Mary Jane Violence

[Fisherman]

I should have known youd like that Fisherman, Ill add that none of her limbs, nor her Torso, nor her head was removed and later discarded.

Oh, I´m very much aware of that. Just as I am aware that her organs were neatly plucked out and places beside her, seemingly unharmed. There is not a word about them having been hacked to pieces - which one would perhaps have expected if the deed was one of frenzy and a desire to destroy. But no, he cuts the organs away and places them around her, all seemingly quite orderly. And he takes care not to damage they eyes.
She was disassembled, just as you say. Not annihilated.

[Michael W Richards]

But is there any reason whatsoever to think that Kate would not have ended up looking like Mary had her killer been able to kill her under the same conditions as Mary?

c.d.

There is a reason, yeah. Because he chose to kill her somewhere where that would be impossible, because there are no indications that there was more mutilation desired, ...like for example being caught while still over the woman,..and just because Mary is devastated that doesn't then mean its the same killer but with more privacy and/or playtime to do what he really wanted to do. To believe that presupposes that Marys type of murder was the eventual goal, the ultimate opportunity, and that is not demonstrated in most of the prior murders. Annies killer wanted her uterus, he got it,...just read Phillips comments and thats clear, and the fact that Pollys murder is so similar to Annies suggests that also may have been the motivation in her murder, Liz Strides killer just wanted to kill her, demonstrated by the fact she is left on her side untouched after the cut. It appears Kates killer wanted to disfigure Kate, and to take something abdominal, but can we say either act was the real objective?

Marys killer vented on her, likely after cutting her throat. The defensive arm wounds suggest she was conscious when he slashed her face, I don't see any evidence that indicates consciousness while being attacked with a knife in any priors, or subsequent murders.

If Marys murder was his dream situation, why don't we see even more of those? Why don't we see even more escalation, like fully disarticulating the body...we see that in the Torso murders, but that apparently was that killers goal. So, why do the murders stop? Maybe the obvious answer is the right one, the murders stopped after Mary because Jack the Ripper had already been caught or institutionalized or left the area before Marys murder, and the man that killed Mary didn't have any further desires to kill people. Because he only wanted to kill and punish Mary.

[Abby Normal]

My feeling with the torso case is that it was semi-botched disposal. The killer doesn't appear to actually care whether the body parts are found or not or when. They're disposed of in a scattered manner. The turn of the dial in methodology just goes a bit too far away to suggest it's the same killer.

au contrair mon frer!

first torsos found in river, face scalped, totenham torso found in street, head recovered face mutilated just like eddowes, ripper murders start bodies found in street, whitehall torso found in SY vault, mary kelly face mutilated, breasts removed, jackson torso parts found in river, stomach flaps removed like kelly and chapman leg thrown in frankensteins garden, mckenzie gashed in street, pinchin torso gashed found in street.

not scattered. placed and or left in public. too many similarities. same man.

[Curious Cat]

hi curious
I find it interesting that the anatomical venus display at the museum shut down shorty before the first torso victim.

I would also add that I think that torsoman also wasn't hiding his victims at all. quite the contrary IMHO he was displaying them(or at the very least had some special meaning to him other than just trying to hide/get rid of)-and they got more odd and public as the series went on culminating in the ripper murders and pinchin.

neither series displays overt sexual nature and as you say a lot of anatomical curiosity, although I do believe there may have been some post mortem sexual interest (masturbation?) with the body/parts.

I doubt mary was the last victim either, as fulfilling as it may have been. rarely if ever, do serial killers stop because they have attained some psychological/fantasy goal. whether you believe in a torsoripper or not (I lean yes) it seems that either/series ended with Mckenzie and pinchin not Kelly.

My feeling with the torso case is that it was semi-botched disposal. The killer doesn't appear to actually care whether the body parts are found or not or when. They're disposed of in a scattered manner. The turn of the dial in methodology just goes a bit too far away to suggest it's the same killer.

[c.d.]

There were no issues identifying Kate. The facial marks I agree were a personal touch, but I think they related to just making a public statement about Kate and what she was up to. I think Marys killer did some "venting", and as in Marthas murder, that implies some anger directed at the deceased.

But is there any reason whatsoever to think that Kate would not have ended up looking like Mary had her killer been able to kill her under the same conditions as Mary?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

One pattern that goes throughout with these killings is that the body in each instance was not in any way hidden. There was no attempt to cover up, dispose or spirit away any of these women post murder (the very opposite of the torso cases). The intention by the killer appears to be that these bodies should be found at the soonest opportunity. The killer wants to hear that the body has been found and the reaction that follows. The escalation therefore is fuelled by creating an even more visceral response to the previous murder and driven by not being caught for the first one committed. There's a lack of evidence that these killings have a sexual motivation, but a general fascination with anatomy and higher than average understanding of it clearly went towards what drove the killer on. One of my theories is it could be the killer was either very familiar with or at least saw one or two complete Anatomical Venus models on display somewhere and may have been partly motivated to recreate the poses of these life size and life like wax figures.

