Mary Jane Violence

[Fisherman]

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.

And totally UNPROVEN! But that is how the naysayers operate - they treat it as gospel that the torso killer took the abdomninal wall from Jackson since she was pregnant, that the similarities are superficial, that the Torso killer had another mindset and another ruse etcetera.
Thatīs how they operate.

[Fisherman]

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.

Point it out, by all means! The 1873 deed was a fulll 15 years before the Ripper murders, and it still was the work of the same killer in all likelihood. Plus the Jacksom murder also happened in 1889 - should we take it off the Torso murder list for that reason? Is that how you do your work? Only the 1888 torsos can have been by the same killer because we know he only operated in 1888...?

[Fisherman]

Yes, it's not remotely the same.

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???

[Fisherman]

But - in comparing the torsos with the Ripper murders - we're talking about very different kinds of mutilation...

Like cutting from ribs to pubes, like taking out hearts and uteri, like cutting away abdominal walls, like cutting faces, like cutting in a way that has medcios surmising anatomical insights and speaking about skill, like cutting away colon sections.

Iīll say one thing for your "very different" - speaking about the deeds as very sissimilar is "very different" from telling the truth.

[Fisherman]

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

Do not use the word superficial. You donīt know that, and the term is entirely misleading.

[Fisherman]

So, what if the Ripper is a Torso copycat?

Then the Torso killer is also a Ripper copycat, Errata. Because the Ripper was first with the cutting away of the abdominal "lid" in flaps.

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.

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

I hope you donīt mind me answering you, Gareth. I noticed that on the other site, you lament how I make too many posts. But tou see, once yu make "points" like this one, I need to clarify things, so here goes:

We can NOT compare the dimensions, since we donīt KNOW them. End of.

Jacksons flaps and Kellys flaps were described by the examining medicos as "large flaps". For example.

You claim to know that the flaps removed from Jackson were taken from "above her baby-bump", as if this was the reason for taking them away - but the truth is that we donīt KNOW why they were taken. Your suggestion is pure speculation. The flaps may have been taken away to allow access to the abdominal cavity, pure and simple. Plus, of course, the flaps removed from Chapman and Kelly were also taken from above where any baby-bump would have been placed, had they been pregnant.

And most important of all: If a killer is so interested in the innards and anatoy of a woman as to cut away her abdominal wall like a lid - why would that killer not do so with a pregant woman? Why would he not be equally interested in the anatomy of a pregnant woman? How do the victims differ in this respect?

The idea that the Torso killer would not have cut away the abdominal wall sections from Jackson if she had not been pregnant is as unsubstantiated as the idea that I would in any way not be free to decide for myself how many posts I want to make.

And of course, knowing that you yourself was the most prolific poster on all of Casebook before the earlier crash kind of makes your lamenting my number of posts as ridiculous as any idea that cutting away the abdominal wall from a pregnant woman is nothing at all like cutting away the abdominal wall from a non-pregnant one.

You may have missed out on it totally, of course, but actually, it is in both cases examples of cutting away the abdominal wall from a woman.

[Fisherman]

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

Just isolating this rather remarkable statement.

We know that victims of both series had their abdominal walls cut away in sections, together with the subcutaneous tissue and removed. We also know that the sections removed were later discarded in all three cases. There can be no doubt that the sections removed were large in all three cases.

How this knowledge can lead anyobe with a geuine interest in the facts to claim that it is meaningless to compare the three cases to each other in this context is an enigma. Very clearly, when this extremely rare inclusion is present in two or more cases, it calls upon us to acknowledge a near certainty about a sole originator.

Oddly, some seem to think they have been called upon to deny the obvious instead...?

[Fisherman]

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.

And anytime we supposedly have a killer mimicking another killer by cutting away the abdomen in large flaps, we are almost certain to be wrong in that supposition. The whole idea of copycatting is ridiculous - it is totally nd utterly improbable. Also, consider that the Rainham murder was in 1887 - meaning that when the killer in the other series took out a heart and cut from pubes to ribs, me mimicked the Torso series. Then what happens? Well suddenly in 1889, the Torso killer suypposedly mimicks the Ripper series by cutting away the abdomen in flaps.

Does anybody seriously consider it in any way half likely that this wiould happen - that BOTH killers would lend from each other? Do you have any idea at all, Michael, how much more unliklely that explanation is than the extremely simple one of it being one killer only? If not, let me tell you: the mere suggestion borders on the impossible.

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?

Letīs begin by getting thigs right: The uterus was under her head, together with the kidneys and a breast.

Next, yo ask me why Marys killer killed her, and you purport to know that it was not about the uterus. Iīm afraid we cannot make that decuction at all.
It may well have been about the uterus - or about something else.

More importntly, why would we suppose that the Torso man was NOT about killing to gain access to a body? Can you explain tat to me, please?


Anyone can do what someone else did.

But what some people do, no other will even try. The fact that anybody "CAN" do it is neither here nor there, it is tyhe inherent ratity of these deeds that must govern how we look upon them. Not anybody CAN kill, to begin with. Some can, under pressure. Others can under no pressure. Some like to kill. Some cannot live without it.

But the FACT that evisceration killers are extremely rare cannot be swept under the carpet, Iīm afraid. I for one wonīt allow it.

Any person properly motivated and can kill and mutilate.

