Mary Jane Violence

[Michael W Richards]

The number and severity of the cuts is proportional to the degree of privacy, the ambient light and time available. Eddowes' face was pretty badly slashed, given that it happened in a public place, in dim lighting and in a short space of time.

I disagree Sam, the differences here are the result of targeted cutting...even in the dark... and random contact with flesh due to back and forth slashing. Eddowes nose was cut badly, but as you yourself have said, the chevrons might not be intentionally placed cuts. They may be collateral. So really...did Kates killer actually intend to cut those chevrons, cause if not, then he may have only targeted cutting her nose. Dissimilar to Marys facial wounds.

[Sam Flynn]

No, the difference is a few cuts vs slashing back and forth.

The number and severity of the cuts is proportional to the degree of privacy, the ambient light and time available. Eddowes' face was pretty badly slashed, given that it happened in a public place, in dim lighting and in a short space of time.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

It all boils down to the incentive, the inspiration grounds. The acts can be wildly different, but they can also be two branches on the exact same tree. And I think they are in our case. Itīs all about disassembling, as far as Iīm concerned.

To be fair guys, When I started the thread the gist of it was really to discuss the motive for the destruction of Mary, the need for that level of violence and wether the killer was venting personally against MJK or was she a stranger to him and just unfortunate to be the subject of his lust?
Personally, I find the Thames Torsos fits the discussion, the same question applies to whoever commited those brutal killings.
And the Scotland Yard thing is one hell of a mystery.

[Michael W Richards]

So the clincher is to have a flap of flesh hiding your eyes? I see.

No, the difference is a few cuts vs slashing back and forth. Surely that's not an incomprehensible difference.

[Michael W Richards]

Oh, it's ok, many of *my* claims are known to be snotty (as the ex used to say).
Evidence concerning...?

1. MJK's tenure at a West End brothel is one of the few claims she is alleged to have made, which are confirmed by two sources (one naturally being mr. Barnett).
2. MJK's parents failing to meet the funeral on time is validated by all newspaper reports.
3. McCarthy's claim that he had received a letter from her mother has not been confirmed by hard evidence, therefore falls under the "potential BS" category.
As all her "family background" info -- solely provided by barnett on hearsay.
4. MJK probably invented herself -- nothing surprising here. But it hardly makes a case of a random/innocent victim.
5. McCarthy acting as indirect pimp --- I don't know many "professional" landlords allowing their tenants to fall "conveniently" way way behnd on their rent, unless other "Services" are provided. And god knows MJK did provide service to many.
6. Two major landlords resided/acted in that area --- both of their lodgings have been linked to canonical and pre-canonical attacks/murders.
I find that too glaring of a coincidence to pass by -- as too many others in this case whom some simply brush off as "random"/coincidences.

Just to help me address the points above I numbered them, and so:

1. I don't believe anyone disputes Marys past included brothel work.
2. Even if we could be sure who she was really and where she hailed from, there would be no guarantee that any family would, or could, make a trip to London for the funeral.
3. I also doubt some of what Barnett claims.
4. I also think her re-invention is her own, but I do think its likely some people knew who she really was. I find it lacking imagination to take an alias such as Marie Jeanette though, might speak to her education.
5. Landlords have always had difficulty when their leased premises fall in arrears, this is nothing remarkable. I don't see any evidence that "McCarthy's Rents" was a haven for prostitutes, nor that he gained anything from the ones that did.
6. When opportunities like reduced value in real estate happen, people with money will be there. Nothing remarkable there either.

What is possible in this case is that the woman has been intentionally representing herself as Mary Jane Kelly because she didn't want to be found by her real name.And maybe, just maybe, Kates cryptic...in my opinion..use of 2 aliases containing "Mary Jane Kelly, _6 Dorset Street" in her last 24 hours might be a way of suggesting the woman that some people might be looking for could be found in Dorset Street...and maybe Kate knew Dorset St wasn't enough info to give her away.

[Fisherman]

good posts fish
and I agree here too-and bringing back to Mary as is the subject of this thread-the amount of damage done to her and specifically cutting away of breasts and flaying flesh down to the bone. Is this really so incredibly different than cutting off limbs? not to me it aint.

It all boils down to the incentive, the inspiration grounds. The acts can be wildly different, but they can also be two branches on the exact same tree. And I think they are in our case. Itīs all about disassembling, as far as Iīm concerned.

[Fisherman]

That anomaly also happens in Liz Strides case, so a precedent for incorrect identifications happens on the very same night. I suppose I meant that in her case the person who was closest to her at that time had no issues ID'ing her as his Kate. Barnett admittedly could identify only 2 features on a woman he has been sleeping with until a few days earlier. That's the contrast Im referring to, Mary was almost unrecognizable, Kate wasn't. Kate was marked, Marys face was slashed to such an extent that a flap of her forehead covered her eyes.

So the clincher is to have a flap of flesh hiding your eyes? I see.

[Fisherman]

Thanks Sam. I agree a number of the Whitechapel murders outside the C5 are unlikely have been committed by Jack.

