Mary Jane Violence

[Harry 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.

[Fisherman]

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.

In this context, I would say that as far as I´m concerned, no better explanation for the damage done to Kellys body can be offered than the explanation serial killer Sean Vincent Gillis gave after having slaughtered one of his victims and cut her extensively: "I wanted to see her femure".
Gillis had no prior relationship to the victim he spoke of.
Just like you say, Harry, there are killers out there who actually thrive on inflicting extensive damage on bodies, and they do so predominantly on people they have no prior relationships with. Names like Suff and Cottingham spring to mind. In some cases, an underlying urge to perform specific mutilations on a victim is part of the phantasy behind a killers deeds, like when Albert Fish wanted to cut away a penis after having seen a wax model of a bisection. He went on to fulfill that wish.
I believe that the killer of Mary Kelly entered her room with a fixed agenda and fulfilled his wishes, and basically, I think any such kind of killer is much more likely to use a victim where he had no prior attachments or links than somebody he knew beforehand. It´s very much different from the kind of spouse killings where the killer sets out to annihilate his wife or fiancée. In one case we have uncontrollable frenzy, in the other we have a controlled act of annihilation and/or destruction of the body or parts of it.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

[Leanne]

Hi Simon,if the killer wanted to render the victim unrecognisable would he have done it at their home address?

Unrecognisable to him...erased...to distance himself from the fact that he killed the woman he loved.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Great point Leanne.

[Michael W Richards]

Unrecognisable to him...erased...to distance himself from the fact that he killed the woman he loved.

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.

[Fisherman]

... disassembled ...

By far the best point out here as of now.

[Michael W Richards]

By far the best point out here as of now.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

An argument in favor of your theory is fine. Stating it as fact is not.

I know the maintenance people in my apartment building by name. But that is all I know about them. I have no idea where they live or if they are married or if they have kids or what their favorite hobbies are. The point being that simply knowing someone does not automatically mean some sort of close or even intimate relationship with them.

c.d.

Missed the point. Read again the contextual data...where she was, at what time, under what circumstances, ...and then we have someone known to the victim. I don't have a fence sitting mentality unless its unsolvable with what is given, this isn't.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.]

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.

[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.