Mary Jane Violence

[Abby Normal]

What about all the other torso cases? Were such mutilations present in all of them?

What about the fact that only the tip of Eddowes' nose was cut off? And part of her earlobe, for that matter. Does anyone deliberately go out of their way to cut off only part of the tip of the nose and part of ONE earlobe?

What about the fact that the Ripper victims were killed, eviscerated and mutilated exactly where the murders happened? That's entirely different to "boldly leaving them in public". On the contrary, the Ripper quickly killed/mutilated a woman then ran away, leaving the body where it fell; the torso killer(s) took time at killing and dismemberment, then calculatedly took body parts to various dump-sites, mostly in West London. Thats a totally different behaviour than what we see in the Ripper murders.

There's no significant similarity between the two series at all. If you want to dispute that, I'd suggest taking it to a torso-specific thread. This one's about Mary Kelly.

ah ok,i see. take it to a different thread... but not before youve had your two cents?
Eddowes had her nose cut off.. whats this tip crap?
"part of one earlobe."lol. your twisting and attempt to minamize is laughable. she had part of her ear cut off.
amd her nose was cut off and her face gashed. same as tottenham torso. no amount of erroneous info or twisting can change that. its a FACT.

yes the ripper victims were left were they were killed.boldly and shockingly displayed .. no attempt to hide.in sexually compramising position.and certainly not leaving it "where it fell". and besides when killing in public one cant easily dismember and take arms, head or tosos away can they? or bring a saw? as have been pointed oit numerous times the only difference is killing in a chop shop and out on the street. torso man dumped his victims in odd and public places also. can you wrap your head around that change in circumstance -having access to chop shop and not? its really not that complicated.

and yes ALL the other torsos had post mortem mutilation above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment, many with internal organs removed.oh and pinchin. heart of ripper territory. and with vertical gash to the abdoman. nice try.

[Abby Normal]

The Thames Torsos really are an enigma. I've never felt the same person was responsible for both the torsos and the Whitechapel killings. If the Whitechapel killers goal was to be able to mutilate, then Polly Nichols would have been a big backstep from having the means to completely dismember people and dump them in the river.
Unless he was compromised at his previous kill site and was forced to take to the streets?
Hmm...

hi al
yes, as ive said many times one of the main apprent differences could be that torso mans chop shop wasnt available so had to kill on tje streets.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The Thames Torsos really are an enigma. I've never felt the same person was responsible for both the torsos and the Whitechapel killings. If the Whitechapel killers goal was to be able to mutilate, then Polly Nichols would have been a big backstep from having the means to completely dismember people and dump them in the river.
Unless he was compromised at his previous kill site and was forced to take to the streets?
Hmm...

[Sam Flynn]

nothing superficial about the similarities between the tottenham torso facial mutlilations and eddowes. both had there face gashed and noses cut off. nor how both bodies were left boldly in public. simple facts.

What about all the other torso cases? Were such mutilations present in all of them?

What about the fact that only the tip of Eddowes' nose was cut off? And part of her earlobe, for that matter. Does anyone deliberately go out of their way to cut off only part of the tip of the nose and part of ONE earlobe?

What about the fact that the Ripper victims were killed, eviscerated and mutilated exactly where the murders happened? That's entirely different to "boldly leaving them in public". On the contrary, the Ripper quickly killed/mutilated a woman then ran away, leaving the body where it fell; the torso killer(s) took time at killing and dismemberment, then calculatedly took body parts to various dump-sites, mostly in West London. Thats a totally different behaviour than what we see in the Ripper murders.

There's no significant similarity between the two series at all. If you want to dispute that, I'd suggest taking it to a torso-specific thread. This one's about Mary Kelly.

[c.d.]

Hello Marie Jeanette Davies,

Welcome to the boards. Don't worry about English being your second language. English is the first language of most of the people on these boards and in many cases it does nothing to improve the quality of their posts.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Association by address was good enough for the killer, therefore it is good enough for us, too.
It makes no difference if that was her real name or not, from this perspective.
There was a female individual residing in that room, that the killer was after, and that individual was a great liability to someone. Either the killer or someone who contracted him.

MJK was probably a fake name, and probably her whole family background was a sham. No parents showed up at a funeral which took place many days after the murder. Noone can or has actually, ever confirmed anything she has told. But the cut up victim found at 13, was the "correct" target for our killer. In plain words, he murdered the one he was after, regardless her actual name.

Her landlord (and many things else, probably) McCarthy told a lot of crap, too. Her tenure at a West End brothel (and things she saw there) was probably true.

MJK with variations was also used as an alias previously in the case. Victims provided fishy/sketchy pattern of behavior prior to murder, and equally fishy were the people surrounding them. I see those landlords being indirect pimps to these unfortunates.

Hello Lipsky,

Don't mean to be snotty but you have a lot of claims in your post. What evidence do you have to support them?

c.d.

[Lipsky]

The unimaginable level of violence perpetrated in Room 13 was in order to render the victim unrecognisable, and thus identifiable only by association with the address.

