"Facial Mutilations = the killer knew the victim"

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I guess the main reason I can't accept the copycat theory is the time involved. Why take the time to commit all of the mutilations? Cut her throat, rip open her abdomen and make off with some organs. You just duplicated the actions of the previous murders attributed to the Ripper. But the extensive mutilations took time increasing the likelihood that he could be discovered. A bad idea particularly when his avenue of escape was much more limited than if he had been outside.

To me, the extensive mutilations and the fact that he took time to light a fire indicates that this was somebody who wanted to take his time and enjoy the opportunity that he had been given.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Greg,

Looks like our posts crossed. Yes, overkill big time. No need for it. That's the sticking point (pun intended).

c.d.

[lynn cates]

religious/political

Hello Greg. Completely agree about the overkill.

On the other hand, killings with religious/political overtones can be VERY nasty.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Beyond Nasty...

Hello Greg. Completely agree about the overkill.

On the other hand, killings with religious/political overtones can be VERY nasty.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn. I know, you pointed me to some political killings in the past, but there is nasty and there is NASTY! This is the highest degree of nastiness I've ever seen....I do think whoever was in there is what we today call a paraphiliac.....in my day we called them perverts....

Looks like our posts crossed. Yes, overkill big time. No need for it. That's the sticking point (pun intended).

Yes, c.d., I just beat you to the punch (pun also intended). The overkill hurts the theory methinks...


Greg

[c.d.]

Hello Greg. Completely agree about the overkill.

On the other hand, killings with religious/political overtones can be VERY nasty.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

That certainly may be true but I have never understood the need to come up with a non-Jack killer and then assign possible motives for him for which we have zero evidence. We have a good candidate already. The same fellow who has been operating in Whitechapel in recent weeks who kills prostitutes and takes out their internal organs.

I have never seen anything significantly different in Mary's murder for me to suspect that it was not the same killer who killed the other members of the C5.

Sorry but I have to go now. Big time errands.

c.d.

[Bridewell]

The Guessing Game

If Kelly's face, unlike the rest of her body, had not been mutilated, how much time would we now be devoting to discussing the reason for that? We don't know what, if anything, is the significance of the fact that, in inflicting numerous mutilations upon Mary Kelly, her killer did not omit her face.

[lynn cates]

musing

Hello CD. Thanks.

“. . . I have never understood the need to come up with a non-Jack killer. . .”

I know what you mean. I see no reason, however, to come up with Jack.

“. . . and then assign possible motives for him for which we have zero evidence.”

Yes. It’s almost like the Liz Stride interruption theory. But rest assured, I’d NEVER do such.

“We have a good candidate already.”

Indeed? Out with it, man!

“The same fellow who has been operating in Whitechapel in recent weeks who kills prostitutes and takes out their internal organs.”

And that was? And why a singular noun?

“I have never seen anything significantly different in Mary's murder for me to suspect that it was not the same killer who killed the other members of the C5.”

Indeed? And I have never seen reason to include her.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

I meant to say this earlier, and totally forgot. The reason most people see facial mutilations as indicative of a relationship between the killer and the victim is because in one instance, that is almost always true. Shooting someone in the face is terribly personal. Not something a robber or a hit man is likely to do. Shooting someone in the face takes some arranging. And it can happen through sheer coincidence, but generally it has to be facilitated. If you walk in the room and shoot at some random guy standing there, most people aim for the chest. Larger target, generally fatal. Some people target the head, but usually either the professional double tap to the back of the head, or the temple. Snipers can generally hit the forehead with no problems. Shooting someone in the face means aiming where one generally does not, facing the person, and often it means getting closer. That's a lot of risk to take if it isn't personal. But take the Connecticut shooter for example. He shot his mom like, 5 times in the face while she slept. That was unnecessary. He did it because he had a lot of rage there. Now that I think about it, a lot of kids who kill their parents shoot them in the face. You also see it in a lot of spousal abuse cases too. But all in all, eradicating a face requires passion. Whether through a paraphilia or a perceived relationship (or even a real one). The really scary guys are the ones with no passion, just a sense of entitlement. Those are the guys who set their wives and kids on fire when they try to leave. On a scale for monstrosity, it's hard to beat those *******s.

[Brenda]

.

Kelly's uterus still was extracted. Whether he took it with him or placed it under her head is not as significant as the fact that her killer did target it, knew where to find it and did something with it.

I wonder what he really did do with it? If he took the heart for shock value, then he would have gotten rid of it pretty quickly. Likewise if he were selling body parts. Otherwise...there's no telling what his motivation was. We will never understand the true mind of JTR without knowing what he ended up doing with the organs he took.

[Hunter]

Forgive me, Brenda if I misunderstand your question, but if you are asking what the killer did with Mary Kelly's uterus, he placed it under her head along with one breast and the kidneys. It is not as apparent today with much changed social perspectives on sexuality, but at that time and for centuries previous, the 'womb' was symbolic of womanhood... although most men would be hard pressed to find this small, yet flaccid organ, let alone extract it. Yet this was done in three cases. In all but two ( Stride and Coles) the sexual organs appear to have been targeted to some degree.

Placing these organs under Kelly's head seem almost symbolic to me, yet detached, rather than the act of someone with a personal grievance. But that would imply a sexual serial killer and that is not in vogue at the moment.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would suggest that if this was the work of a copycat, the reasoning behind it, would have been one of fear.
The killer at least to me, would have had a intimate knowledge of the victim, or lived within a small distance of the murder scene.
The guilty party would have been confident that he /she would have likely been interviewed, and once the police had become ware of that persons either friendship. or convenient location, may well have become at the very least an initial suspect
Hence the overkill aspect of the crime, and the polices obvious impression that this was the Ripper, would at least distract from the close at home suspect.
Regards Richard.