Mary Jane Violence

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, Iīm 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.

[Fisherman]

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.

In my world, once we note that Chapman and Kelly both had their abdominal walls cut away in flaps, any suggestion of different killers go out the window. The chances that two killers would separately come up with that idea is too miniscule to show up in a microscope. Once again, eviscerators are very, very rare. Guess what that does to eviscerators who take the abdominal wall away, like lifting a lid off a treasure trove?

We can have innumerable differences between victims, and we can have different implements used - but when this happens, such matters become totally obsolete insights.

[Fisherman]

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.

It was even said about Kelly by a commentator in a paper that her faced looked just like one of those wax models that could be found at medicosī places. So yes, you are making a very astute observation.

[Fisherman]

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.

Not agreed. The evidence is there, both when it comes to similarities and - not least - the probable inspiration grounds. We have known for the longest time now that dismemberment can be an expression of a sickness of the mind, a wish to (yes, Michael!) disassemble people.

This is where I believe the explanation to why these deeds were of a sexual nature lies. Most of the sexual crimes are about control as such - many rapes are committed because the rapist feels he has been denied access to a partner, and he retaliates by taking control of that intended partner. If we are to take control close to itīs extreme, we include killing the person selected for sexual gratification.
An even more extreme expression of such control would be if the killer took apart the victim in pieces, making the chosen person a "Lego toy", more or less - that sounds (at least to me) like the very pinnacle of control.

And this is what happens in BOTH series. But the Ripper murders do not involve the time necessary to dismember, not the implements. Therefore, the killer settles for taking organs out only. In the dismemberment murders, however, he has afforded himself the time to take the body even more apart, and he has the implements at hand to do so.

In both series, he seeks a maximum of acknowledgement, terror and shock. In the torso series, this is expressed in many ways, not least by the chosen dumping sites. We may also see that the dismemberment are not maximally effective - he leaves a leg on the 1874 torso and both arms on the Pinchin Street victim, parts that he should have taken away if it was only about facilitating dumping. In the Ripper series, it is expressed by the apparent exhibiting of the bodies - but for Stride, where he was likely disturbed, and Nichols, where a staging would give away that a murder had taken place murder. Apparently, this was something he tried to avoid in that single strike.

Itīs anybodys guess why. And anybodys right to point put what a combined series of murders, spanning from at least 1873 to at least 1888, does to the gallery of so called suspects. Most of them go out the window, and that means that the chances of some posters accepting these very simple matters are non-existent.

[Fisherman]

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.

I always loved literate posters. But donīt ya know, Abby, that the similarities are purely "superficial"?

[Michael W Richards]

In my world, once we note that Chapman and Kelly both had their abdominal walls cut away in flaps, any suggestion of different killers go out the window. The chances that two killers would separately come up with that idea is too miniscule to show up in a microscope. Once again, eviscerators are very, very rare. Guess what that does to eviscerators who take the abominal wall away, like lifting a lid off a treasure trove?

We can have innumerable differences between victims, and we can have different implements used - but when this happens, such matters become totally obsolete insights.

Anytime you have actions taken that had been preceded by the same acts described in newspapers and on the streets, you have the potential for mimicry. Note the walls taken from Annie were to quickly access the area he intended on taking something from, and that there were "no meaningless cuts"...he killed her so he could mutilate her abdomen and take specifically her uterus. Conclusively. So...tell me....why did Marys killer kill her? Wasn't for the uterus, I believe that was between Marys legs with a breast under her head. Wasnt to take any abdominal organs...so why cut the abdominal flaps if not preoccupied with internal organs within that region?

Anyone can do what someone else did. Any person properly motivated and can kill and mutilate. Guy argues with "cheating" girlfriend, kills her, cuts the body up to dispose of it. Or Girl with cheating boyfriend. Business partner caught stealing the company funds and bankrupting the business...pervert abducts girl and after abusing her kills her and cuts her up. To take abdominal flaps as a step towards a further act in that specific area clearly show why the actions were taken, so...again....why take abdominal flaps when there is no internal abdominal goal...why not disassemble her fully if you intended on doing so....why leave organs that were taken from 2 prior victims..why have her able to struggle and defend herself when none of the priors had that opportunity...why kill her indoors if you are a killer who has precedent for killing women outdoors and leaving them to be found soon after, which may have been part of his "thrill"...why make the identification of the deceased, and the access to her, more difficult..

If people would analyze these acts for the possible motivations behind them I would have way more agreement here than I do. I know why Annies killer killed her, and I know why as a comparative, Polly should be presumed to have fallen to the same killer. I do not know why Liz Stride was killed, or had just one cut, I don't know why Kates killer cut a colon section and her nose and face, or why she was killed at all...and I don't know that for Kelly either. I have my theories.

