Mary Jane Violence

[Sam Flynn]

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

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.

[Errata]

So, what if the Ripper is a Torso copycat? The Thames Torso Murder is sheer destruction. Almost a masterpiece of dehumanization. We don’t see anything remotely like that until maybe Kate Eddowes. Until Mary Kelly. Until Elizabeth Jackson. The crimes of 15 years apart. It’s not out of the question that someone who was younger and impressionable came in contact somehow with the crime in 73, and upon attending adulthood and for size, decided to try and replicate it.

[Abby Normal]

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.

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

[Abby Normal]

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.

and you have a veritable broadway musical of serial killers and post mortem mutilators trapsing around the east end. i can see it now .. the dance number like the one with the chimney sweeps in mary poppins...but instead of broomsticks its knives. lol.
wake up.

[Abby Normal]

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

yeah it borders on fake news when i see people keep using that term. nothing superficial about it. simply similar. its facts pire and simple.

and nothing superficial about the totenham torsos face mutilated like edowes. or the torso;parts dumped audaciously in public.

[John Wheat]

and you have a veritable broadway musical of serial killers and post mortem mutilators trapsing around the east end. i can see it now .. the dance number like the one with the chimney sweeps in mary poppins...but instead of broomsticks its knives. lol.
wake up.

Agreed. It's not very likely there were three, four or more post mortem mutilators about the East End in 1888.

[Sam Flynn]

and nothing superficial about the totenham torsos face mutilated like edowes. or the torso;parts dumped audaciously in public.

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

[Sam Flynn]

Agreed. It's not very likely there were three, four or more post mortem mutilators about the East End in 1888.

But - in comparing the torsos with the Ripper murders - we're talking about very different kinds of mutilation, with almost certainly very different purposes. Cutting off the legs and the head and carrying the troso from your base to dump it in a railway arch is radically dissimilar from killing a woman where she's found, cutting her abdomen open and excising her organs.

I mention the railway arch specifically, because this was the ONLY torso found in East London. If I were being pedantic, I'd point out that the Pinchin Street incident happened, not in 1888, but in 1889 - fully ten months after the canonical Ripper murders had ended.

[John Wheat]

But - in comparing the torsos with the Ripper murders - we're talking about very different kinds of mutilation, with almost certainly very different purposes. Cutting off the legs and the head and carrying the troso from your base to dump it in a railway arch is radically dissimilar from killing a woman where she's found, cutting her abdomen open and excising her organs.

I mention the railway arch specifically, because this was the ONLY torso found in East London. If I were being pedantic, I'd point out that the Pinchin Street incident happened, not in 1888, but in 1889 - fully ten months after the canonical Ripper murders had ended.

I agree with all that Sam. I believe that Jack and The Torso Killer were two separate serial killers. However I also believe that the C5 with the possible exception of Liz Stride were killed by the same man. For example I don't believe you can separate Mary Kelly from the rest of the C5 purely because she was murdered indoors.

[Sam Flynn]

100% agreed, John

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.