Mary Jane Kelly of course suffered the apex of the killer's escalation. Both committing the murder and then staging the scene to make it look as horrific and the work of 'Jack The Ripper' as it was possible. With this killing there was nowhere left to take it and the public response reached its ultimate level of horror and disgust. After this there was nothing left to motivate the killer to continue as it was driven to fulfil a reactionary need not a sexual one. Having got all the possible reaction and unable to take the killings to a further level they satisfied themselves by being the centre of an ongoing mystery rather than feeling the need to carry out any more murders.

I would say, though, that if the killer did know the victims prior to their murders it would most likely be through quiet observation from a distance over a number of weeks/months. I've said before that I believe the killer had familiarised themselves with the regular police beats in the area, so it's not too much of a leap to suppose there were occasions where the observations of the police led to crossing paths with at least one or two of the victims. With Mary Jane Kelly in particular I do think it's possible the choice of killing her that particular night/morning was with the knowledge she would be found in good time as the killer - going with the pattern of wanting the body to be found - may well have known that the rent was due to be collected that morning and so discovery was guaranteed.

hi curious
I find it interesting that the anatomical venus display at the museum shut down shorty before the first torso victim.

I would also add that I think that torsoman also wasn't hiding his victims at all. quite the contrary IMHO he was displaying them(or at the very least had some special meaning to him other than just trying to hide/get rid of)-and they got more odd and public as the series went on culminating in the ripper murders and pinchin.

neither series displays overt sexual nature and as you say a lot of anatomical curiosity, although I do believe there may have been some post mortem sexual interest (masturbation?) with the body/parts.

I doubt mary was the last victim either, as fulfilling as it may have been. rarely if ever, do serial killers stop because they have attained some psychological/fantasy goal. whether you believe in a torsoripper or not (I lean yes) it seems that either/series ended with Mckenzie and pinchin not Kelly.

[Curious Cat]

One pattern that goes throughout with these killings is that the body in each instance was not in any way hidden. There was no attempt to cover up, dispose or spirit away any of these women post murder (the very opposite of the torso cases). The intention by the killer appears to be that these bodies should be found at the soonest opportunity. The killer wants to hear that the body has been found and the reaction that follows. The escalation therefore is fuelled by creating an even more visceral response to the previous murder and driven by not being caught for the first one committed. There's a lack of evidence that these killings have a sexual motivation, but a general fascination with anatomy and higher than average understanding of it clearly went towards what drove the killer on. One of my theories is it could be the killer was either very familiar with or at least saw one or two complete Anatomical Venus models on display somewhere and may have been partly motivated to recreate the poses of these life size and life like wax figures.

Mary Jane Kelly of course suffered the apex of the killer's escalation. Both committing the murder and then staging the scene to make it look as horrific and the work of 'Jack The Ripper' as it was possible. With this killing there was nowhere left to take it and the public response reached its ultimate level of horror and disgust. After this there was nothing left to motivate the killer to continue as it was driven to fulfil a reactionary need not a sexual one. Having got all the possible reaction and unable to take the killings to a further level they satisfied themselves by being the centre of an ongoing mystery rather than feeling the need to carry out any more murders.

I would say, though, that if the killer did know the victims prior to their murders it would most likely be through quiet observation from a distance over a number of weeks/months. I've said before that I believe the killer had familiarised themselves with the regular police beats in the area, so it's not too much of a leap to suppose there were occasions where the observations of the police led to crossing paths with at least one or two of the victims. With Mary Jane Kelly in particular I do think it's possible the choice of killing her that particular night/morning was with the knowledge she would be found in good time as the killer - going with the pattern of wanting the body to be found - may well have known that the rent was due to be collected that morning and so discovery was guaranteed.

[Michael W Richards]

There are examples of serial killers committing unrestrained acts of violence upon individuals they had no prior relationship with. Therefore the concept that MJK's killer must have been intimate with her is pop psychology imo. It's just as likely that the killer was projecting his issues with women in general or a matriarchal figure on poor old MJK. The situational context of the crime should not be discarded just because it's an oldie. It appears that certain posters are constantly looking to make their mark and reinvent the wheel.

Hmm...Ignoring the pattern established in the first 2 murders, committed by a stranger predator,... one would imagine that the obvious differences here would be hard to reconcile a serial killers series with that. "Certain posters" have a preoccupation with valid connective elements when presupposing some serial killers tally, soryy if sticking with the known is frustrating. There are obvious differences within the Five, and obviously varied objectives. Once the blinders are off its fairly easy to see how intimate and unusual this last Canonical murder is and the violent acts that took place upon Mary, or whomever occupied that bed. Calling a reasonable assumption she knew her killer well, considering the overwhelming evidence that supports that, some pop "psychology"....