The Millers Court victim was not Mary Jane Kelly.

If it had been, by now Debra Arif would have located her.

Association by address was good enough for the killer, therefore it is good enough for us, too.
It makes no difference if that was her real name or not, from this perspective.
There was a female individual residing in that room, that the killer was after, and that individual was a great liability to someone. Either the killer or someone who contracted him.

MJK was probably a fake name, and probably her whole family background was a sham. No parents showed up at a funeral which took place many days after the murder. Noone can or has actually, ever confirmed anything she has told. But the cut up victim found at 13, was the "correct" target for our killer. In plain words, he murdered the one he was after, regardless her actual name.

Her landlord (and many things else, probably) McCarthy told a lot of crap, too. Her tenure at a West End brothel (and things she saw there) was probably true.

MJK with variations was also used as an alias previously in the case. Victims provided fishy/sketchy pattern of behavior prior to murder, and equally fishy were the people surrounding them. I see those landlords being indirect pimps to these unfortunates.

[Abby Normal]

Hello everyone!
First time poster here. I've been a lurker since February 2018 tho. I've been interested in the Jack The Ripper case all my life, but in the last year and a half I've become more and more obsessed with Mary Jane Kelly.
So, as far as this thread is concerned, I'd like to speak my mind. In my humble opinion, MJK was a Ripper victim and I consider the gruesome nature of her murder to be an escalation of violence from the previous one. We can clearly see some kind of mutilation in Catherine Eddowes' case, albeit not as extensive as in Mary Jane's. Perhaps Mary knew her killer and maybe she had met him earlier that evening. I favor Blotchy as a suspect.
On a totally unrelated note, please forgive if my English is not perfect, but it isn't my first language. And please, be kind, since I learn from you Ripperologists everyday. I'm not saying I'm new to the case, but I have still a long way to go.

welcome!
and yes i agree re Mary. i also have blotchy as ome or two on my list if viable suspects as the ripper.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, it's not remotely the same. Different procedure. Different motive. Different killer.

In my view simply rounding up as many unsolved knife murders, in the latter part of the twentieth century, as you can find and then attributing them to one perpetrator, regardless of vastly different signatures and MOs, is lazy thinking.

whats lazy thinking is knee jerk assigning different killers to the same series of murders simply because one cant see all the specific similarities but seeing subtle differences as being different killers because one cant fathom them being do to changes in circumstances and or the kilers changing mood/desries.

[Abby Normal]

Well he managed to get the victims to the dismemberment site somehow! Abduction or inveigling, makes no difference. Vastly different MO and signature to JtR.

nope. makes total difference. he managed to ruse them back to his chop shop probably similar to the ripper. under the guise of going to a safe place to do his this under the pretense of prostitution or maybe some menial work. same MO in terms how a serial killer targets there victim and manipulates them leading up to the kill. sig is same in both also.. postmortem mutilation cutting up a female body.

the idea that he abducted them and forcibly brought them back to his chop shop is preposterous.

[Marie Jeanette Davies]

Hello everyone!
First time poster here. I've been a lurker since February 2018 tho. I've been interested in the Jack The Ripper case all my life, but in the last year and a half I've become more and more obsessed with Mary Jane Kelly.
So, as far as this thread is concerned, I'd like to speak my mind. In my humble opinion, MJK was a Ripper victim and I consider the gruesome nature of her murder to be an escalation of violence from the previous one. We can clearly see some kind of mutilation in Catherine Eddowes' case, albeit not as extensive as in Mary Jane's. Perhaps Mary knew her killer and maybe she had met him earlier that evening. I favor Blotchy as a suspect.
On a totally unrelated note, please forgive if my English is not perfect, but it isn't my first language. And please, be kind, since I learn from you Ripperologists everyday. I'm not saying I'm new to the case, but I have still a long way to go.

[Abby Normal]

Not only superficial compared to the Ripper murders, but entirely dissimilar in nature... and in a different part of London.

nothing superficial about the similarities between the tottenham torso facial mutlilations and eddowes. both had there face gashed and noses cut off. nor how both bodies were left boldly in public. simple facts.

[John G]

What we can compare, though, are their dimensions. As you've said, Jackson had two strips of flesh cut from her abdomen above her "baby-bump", whereas the (three) large flaps of flesh cut from Kelly laid her entire (non-gravid) abdomen completely open, from flank to flank, from the bottom of her ribs to the floor of her pelvis. Jackson underwent keyhole surgery in comparison.

Yes, it's not remotely the same. Different procedure. Different motive. Different killer.

In my view simply rounding up as many unsolved knife murders, in the latter part of the twentieth century, as you can find and then attributing them to one perpetrator, regardless of vastly different signatures and MOs, is lazy thinking.

[John G]

where do you guys keep coming up with this abducted nonsense?!?

Well he managed to get the victims to the dismemberment site somehow! Abduction or inveigling, makes no difference. Vastly different MO and signature to JtR.

[Sam Flynn]

100% agreed, John