I also agree, like when it comes to Coles, for example. But that does not mean that the likeliest thing is NOT a single killer. It is not until we produce weighty evidence to the contrary that we can afford to opt for a different killer. So Coles stays a logical victim of the Ripper, although my own hunch is that she was not.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps I am a simpleton, but I have always thought the simplest explanation for MJK's murder being so much bloodier is simply because being indoors afforded the killer more time and security.

Iīll help you out - you are not a simpleton. Arguably, the seclusion and time offered played a big role.

[Fisherman]

The torso killer(s) generally made an attempt to dispose of most of the body. You gotta wonder about the ones that were never found. Washed out to sea, stuck under a snag, buried even. Could be 15 years of bits in a basement somewhere.

Just about every part WAS found, though. And once the killer noted that this happened, why would he keep feeding the Thames with floating parts - if disposing was all it was about? And why would he go through the trouble of putting a torso in the cellar vauts of the New Scotland Yard? There must have been a million easier ways to dispose of a torso, right? And just how much hope did he have that the torso in Scotland Yard woudl go unnoticed and disappear...?

[Fisherman]

Why though, if it is the same murderer, were all the ripper victims in a concentrated area in Whitechapel and the torso murders spread across town? To me, it seems to suggest a very different approach in finding victims. Add this to the different post murder treatment of the victims and the different timescales involved, it points to two separate murderers to me.

We donīt know where the Torso victims were picked up. They could all have been picked up on Bucks Row for all we know. But would a killer who picked all his victims uyp in Bucks Row necessarily also DUMP then in Bucks Row?

The suggestion that the Torso victims were killed in a bolthole of some sort is a useful one. Regardless where we place that bolthole, we must accept that the killer traveled extensively when dumping some or all of the body parts. Ergo, he CHOSE to travel.

The Ripper did not - but why would he? Why would he pick the victims up, put them in a cart and drive them to Battersea Bridge to throw them in the water? They could not be linked to him where they lay - but if he left the torso victims in the bolthole, the link could likely have been made.

The "different treatment" you speak of is to a part misinformation. The bodies were in many ways treated in similar fashion! Of corse, there were also dissimilarities, but they can be eplained by how the killer had time and implements on his hand that were nbot there in the Ripper cases. Accepting that both these men by pure coincidence just happened to cut from ribs to pubes, just happened to take out hearts and uteri, just happened to steal rings, just happened to cut awy colon sections, just happened to take away abdominal walls in flaps - doesnīt that ring some sort of a warning bell with you, etenguy? Or is that something that should be expected, middle-of-the-road damage when dealing in serial killings?

[Abby Normal]

How can you say that and look yourself in the mirror? Shall I list the similarities again, John?

Prostituted victims.
Same town.
Roughly the same time.
Cut from ribs to pubes.
Cut away colon sections.
Took out hearts.
Took out uteri.
Cut faces.
Cut away abdominal walls.
Were skilled with knifes.
Took rings from the victims.

"Not remotely the same"? NOT REMOTELY THE SAME???

and both end at the same time. this is a much overlooked biggee for me.

[Abby Normal]

The Thames Torso murders are no more destruction than the Ripper murders in my eyes. They are both examples of disassembling the human body and gaining total control over it, turning it into a "build-it-yourself"- kit. The difference is that the Torso murders were committed with more time and seclusion and implements on behalf of the killer. Time and seclusion then made Kelly an inbetween example, with more parts taken out and cut loose than in the other Ripper murders.

good posts fish
and I agree here too-and bringing back to Mary as is the subject of this thread-the amount of damage done to her and specifically cutting away of breasts and flaying flesh down to the bone. Is this really so incredibly different than cutting off limbs? not to me it aint.

[Fisherman]

I’m with you. Not all torsos are alike. The majority of them seem straightforward ways to dump a body. Two of them seem to have quite a bit more to them, like cutting them apart was the point and not just a tool. But they’re 15 years apart. It’s definitely weird

Which victims do you regard as "straightforward ways to dump a body", Errata?

[Fisherman]

What about all the other torso cases? Were such mutilations present in all of them?

What about the fact that only the tip of Eddowes' nose was cut off? And part of her earlobe, for that matter. Does anyone deliberately go out of their way to cut off only part of the tip of the nose and part of ONE earlobe?

What about the fact that the Ripper victims were killed, eviscerated and mutilated exactly where the murders happened? That's entirely different to "boldly leaving them in public". On the contrary, the Ripper quickly killed/mutilated a woman then ran away, leaving the body where it fell; the torso killer(s) took time at killing and dismemberment, then calculatedly took body parts to various dump-sites, mostly in West London. Thats a totally different behaviour than what we see in the Ripper murders.

There's no significant similarity between the two series at all. If you want to dispute that, I'd suggest taking it to a torso-specific thread. This one's about Mary Kelly.

The deeds need not be mirror images. The Ripper deeds are not. All it takes is that there are similar rare inclusions present in both series - and those are there a plenty.