our killer been local

[Tom_Wescott]

"He" also said he'd mail some ears but he didn't, so I wouldn't take "him" at his word. As for pig kidneys, my exposure to them has been nil, so I couldn't say. But I can tell you that an 1888 doctor could most certainly identify a human kidney from among any animal's kidney. There's no doubt the Lusk kidney was human, just much debate as to whether it was Eddowes' or not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious4]

Who knows?

Hello Tom,

Very true.

Best wishes,
C4

[Observer]

Earlier in this thread I proposed that should the killer of Kate Eddowes have escaped into Spitalfields via Stoney Lane, upon reaching Middlesex Street, (should he have wanted to travel East along Wentworth Street) the more natural route would have been to turn left into Middlesex Street, and then right into Wentworth Street.

This map illustrates what I'm suggesting.

[Errata]

Hi Curious,

Yes, it was. But why didn't he 'raid the store', so to speak? I don't think he was a cannibal at all. Nor do I suspect black magic, though who knows with such a kook.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well a heart is terribly symbolic. A uterus is as well if you have a certain frame of mind. Even today the removal of the uterus is tough for women. It is hard for them to define their womanhood without the possibility of pregnancy. Theres a whole special therapy for it.

So lets imagine for a second that Jack is a "vigilante" killer. He is punishing these women for their crimes. What if he takes the uterus because he thinks they have forfeited their right to bear children? Which could be a very personal statement if his mother was a whore. Or maybe he removes it because he thinks they aren't real women, and their anatomy should reflect that. Or maybe in his mind it's even the source of their evil, and he removes the uterus to "cure" them.

But Mary Kelly's uterus was left at the scene. If we are talking about the same killer, then he is saying that it isn't her womanhood thats the problem. Its her heart, or lack of one, and possibly where she chooses to bestow it or withhold it. That means it's personal, and that means he knows her. She did something that forfeits her right to keep her heart. He sees her as heartless, and makes her match his idea of her. Which is not that different a message than the uterus. He makes them match the image in his head. Which is very literal. But literal is what you need to send a message. And that would make him a different kind of killer than most of us imagine. More like the Zodiac, less like Bundy. Mission oriented. And mission oriented killers don't hide their agenda. They get away with murder solely because nobody thinks they would actually take it that far.

[curious4]

Well a heart is terribly symbolic. A uterus is as well if you have a certain frame of mind. Even today the removal of the uterus is tough for women. It is hard for them to define their womanhood without the possibility of pregnancy. Theres a whole special therapy for it.

So lets imagine for a second that Jack is a "vigilante" killer. He is punishing these women for their crimes. What if he takes the uterus because he thinks they have forfeited their right to bear children? Which could be a very personal statement if his mother was a whore. Or maybe he removes it because he thinks they aren't real women, and their anatomy should reflect that. Or maybe in his mind it's even the source of their evil, and he removes the uterus to "cure" them.

But Mary Kelly's uterus was left at the scene. If we are talking about the same killer, then he is saying that it isn't her womanhood thats the problem. Its her heart, or lack of one, and possibly where she chooses to bestow it or withhold it. That means it's personal, and that means he knows her. She did something that forfeits her right to keep her heart. He sees her as heartless, and makes her match his idea of her. Which is not that different a message than the uterus. He makes them match the image in his head. Which is very literal. But literal is what you need to send a message. And that would make him a different kind of killer than most of us imagine. More like the Zodiac, less like Bundy. Mission oriented. And mission oriented killers don't hide their agenda. They get away with murder solely because nobody thinks they would actually take it that far.

Or he just got his kicks from slashing women.

[Tom_Wescott]

Apparently none of us think Mary Kelly was an unrelated 'copy cat' murder. At least that's a refreshing change from discussions over the past few years.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

Or he just got his kicks from slashing women.

Well, not a lot of serial killers running around who just really despise their work... "God I wish I didn't have to serially kill people, but if not me then who?"... so yeah, that's always going to be a factor. But then it just boils down to what exactly do "kicks" consist of? Sexual release? Symbolic revenge? Adrenaline high? Exercise?

I mean, I know a whole lot of people who would rather be right than have sex. Proof being that they are so invested in being right that it costs them sex. So you gotta think that mentality is represented in the serial killer community.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
For the record I agree with Errata, I strongly believe that Kelly's killer was known to her, and he was someone who was once in her life, and for whatever reason she done a dirty on him.
Either via deserting him, or maybe absconding with property belonging to him.
The latter is not without merit, if one takers the oral account given by Fiona Kendall in regard to McCarthy's account of a man calling at the court demanding Kelly returning property..
We however are left with the argument, but why kill the others?
We are left with two solutions.
Not responsible for the others, but attempted to fool the police in believing it was related via the extreme mutilation.
Or the killer was JTR, and dispatched the others because of oncoming insanity, which took a strong desire to kill women of Kelly's profession.
Mary Kelly may not have been the name he knew her as, and may have only had certain information that she was in the east end, and he could have traced her whereabouts from Eddowes, especially if he also had information that she was living with a man called Kelly[ Which McCarthy initially believed]
And he may have asked Kate if he knew a woman that lived with a Kelly, and she would have replied' 'Me ducks'' , and I believe a young woman named Mary Jane in Dorset street''.
Bingo.
Regards Richard.

