MJK photo 4 enhanced

[Suzi]

Lol Thanks thought that was where we were coming from- That''s a left hand!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Suzi,

Your wish is my command—



Regards,

Simon

[Suzi]

OK post MJK3 again Simon because I cant be as****d to keep going back for a look! x

[Simon Wood]

Hi Suzi,

Indulge me for another five minutes.

A hand is connected to a wrist, a wrist to an arm, an arm to a shoulder, a shoulder to a neck, and a neck to a head.

So where in MJK3 is the head belonging to the right hand?

Regards,

Simon

[Suzi]

Darkness -under bed unpleasantness and blood in that pic- just before the tin bath to the left of that clip

Still can't get that one Simon! From whatever angle that's still the left hand in the tum!

[John Casey]

blood? shadow? artifact?

what do people think? The dark area under the bed, that I've highlighted here, is it blood? or a shadow? or just a 100+ year old photo with a blotchy dirty artifact of some description?

No, Mike - you believe that it was personal on all levels. If that were so, based on the criteria you put forward, every indoor mutilation murder would be personal; or that outdoor killers never kill indoors - but neither is true. Mutilation murders of strangers can and do happen indoors. The "indoor/outdoor" dimension may be about as significant as the "single-cut/three-flaps" dimension, i.e. not significant at all, but rather indicative of expediency and circumstance.

The above is not in contention Sam, that Marys evidence suggests a stranger did the damage to her is. The wounds to the face have been indicative of a personal relationship with the victim in other cases, and an ex-lover, which is all she really has in her life at the moment...times at least 2...might be interested in owning her heart...something previous Ripper attacks do not suggest was his interest. Add that to the intimacy of the locale, her state of dress, and her specific location...ie on a bed....almost every important detail about Marys murder could very well indicate a relationship of some kind with her killer. Now add posing the crime scene by placing items around Marys body, under her head, and the position of her body....which by her left arm alone, cannot be the position she was in when he was mutilating her midsection and chest.

The main objections have to be that she may have gone out to pick up a stranger, and that her ex-lovers were incapable of carrying out the acts in the room if they were not the Ripper. The first is unproven and not suggested within the trusted evidence provided, and the second is pure speculation....which ignores that one of the two men will be committed for likely genetic based Insanity for the rest of his life in just a few years.

A man fearing the gallows might well be up to making a crime scene worse that it was...so just like every woman that is attacked in some way with a knife that year...it would be almost immediately attributed to a supposed single serial killer at large. As it was.

Like for some Martha is. And for some, Ada is. And Liz Stride...being the only "Canonical" without mutilations... was.

Cheers Gareth.

I also believe Simon is correct about a right hand.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Suzi,

MJK1 is fine, but the right leg in MJK3 is drawn/sketched/painted in, and the left hand is a right hand.

Indulge me and study the photo for five minutes with these things in mind.

Regards,

Simon

[Suzi]

What right hand Simon???

The left hand seems OK ish ...well apart from it's placement!...and there's a couple of fine calves from the knees down and a couple of remarkably OK feet!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The only visible body part in the photo is someone's right hand. I use the word "visible" advisedly.

Regards,

Simon

[Suzi]

Hi all-
This personal thing is starting to worry me- I've always thought that the MJK scene is a) quite unique because it's just total/partial destruction and b) Almost a let's see what I can do to out do anyone else -scenario...There is the possibility that it was a total lunacy from a MJK ex lover/s or whatever to totally destroy her etc by partially dismembering the body and destroying the face so that it became unrecognisable..... despite the fact that our Joe seemed to reconise that mess by the parts various!

But somehow to me, this doesn't sit right...Why bother with all that when you could have taken her into a dark alley and done for her in some way- or chucked her off of a bridge- whatever, if all you wanted to do was get rid!

..........Or just buggered off yourself come to that and leave her to it- unless she had something over you that may make that move a tad dangerous Hmmmmmmmmmm

Overkill I say! - for whatever reason I wish I knew!

As to the 'posing'- Hmmmmmmmmm it's an odd way to be found on your bed after such extreme mutilation ,so yes I would say she was 'er rearranged after the 'doings' for best effect whether seen from the window (possibly imagined) or coming in through the door ( highly unlikely!).

[Sam Flynn]

Marys death was personal.. on all levels.

No, Mike - you believe that it was personal on all levels. If that were so, based on the criteria you put forward, every indoor mutilation murder would be personal; or that outdoor killers never kill indoors - but neither is true. Mutilation murders of strangers can and do happen indoors. The "indoor/outdoor" dimension may be about as significant as the "single-cut/three-flaps" dimension, i.e. not significant at all, but rather indicative of expediency and circumstance.

That's an extremely chilling thought... And I think you could very well be onto something there.

Of course, it begs the question(s) of whether the same killer did for the other ladies, and if so, why didn't he seem to want the others to watch? (At least, going by descriptions of how the bodies were situated when found.)

Hi Gordon,

I think its the subtleties of the scene in Room 13 that separates this killer from the traditional model prior to Mary....that of a killer who kills strangers he meets in the street. Marys death was personal.. on all levels.

We cant be sure whether the killer tilted the face so she could "watch him leave", or draped the left arm across an empty cavity....but if you have a good imagination and you can flesh out the remains on the bed in the pose its in....it seems a lot like like a woman provocatively reclining on the bed...even in an artists pose perhaps.

Best regards G.

[Khanada]

Not only that Gordon, but I think an argument might be made that he was "showing her" what he was doing to her, or wanted him figuratively watching him...with her head lying flat he wouldnt get that impression by her pose.

Her face being mutilated I think clearly shows he knew he was dealing with a human being who is recognizable by her facial features. Taking a heart also has symbolic inference here that would not be present with the taking of an animal heart. I would think almost anyone of that period associated the human heart with the humanity of a person...rather than the brain, which is really the case.

This was a man killing a human woman...Im sure he knew that. This wasnt remedial slaughterhouse work.

That's an extremely chilling thought... And I think you could very well be onto something there.

Of course, it begs the question(s) of whether the same killer did for the other ladies, and if so, why didn't he seem to want the others to watch? (At least, going by descriptions of how the bodies were situated when found.)

[Khanada]

Sorry about the Beatles post. I was just trying to lighten the mood a tad and have a bit of fun. ( My effort was really a take-off of the Rolling Stones 'Satanic Majesties Request' album that had the Beatles faces hidden in the holographic album cover). Sorry again for the non-topic post.

It's all good. Both you and Phil gave me quite a laugh. I thank you both for it. Besides, sometimes some of these subjects need at least a moment of mood-lightening -- they're awfully grim.