Mary Jane Violence

[Trevor Marriott]

I´m afraid that is not proof at all. We cannot treat an important term like proof that lightheartedly.

Now, where is the explanation to my questions about why the Eddowes uterus was not taken out unharmed and why the Eddowes organ hunter would only take interest in one kidney? Had somebody specifically offered to pay for left kidneys but not for right ones?

Well its far more proof than to rely on the old suggestion that the killer removed these organs in almost total darkness, in double quick time, where is the proof of that ? there is none, its just an inference that has wrongly drawn based on the fact that when the post mortems were carried out the organs were found to be missing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The simple explanation is that the killer did not remove any organs, and take them away from any of the victims.

As I said, it is a VERY simple explanation - but I prefer true ones to the simple variations.

proof of that is the fact that the only two victims that were found with organs missing, were victims that had been taken to two different mortuaries, and both had been left for many hours before the post mortems were carried out, both uteri from both victims had them removed by two different methods suggesting two different persons effected those removals and not two different killers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I´m afraid that is not proof at all. We cannot treat an important term like proof that lightheartedly.

Now, where is the explanation to my questions about why the Eddowes uterus was not taken out unharmed and why the Eddowes organ hunter would only take interest in one kidney? Had somebody specifically offered to pay for left kidneys but not for right ones?

[Trevor Marriott]

I´m afraid Phillips is telling us the exact opposite. You must remember that Phillips checked the body for warmth by way of feeling in the abdominal cavity, under the intestines. So he rummaged around inside her, and he would accordingly have noted if something was gone from the contents there.

To reason that Phillips answered Baxters question about whether the uterus could have gone lost during transport by way of saying that he carefully closed up Chapmans clothes and that some portions (aka the uterus) had been excised, is to reason that Phillips intentionally misled Baxter. And he did not.

We can turn to the Morning Advertiser if we want a clearer picture:

Was the whole of the body there? - No; portions had been taken from the abdomen, and I think that the mode in which the walls of the stomach had been abstracted showed some anatomical knowledge.

Might not some portions of the body have been lost in transit? - No; they had been excised from the body without a doubt.

So the whole of the body was not there, because portions had been taken from the abdomen - and there was no way it could be that they had fallen out during transportation because they had instead been excised from the body before transportation. No red letters will change that.

I note that you fail to explain how it was that the killer took one kidney only or why he failed to extract the uterus undamaged from Eddowes. Do you have any explanation for these matters? Or why he took no kidneys at all from Chapman? Wouldn´t you say that any person who had time enough on his own in the post mortem room to extract organs, would be likely to be careful about not damaging them? And would it not be likely that somebody who took a left kidney would also take the right one?

It fails to make any form of sense to me. And it always has.

The simple explanation is that the killer did not remove any organs, and take them away from any of the victims.

proof of that is the fact that the only two victims that were found with organs missing, were victims that had been taken to two different mortuaries, and both had been left for many hours before the post mortems were carried out, both uteri from both victims had them removed by two different methods suggesting two different persons effected those removals and not two different killers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The Uterus was only found missing at the post mortem stage the body was not checked for missing body parts at the crime scene !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I´m afraid Phillips is telling us the exact opposite. You must remember that Phillips checked the body for warmth by way of feeling in the abdominal cavity, under the intestines. So he rummaged around inside her, and he would accordingly have noted if something was gone from the contents there.

To reason that Phillips answered Baxters question about whether the uterus could have gone lost during transport by way of saying that he carefully closed up Chapmans clothes and that some portions (aka the uterus) had been excised, is to reason that Phillips intentionally misled Baxter. And he did not.

We can turn to the Morning Advertiser if we want a clearer picture:

Was the whole of the body there? - No; portions had been taken from the abdomen, and I think that the mode in which the walls of the stomach had been abstracted showed some anatomical knowledge.

Might not some portions of the body have been lost in transit? - No; they had been excised from the body without a doubt.

So the whole of the body was not there, because portions had been taken from the abdomen - and there was no way it could be that they had fallen out during transportation because they had instead been excised from the body before transportation. No red letters will change that.

I note that you fail to explain how it was that the killer took one kidney only or why he failed to extract the uterus undamaged from Eddowes. Do you have any explanation for these matters? Or why he took no kidneys at all from Chapman? Wouldn´t you say that any person who had time enough on his own in the post mortem room to extract organs, would be likely to be careful about not damaging them? And would it not be likely that somebody who took a left kidney would also take the right one?

It fails to make any form of sense to me. And it always has.

[Abby Normal]

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.

absolutely fish
totally agree, however i think bury makes a pretty good ripper suspect. but if he wasnt again agree.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Because the old accepted facts may not be correct !!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

The Uterus was only found missing at the post mortem stage the body was not checked for missing body parts at the crime scene !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Come to think of it, maybe that was the "No!" Cadosch heard - after the killer had fled the scene, an entrepeneur in the innards business happens on Chapman, realizes that she is a treasure trove for uterus sellers and cuts out her ditto - but happens to slice her bladder open in the process. And THAT is when he says "No!". The rest of the conversation Cadosh thought he heard was the organ retriever mumbling to himself "well, what have we got here, let´s see, there´s something I can sell!" and so on. And the thud was him slumping back and leaning against the fence, dismayed by how he had screwed up and gotten pissed (worst pun of the day, surely?)

I can think of no other explanation that explains Phillips assurance that the uterus was gone at 6.30, while simultaneously telling us what it was Cadosh overheard. And hey, we may even get an explanation to how Chapman may have taken a nosedive temperaturewise in an hour only: when the organ hunter stumbled upon her, he may have said "Cool!" - and so she did just that.

Problems solved.

Smartass!

[Fisherman]

Come to think of it, maybe that was the "No!" Cadosch heard - after the killer had fled the scene, an entrepeneur in the innards business happens on Chapman, realizes that she is a treasure trove for uterus sellers and cuts out her ditto - but happens to slice her bladder open in the process. And THAT is when he says "No!". The rest of the conversation Cadosh thought he heard was the organ retriever mumbling to himself "well, what have we got here, let´s see, there´s something I can sell!" and so on. And the thud was him slumping back and leaning against the fence, dismayed by how he had screwed up and gotten pissed (worst pun of the day, surely?)

I can think of no other explanation that explains Phillips assurance that the uterus was gone at 6.30, while simultaneously telling us what it was Cadosh overheard. And hey, we may even get an explanation to how Chapman may have taken a nosedive temperaturewise in an hour only: when the organ hunter stumbled upon her, he may have said "Cool!" - and so she did just that.

Problems solved.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.