[curious4]

Choice

Hallo Errata,

I apologise for my somewhat brusque reply yesterday - note to self, "Do not post when feeling tired and grumpy!"

By his kicks, I meant something that gave the killer a "high", made him/her feel really good at the time, with a few "souvenirs" to enable him/her to relive the moment.

Interesting analogy, by the way, can't recall ever having to choose. Think I would vote for the latter option - bur it would have to be very good sex!

Hello Tom W,

Didn't mean the kidney wasn't human, merely that it would resemble a familiar food item.

Best wishes,

C4

[curious]

Hi.

Either via deserting him, or maybe absconding with property belonging to him.

Regards Richard.

Hi, Richard,
I must confess that off-and-on I have wondered if retaliation was not the basis for the murders.

Martha Tabram appears to have been a rage killing,and I speculate that she tried to rob a 'john" and he lashed out in fury.

That felt so good, he went back and got other prostitutes who had taken advantage of him and he had not done anything about it.

I read somewhere, long ago, about Polly Nichols being arrested for trying to rob a client in some low, dark bar -- in cahoots with some other unfortunates.It was almost as though there was a "gang" of prostitutes who would sort of "tag team" sailors or clients to relieve them of their funds.

So, in my musings, I have considered that once this normally mousy man lashed out and killed Martha, it felt so good that he kept an eye out for others from the past who had "taken" him.

as I say, just musings. When he snapped and killed Martha, he really snapped.

curious

[curious4]

Frances Coles?

Hello Curious,

Frances Coles seems to be a. classic example of this kind of prostitute, but Sadler was aquitted of her murder on the grounds that he was seen to have been drunk and incapable only fifteen minutes before she was found murdered. In other words even a sailor cheated out of all he had didn't kill or even hit the woman responsible, he preferred to get drunk.

I don't think any sane man would be guilty of the overkill on Mary. It wasn't necessary, just being found with a cut throat was enough to convince most people that Jack had been at work again.

Best wishes,
C4

[caz]

Hi.
For the record I agree with Errata, I strongly believe that Kelly's killer was known to her, and he was someone who was once in her life, and for whatever reason she done a dirty on him.
Either via deserting him, or maybe absconding with property belonging to him.
The latter is not without merit, if one takers the oral account given by Fiona Kendall in regard to McCarthy's account of a man calling at the court demanding Kelly returning property..
We however are left with the argument, but why kill the others?
We are left with two solutions.
Not responsible for the others, but attempted to fool the police in believing it was related via the extreme mutilation.
Or the killer was JTR, and dispatched the others because of oncoming insanity, which took a strong desire to kill women of Kelly's profession.
Mary Kelly may not have been the name he knew her as, and may have only had certain information that she was in the east end, and he could have traced her whereabouts from Eddowes, especially if he also had information that she was living with a man called Kelly[ Which McCarthy initially believed]
And he may have asked Kate if he knew a woman that lived with a Kelly, and she would have replied' 'Me ducks'' , and I believe a young woman named Mary Jane in Dorset street''.
Bingo.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

I just don't see anyone known to Mary Kelly taking the risk of killing her on her own bed and being caught (by his very association with her) and hanged as the ripper.

He'd have been far wiser to ambush her down a dark alley, slit her throat and slash at her abdomen a bit - job done. Nobody from that day to this would have been able to link him with her murder, and few would doubt it was the work of Jack the Stranger.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

Throughout history one of the major causes of overkill whether it be a single murder, a judicial murder, or one in a series of murders has been betrayal. Guy who skins his wife and nails her to a wall? Betrayed. Drawing and quartering (which is one of the more unnecessary bits of judicial murder), sentence for betrayal. Guy who rips his mother's vocal chords out and tosses them into a garbage disposal? Betrayed. The whole sadness/anger/righteousness deal. Now, none of these things are appropriate reactions to betrayal, and most of us manage to abstain from such actions. But historically, the words that usually precede the most egregious violence are "How dare you?!"

It's not out of the question for a prostitute killer, one who is "punishing the guilty" so to speak, to know a prostitute personally, to even like her. It's possible he felt he was doing it for her, to save her (sort of a Phantom of the Opera thing). Or he may have seen her as an exception to the rule. Or he may have simply shut out the idea that she was a prostitute (which when she was living with Barnett may have been easy to do). His mission may have had nothing to do with her, and he assumed that she would never act in a way that would get her on his list, or he assumed she would come around and it wouldn't be necessary.