The most ineffective way of studying these crimes for clues as to the reasons is to just assume that all the victims died because their killer was crazy, an uncontrollable beast. Annies killer wanted her uterus, or a uterus rather..so...what did Marys killer want Fish, explain the wounds as relates to what was eventually done. Cut flesh off the thighs so he could take her heart? Slash her face while she is fighting back...so he could take her heart? Place a breast under her head...so he could take her heart? Place her hand over her midsection after emptying it...so he could have her heart?

You personally take that to an extreme...not only do you want to assume, despite contradictory evidence, that not only the Five Canonicals were killed by one crazy uncontrollable man with the only motivation of madness, you want to make him into an indoor disarticulating hobbyist as well.

People need to work a bit harder. Assuming a madman on the loose for everything that went on there is just infantile sleuthing. And it continues to set back any real progress in this field.

[John G]

Anytime you have actions taken that had been preceded by the same acts described in newspapers and on the streets, you have the potential for mimicry. Note the walls taken from Annie were to quickly access the area he intended on taking something from, and that there were "no meaningless cuts"...he killed her so he could mutilate her abdomen and take specifically her uterus. Conclusively. So...tell me....why did Marys killer kill her? Wasn't for the uterus, I believe that was between Marys legs with a breast under her head. Wasnt to take any abdominal organs...so why cut the abdominal flaps if not preoccupied with internal organs within that region?

Anyone can do what someone else did. Any person properly motivated and can kill and mutilate. Guy argues with "cheating" girlfriend, kills her, cuts the body up to dispose of it. Or Girl with cheating boyfriend. Business partner caught stealing the company funds and bankrupting the business...pervert abducts girl and after abusing her kills her and cuts her up. To take abdominal flaps as a step towards a further act in that specific area clearly show why the actions were taken, so...again....why take abdominal flaps when there is no internal abdominal goal...why not disassemble her fully if you intended on doing so....why leave organs that were taken from 2 prior victims..why have her able to struggle and defend herself when none of the priors had that opportunity...why kill her indoors if you are a killer who has precedent for killing women outdoors and leaving them to be found soon after, which may have been part of his "thrill"...why make the identification of the deceased, and the access to her, more difficult..

If people would analyze these acts for the possible motivations behind them I would have way more agreement here than I do. I know why Annies killer killed her, and I know why as a comparative, Polly should be presumed to have fallen to the same killer. I do not know why Liz Stride was killed, or had just one cut, I don't know why Kates killer cut a colon section and her nose and face, or why she was killed at all...and I don't know that for Kelly either. I have my theories.

The most ineffective way of studying these crimes for clues as to the reasons is to just assume that all the victims died because their killer was crazy, an uncontrollable beast. Annies killer wanted her uterus, or a uterus rather..so...what did Marys killer want Fish, explain the wounds as relates to what was eventually done. Cut flesh off the thighs so he could take her heart? Slash her face while she is fighting back...so he could take her heart? Place a breast under her head...so he could take her heart? Place her hand over her midsection after emptying it...so he could have her heart?

You personally take that to an extreme...not only do you want to assume, despite contradictory evidence, that not only the Five Canonicals were killed by one crazy uncontrollable man with the only motivation of madness, you want to make him into an indoor disarticulating hobbyist as well.

People need to work a bit harder. Assuming a madman on the loose for everything that went on there is just infantile sleuthing. And it continues to set back any real progress in this field.

Yeah, there were vast dismiliarities between some of these crimes. For instance, Whitehall Torso: abducted, stored for several weeks, body dumped, decapitated, no known connection to Whitechapel, no proof of evisceration. Chapman: not abducted, Whitechapel victim, eviscerated, not stored, not decapitated, body not dumped.

The "flaps" argument is incidental as it doesn't demonstrate a common purpose, by a perpetrator using the same tools and demonstrating the same level of skill. And again, let's look at comparisons:

Jackson: abducted, body parts scattered, decapitated, skill demonstrated. Two long irregular strips were removed from the abdomen, but this could have been for practical purposes to aid with disposal, i.e she was pregnant so the cuts suggest the perpetrator may have simply been cutting around the bulge in the abdomen, before removing the foetus for reasons of easier disposal.No connection whatsoever to Whitechapel, had been living rough on the embankment.

Kelly: Hacked to pieces, no skill demonstrated, not abducted, not decapitated, body parts not scattered. Whitechapel victim.

By the way, "flaps" in this context just means pieces of skin so pretty meaningless for comparison purposes.