People like yourself, of which there are many..so Im not suggesting you alone adopt this kind of posturing, include what they want of serial killer data just to validate their own prejudicial views, which for the most part, are formed by the opinions of others. I like the evidence myself, and can make up my own mind what it reveals. Then again, I am not committed to any belief that prevents me from unbiased interpretation of data. I don't look for someone in these crimes, I look for reasons the women were killed. Marys murder may have nothing at all to do with any Ripper crime and only due to the geography, historical timing and the level of carnage has she been lumped in with them.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, would I be right in saying the singing is desputed between two of the inquest statements?

In Elizabeth Praters statement and Mary Ann Cox's we have confirmation that there was singing and that the cessation of the singing was before 1:30am, Mary Ann went in it was going on, and came out and it was over, Elizabeth went up the stairs at 1:30 and it was dark and quiet. The singing was reportedly off and on, I don't imagine this was a private concert, more of finishing off the beer while having a song. Let the fire die down before sleeping.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

If you want to go down that road then it would seem that the same thing could be said about the way Kate Eddowes was killed. Go back and read Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown's autopsy report. Either both killings were personal or neither were. I favor the latter.

c.d.

There were no issues identifying Kate. The facial marks I agree were a personal touch, but I think they related to just making a public statement about Kate and what she was up to. I think Marys killer did some "venting", and as in Marthas murder, that implies some anger directed at the deceased.

[c.d.]

There are examples of serial killers committing unrestrained acts of violence upon individuals they had no prior relationship with. Therefore the concept that MJK's killer must have been intimate with her is pop psychology imo. It's just as likely that the killer was projecting his issues with women in general or a matriarchal figure on poor old MJK. The situational context of the crime should not be discarded just because it's an oldie. It appears that certain posters are constantly looking to make their mark and reinvent the wheel.

As usual Harry, you are the voice of reason. Damn near a reincarnation of Mr. Occam himself.

A "must have had" a relationship conclusion does not necessarily follow from "could have had" evidence.

c.d.

[DJA]

We know Mary was in a love triangle that included another man she called "Joe". We know that she was attacked while in bed, while undressed, likely on her side with her back turned to the windows. We know that there were no signs at all that a forced entry occurred. The windows were also found locked, and the door may or may have not had the spring latch off. We know therefore that Mary was in her room, knowing someone was with her, and she got into bed, aligned to the right hand side, and then slipped onto her right side, facing the wall. It was then she was attacked. It seems almost a given that the man was someone she knew well enough to be in her bedroom while she was undressed, and that he was there with her consent, unspoken or otherwise.

When things seem so clear they are crystal I still am amazed at what people will do to deny the obvious. And as for obvious, its obvious that Mary wasn't entertaining a client, because she had only had the room to herself for a few days, there are no witness reports up until that last night that she was soliciting at all recently, and the only man she is recoded as taking to her room after Barnett left is someone she sang to for over an hour.

Still doubt the windows were locked

"Joe" was history.

Remainder is plausible.

C-

[c.d.]

I'm of the opinion that the killer projected his issues on Mary, combined with the unique opportunity to indulge his fantasies undisturbed led to the extraordinary level of violence displayed. Serial killers tend to murder strangers and prostitutes have always made ready targets. That said, if Mary was turning tricks to make a few Bob, would she have needed to take a stranger into her home? Could she have used dark corner like the others? Or did she trust whoever she brought home?
Also, assuming that the killer knew Mary and had decided in the summer to embark on a killing spree, would he target her earlier if he knew she would be likely to let him into her private space? Why take huge risks killing on the streets and then try and lure Mary?
I suppose if we knew these things we'd have nothing to debate.

Hello A.B.E. ,

How did using a dark corner like the others work out for them? Certainly that was no guarantee of safety. I would imagine that if Mary brought someone home or allowed a customer into her room it would have raised the price more than doing business on the street.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Mary Kellys identity, or whomever lay in that bed's identity, was almost erased...certainly, if she wasn't Mary Jane Kelly. And he took her heart. Left her an empty shell, virtually disassembled and heartless. That's cruelty...which is emotional, which again supports my contention that the signs in this case point to someone who knew the woman in the bed. Likely very well. And I believe he thought he was betrayed in some fashion, hence the anger present.

Hello Michael,

If you want to go down that road then it would seem that the same thing could be said about the way Kate Eddowes was killed. Go back and read Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown's autopsy report. Either both killings were personal or neither were. I favor the latter.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Wanna have another go at that

Nope, and I think actually reading the data instead of just partially adopting someones failed premise might be a great exercise for you.