did not take away their organs.

No, that does not follow at all. There is a number of problems with your reasoning. For starters, we do not know what happened to the organs lost from Chapman and Eddowes, and so we cannot tell whether the killer was dead set on taking and keeping organs or not. He could have fed them to his cat for all we know.
Moving on, if the killer was not the one who took out the organs, then they must have been taken out by somebody who had an intention to use the organs in some way, presumably - and this is your thinking, I believe - for selling them. Now, if this was the case, why would the killer take out not both, but only one kidney from Eddowes? And why would he not take the uterus out from her in one unharmed piece? It makes no sense whatsoever. If he could sell Eddowes kidneys, then why would he not sell Chapmans ditto?

These murders are much more easier to understand and work with, if you look at them as straight murders if you remove the organ removal factor.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Perhaps so - but why would we alter the facts to facilitate things for us? That would be lazy.

This is all effectively clarified by the exchange at Chapmans inquest between Baxter and Bagster, if you will:

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

Ergo, Baxter effectively asks Bagster if the uterus was in place at the murder site, and Bagster assures us it was not.