A theory about some injuries!

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Jon.

Would you consider placement? Considering that the organs were placed between/around the legs, it's possible that Jack had already positioned her legs and feet (as they were found), and was cutting/denuding what was accessible to him from standing on that side of the bed. Maybe denuding below the knee would have meant lifting or shifting her leg. (Of the opinion he cut her legs last.)

Another thought. Are the abrasions on the back of her hand similar to the marks found on the other women's hands?

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Robert!

One more thing; if we believe 'Murder, oh, murder...' was Mary's faint cry, can we ever conclude or even guess at which stage her nemesis was with his deeds?

All the best
Jukka

[Abby Normal]

Hello Robert!

One more thing; if we believe 'Murder, oh, murder...' was Mary's faint cry, can we ever conclude or even guess at which stage her nemesis was with his deeds?

All the best
Jukka

Hi J

I would venture it was about when he placed the sheet over her head and just started the attack.

[Michael W Richards]

"Intent", is hardly hidden meaning, or symbolism. All we are looking at is a partial defleshing, or excarnation of the corpse.
Even if we say "for fun" (due to the lack of any real choices), why stop doing something that he is getting 'fun' out of?

The question remains.

The question is a useless one, the fact is he stopped...whether he was bored, tired, confused, ....its not relevant. The fact he didn't take what was taken twice before, is.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Jukka.

I'm guessing that you are asking where Jack was with his assault IF Mary did in fact call out "Oh murder!". I don't know how you consider the canonical murders w/ relation to the Whitechapel killer; however, there is the consideration of the reports that Annie Chapman cried out "no" and Elizabeth may have softly cried out for "help", and these cries supposedly came near the beginning of the attack (as expected). I heavily consider strangulation in these cases as a precursor to his mutilations.

I've been wondering about the bedside table, Jukka, and whether it had been moved. It would seem that it would have been easier to mutilate her face if it was not in the way, would be easier to shift her body from the right side of the bed to the middle, easier to lift and place organs under her head without reaching across. I've been sequencing it such that: 1) he cut her face and body, placing the organs about her body; and then, 2) he moved the table against the bed and cut her legs.

[c.d.]

"The question is a useless one, the fact is he stopped...whether he was bored, tired, confused, ....its not relevant. The fact he didn't take what was taken twice before, is."

Hello Michael,

I really don't see how that is significant or how we can reasonably speculate why. It seems reasonable to me that collectors want what they don't have more than obtaining more of what they do have.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

"The question is a useless one, the fact is he stopped...whether he was bored, tired, confused, ....its not relevant. The fact he didn't take what was taken twice before, is."

Hello Michael,

I really don't see how that is significant or how we can reasonably speculate why. It seems reasonable to me that collectors want what they don't have more than obtaining more of what they do have.

c.d.

Had Polly not had her abdomen opened, or had Annie not had her abdomen opened and the uterus taken, or had Kate not had her abdomen opened and a partial uterus taken, I might agree cd. It seems to me however that the victims I mentioned had killers who were obsessed with abdominal cutting, and this resulted in the same organ being taken from 2 of the three. The chest area of the victim was never attacked until Mary Kelly.

[Jon Guy]

The chest area of the victim was never attacked until Mary Kelly.

Not so, Michael.
See Eddowes

[Fisherman]

The question is a useless one, the fact is he stopped...whether he was bored, tired, confused, ....its not relevant. The fact he didn't take what was taken twice before, is.

I would say both questions are highly relevant, Michael. And I would add that the best answer we can provide is the exact same to both questions; why he did not take the uterus with him and why he cut down to the bone at the thigh in one space only to leave the rest of the flesh on the bone:
Because this was what he WANTED to do.

He WANTED to cut to the bone in one space only on that thigh and he WANTED to leave the uterus with the body (albeit on itīs outside).

We should not loose track of this possibility. We know that the killer seemingly had a good lot of time on his hands, we have no record of anybody disturbing him in his work, and so it must always be a very viable guess that he did all he wanted to and could do, and chose to leave the body afterwards. Job done, everything finished, nothing left to take care of.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Fisherman.

Considering the condition in which he left the remains of her corpse, it is difficult to imagine that there would be much more to accomplish (or desecrate). I'm noting that he did not remove Mary Jane's head from her body (even tho he had ample opportunity), which I believe resolves any lingering question of whether total decapitation was ever part of his original intent. I'm guessing, it's possible that he did not want to risk damaging his blade by cutting into bone.