No, Iīm afraid that is wrong. Some people simply cannot kill and mutilating is something that the fewest people can do. There are examples of killers who have been able to evade capture by dismembering a body - but who could not bring themselves to do so. Therefore, your premise is wrong from the outset. Undoubtedly, many people can kill and some can mutilate - but thatīs as far as it goes.

Guy argues with "cheating" girlfriend, kills her, cuts the body up to dispose of it. Or Girl with cheating boyfriend.

It happens, yes - but how often? It is RARE!! And we are not speaking of domestics here - we are speaking of somebody who cut out organs from his victims. That takes us into another ballpark, and a MUCH smaller one. How many examples do you have of women who killed their spouses and cut them up, taking their organs out in the procedure? I cannot think of a single example.
Can you?

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.

No, you donīt. You have an idea, and it may be the wrong idea.

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.

Thatīs more like it.

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.

Actually, if the killer WAS crazy, then making that assumption is not an ineffective way of studying the cases; quite the contrary. It is only if he was NOT crazy it applies that it is ineffective.

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?

I believe I can explain the wounds to Kelly, and I believe it was a deed where the killer satisfied the exact same urge as in the other Ripper and Torso cases. And I would say that I donīt think that the killer necessarily wanted Annie Chapmans uterus - at least that ramains unproven. What IS proven is that he chose to cut it out, and so that is where the factual line must be drawn. If the killer took the uterus out and discarded it, he did not want it.
In Kellys case, it becomes clearer: he DID want to cut organs out, but that does not mean that he desired the organs as such.
It is about cutting, n ot about keeping. If he kept, that seems to me to have been about remembering the cutting.
These may seem subtle nuances, but I believe they are extremely important.

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.

Iīm afraid it is a lot more extreme to wish for two killers doing the exact same very rare things to their victims in the same town and at the same time. And in my case, I dopnīt "want" anybody to be a dismemberer and a street killer. The evidence is there that they were one and the same, and so I accept the evidence instead of inventing copycats with a taste for extremely rare inclusions, both of them copycatting each other.

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.

Okay, you just called my take on things "infantile", and setting back any real progress. I will not put a name on you in this manner, because I donīt think that is what we are here to do. I have made my case, and I know that there are numerous posters out here with a reputation for being very well read up who believe that it is a case that has a lot going for it. To me, that is an indefinitely better pointer of making progress in the field than your suggestions of copycats at work and a whole bunch of serialists stalking the Victorian East End.

[Michael W Richards]

I do *shrug*
i imagine if we all agreed we’d have solved it by now.

I, like many it seems, have solved it....well, somewhat...at least to my own satisfaction. Seriously though I am convinced that other activities ongoing that Fall created an influx of terrorist types to that area, that at least 1 other person was making Torsos, and had done so prior, and subsequently, to any Fall Of Terror...and that from just an apparent motivation perspective it does not appear to me that the Canonical Group is one mad killers series. I can see part of it being so, but a brief one. Maybe just 2 weeks. And one of the best candidates for at least the Chapman murder in my mind is a fellow Lynn Cates brought further light to...Isenschmidt. Which ties in nicely with my perceptions on when this "series" ended, he was institutionalized before the next murders.

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

Except that the police didn't know who the Ripper was so how could Mr.X kill someone and have the police think that it was the Ripper when there was always the possibility that the Ripper was Mr. X.?

And if you are going to start attaching significance to certain body parts what did ripping out her intestines signify or cutting the flesh off of her thigh signify? I think a much simpler answer is that her killer simply liked cutting her up. I see no personal attachment whatsoever in what was done to her.

c.d.

I do *shrug*
i imagine if we all agreed we’d have solved it by now.

[c.d.]

I always thought that barring the fact that it would mean there’s another postmortem mutilator, that it’s very much what it would look like if a stalker finally got hold of his victim who rejected him in the era of the Ripper. The heart clearly has significance, the breasts, lips, and pubis as well. Once you wrap all that up, why not empty her? Everyone knows there’s a Ripper out there.

Hello Errata,

Except that the police didn't know who the Ripper was so how could Mr.X kill someone and have the police think that it was the Ripper when there was always the possibility that the Ripper was Mr. X.?

And if you are going to start attaching significance to certain body parts what did ripping out her intestines signify or cutting the flesh off of her thigh signify? I think a much simpler answer is that her killer simply liked cutting her up. I see no personal attachment whatsoever in what was done to her.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Would it be likely that the police would have covered much of Mary's body up before letting Barnett see her, leaving only the face visible?

Yes, quite likely.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Lipsky,

Thanks for your response. I guess my question relates to your original post in which you stated "There was a female individual residing in that room, that the killer was after, and that individual was a great liability to someone. Either the killer or someone who contracted him."

I'm still not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Mary not being completely forthright about her identity and previous circumstances alone doesn't get us there (well not me anyway) even if all of your suspicions regarding her could be proven. There could be fairly innocent explanations for her actions and any deceptions she employed.

c.d.

[barnflatwyngarde]

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.

Hi MJD, welcome to the Message Boards.

Don't be intimidated by the fact that quite a few posters on these boards have an astonishing level of familiarity with the case.

In my opinion, the obvious facts of the case are where we can possibly discern the truth.

Don't be frightened to air your opinions.

And by the way, your English is excellent.