But the women he killed originally he killed clinically. His only show of distress were the mutilations to Eddowes face. Something that tends to point towards a personal relationship, but could also simply mean she looked like someone he didn't want watching him kill. But that's the first crack. What he does to Kelly is essentially a very bloody temper tantrum. He is clearly punishing her. He does thing to her that he doesn't do to other victims, and not just because of time and privacy. With every murder he could have mutilated his victims' breasts. He doesn't. Why does he excise Kelly's? Kelly is the only victim with her external genitalia mutilated. Her face is obliterated. I mean, this is personal. This is betrayal. He takes her heart for god's sakes, which is about as poetically symbolic as it gets. He takes it because she wouldn't give it to him. He takes it because it's what ruined her. She may have never known she betrayed him. It's even possible that she never knew him at all. But he knew her, or he created a fantasy out of her that she betrayed.

The major argument for Kelly being killed by someone else is that her murder is clearly personal. Different motive, different method, different goal. Usually that means a different killer because logic would say that if Jack wanted her the most, he would have gone after her first. Why would a serial killer suddenly take it personally? But Kemper didn't kill his mother and her friend the same way he killed coeds. And after he killed his mother, he was done. And I don't think that's some sort of rule with serial killers, but serial killers clearly do occasionally make it personal. And when they do, you see spectacular and revolting overkill. So you can have a serial killer with some bizarre clinical harvest who suddenly wigs out and essentially puts a girl through a blender because it's personal. He has been betrayed by her.

[The Good Michael]

Throughout history one of the major causes of overkill whether it be a single murder, a judicial murder, or one in a series of murders has been betrayal. Guy who skins his wife and nails her to a wall? Betrayed. Drawing and quartering (which is one of the more unnecessary bits of judicial murder), sentence for betrayal. Guy who rips his mother's vocal chords out and tosses them into a garbage disposal? Betrayed. The whole sadness/anger/righteousness deal. Now, none of these things are appropriate reactions to betrayal, and most of us manage to abstain from such actions. But historically, the words that usually precede the most egregious violence are "How dare you?!"

It's not out of the question for a prostitute killer, one who is "punishing the guilty" so to speak, to know a prostitute personally, to even like her. It's possible he felt he was doing it for her, to save her (sort of a Phantom of the Opera thing). Or he may have seen her as an exception to the rule. Or he may have simply shut out the idea that she was a prostitute (which when she was living with Barnett may have been easy to do). His mission may have had nothing to do with her, and he assumed that she would never act in a way that would get her on his list, or he assumed she would come around and it wouldn't be necessary.

But the women he killed originally he killed clinically. His only show of distress were the mutilations to Eddowes face. Something that tends to point towards a personal relationship, but could also simply mean she looked like someone he didn't want watching him kill. But that's the first crack. What he does to Kelly is essentially a very bloody temper tantrum. He is clearly punishing her. He does thing to her that he doesn't do to other victims, and not just because of time and privacy. With every murder he could have mutilated his victims' breasts. He doesn't. Why does he excise Kelly's? Kelly is the only victim with her external genitalia mutilated. Her face is obliterated. I mean, this is personal. This is betrayal. He takes her heart for god's sakes, which is about as poetically symbolic as it gets. He takes it because she wouldn't give it to him. He takes it because it's what ruined her. She may have never known she betrayed him. It's even possible that she never knew him at all. But he knew her, or he created a fantasy out of her that she betrayed.

The major argument for Kelly being killed by someone else is that her murder is clearly personal. Different motive, different method, different goal. Usually that means a different killer because logic would say that if Jack wanted her the most, he would have gone after her first. Why would a serial killer suddenly take it personally? But Kemper didn't kill his mother and her friend the same way he killed coeds. And after he killed his mother, he was done. And I don't think that's some sort of rule with serial killers, but serial killers clearly do occasionally make it personal. And when they do, you see spectacular and revolting overkill. So you can have a serial killer with some bizarre clinical harvest who suddenly wigs out and essentially puts a girl through a blender because it's personal. He has been betrayed by her.

All these things are possible, but it wasn't a one-off. It was a ripper killing. Yet a victim that is obliterated could also be a surrogate. The destruction of the face could be a way of shutting out of his mind the reality that this wasn't her, the one he wanted to do this to. There are too many options available to specify the personalization, if any.

Mike

[c.d.]

I have to agree with Michael on this one. I don't see anything significantly different in this killing that can't be explained by more time and an escalation of the killer's sickness. As Michael points out, it wasn't a one-off. As for the face, we have evidence that Kate's face was mutilated as well and there is only so much flesh on a human body. Keep cutting and you will eventually get to the face.

As for the heart, if you look for symbolism you can pretty much find it anywhere. It is just as likely that her killer started to get a little paranoid and decided it was time to leave. He decides he wants a souvenir and grabs from the pile of flesh. It turns out to be her heart.

I just don't see this being personal.

c.d.