[Abby Normal]

The question is a useless one, the fact is he stopped...whether he was bored, tired, confused, ....its not relevant. The fact he didn't take what was taken twice before, is.

not really. apparently he already had two and wanted something else.

whats relevant is that he removed an internal organ. he wasn't just taking uteri.

but actually the fact that he took the heart may be relevant in a way different from what your saying---perhaps another clue that the killer knew Mary anf the heart, for obvious reasons, had special significance for him with this victim.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Fisherman.

Considering the condition in which he left the remains of her corpse, it is difficult to imagine that there would be much more to accomplish (or desecrate). I'm noting that he did not remove Mary Jane's head from her body (even tho he had ample opportunity), which I believe resolves any lingering question of whether total decapitation was ever part of his original intent. I'm guessing, it's possible that he did not want to risk damaging his blade by cutting into bone.

hi devil
well even if he wanted to take the head he probably would have realized it was too risky to carry such a large body part on him while trying to make the escape (leave the crime scene).

[Fisherman]

Robert St Devil: Hello Fisherman.

Considering the condition in which he left the remains of her corpse, it is difficult to imagine that there would be much more to accomplish (or desecrate).

Well, much as I see what you mean, the posters who say that he could have cut away all of the flesh do have a point. He could. But it seems he chose not to. I am suggesting that we may do well to learn from that.

I'm noting that he did not remove Mary Jane's head from her body (even tho he had ample opportunity), which I believe resolves any lingering question of whether total decapitation was ever part of his original intent.

I agree. If he wanted to do it, then realistically, he would have done so.

I'm guessing, it's possible that he did not want to risk damaging his blade by cutting into bone.

Possibly so - but my own take on things is that he would have been able to take the head off without causing any damage to the knife.

[Robert St Devil]

hi devil
well even if he wanted to take the head he probably would have realized it was too risky to carry such a large body part on him while trying to make the escape (leave the crime scene).

hi abby

i don't believe that he ever meant to sever any of their heads. i know that there was a suspicion, based on the depth of the throat injuries in the murders prior to Mary Jane, that one of his aims was full decapitation if given ample opportunity. However, given ample opportunity, he didn't. I wasn't so much thinking that he would have wanted to "prize" her head, you're right, the head would be too large to remove undetected. More along the lines of "proving" he could do it, and leaving it elsewhere in her apartment.

[Michael W Richards]

I would say both questions are highly relevant, Michael. And I would add that the best answer we can provide is the exact same to both questions; why he did not take the uterus with him and why he cut down to the bone at the thigh in one space only to leave the rest of the flesh on the bone:
Because this was what he WANTED to do.

He WANTED to cut to the bone in one space only on that thigh and he WANTED to leave the uterus with the body (albeit on itīs outside).

We should not loose track of this possibility. We know that the killer seemingly had a good lot of time on his hands, we have no record of anybody disturbing him in his work, and so it must always be a very viable guess that he did all he wanted to and could do, and chose to leave the body afterwards. Job done, everything finished, nothing left to take care of.

Thats precisely my argument for excluding Stride Fisherman, glad you mentioned it, because, as you stated above, there is no record of any disturbance, the last viable sighting of her is 10-15 minutes before she is cut once, and he chose to leave her undisturbed from that point on. So I understand your concept fine.

I would add only that this should apply to all the unsolved murders unless evidence indicates otherwise, and in the case of Polly and Annie, he chose to pretend to be a client, subdue them quietly, slit their throats deeply and twice, and then proceed onto abdominal cutting that in Annies case, resulted in some excisions. Thats what that killer wanted. Your torso killer wanted to kill then take people apart, then try to scatter the evidence so as to confuse any investigation, and Mary Kellys killer wanted to punish her. In what way...well, thats pretty evident, by murder then horrible disfigurement. He didnt covet the abdomen. Neither did the Torso man.

Jon, if you want to live with breast bone down as mutilation of the chest, so be it. I certainly dont see that accurately illustrated within that phrase, but everyone runs their own carnival here.

The facts are that the 2 examples within all the Canonicals that most surely represent multiple homicides are Polly and Annie. They match in every relevant category, they are consecutive and within 2 weeks of each other, ...and we dont have to imagine or use modern serial killer mumbo jumbo to explain why the murders were so different. Because they werent that different at all. They were virtually identical, from Victimology to Method to Weapon to Focus and Signature.... slitting the throats...twice.

Why you would muddy the waters by adding Liz Stride to this list is still after all these years beyond me. Or why you would want to add other ill fitting murders and acts to this phantoms list.

All those hungry, violent, poor, angry, lonely men in that area of town...thousands of em with the general description, age and height of anyone seen with the victims just before death, all the known violent offenders, all the known murderers, anarchists, bombers, spies ....and its just this one guy who stabs, and dismembers, and slices open all the unsolved cases... all by his lonesome? Please.