Definitely canonical

[Damaso Marte]

Here you say: "Marys killers objectives were to kill her, to slice her into smaller pieces and empty her abdomen and chest placing organs around her body, and to take her heart."

I have to respectfully disagree. When examining the severity and time involved in the atrocities committed against Mary Kelly, it seems apparent to me that Mary Kelly's killer's objective was not just to kill her, or to cut her, he wanted to obliterate her very existence. This type of overkill savagery is actually not uncommon in domestic violence cases of homicide in which the offender and the victim have shared an intimate volatile relationship lasting some time or of exceeding intensity, and such savagery and rage almost always denotes an obvious pre-offense relationship (please see Vernon Geberth's article here: http://www.practicalhomicide.com/Res...mviolence.htm). Moreover, the killer of Mary Kelly shows an organization not present in the other murders. He spent a huge amount of time with her and had to have somehow planned in order to know that her on again off again boyfriend and the other female prostitute who had been staying with her were not going to show up. This is just not consistent with the disorganized behaviors present in the murders of Annie Chapman, Mary Ann Nichols, Liz Stride, and Catherine Eddowes--which were blitz style attacks that lasted only minutes and could not have included the intricate removal of organs that have been attributed to the JTR offender (it is only logical that the organ removals were done post-murder while the bodies were unattended, or at the morgue, by some unsavory characters who probably sold them).

Additionally, the victimology of the supposed canonical Ripper victims is lucid when taking into account Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Liz Stride, and Catherine Eddowes, these four women shared many similarities. Kelly, however, is an anomaly. In fact, the only things she shared with these traits of the other women is that she was a prostitute prone to drink (as in fact most were) and they were from the same area (along with probably hundreds of other women).

Thoughts?

Gracias,
MD Rice

In thread after thread, people assume that the Ripper killed older prostitutes in the street because this is what he preferred to do, skipping over the possibility that he did this because younger prostitutes with their own room were simply not there in large numbers and that an MJK-style murder was in fact his preference.

[MDRice]

Here you say: "Marys killers objectives were to kill her, to slice her into smaller pieces and empty her abdomen and chest placing organs around her body, and to take her heart."

I have to respectfully disagree. When examining the severity and time involved in the atrocities committed against Mary Kelly, it seems apparent to me that Mary Kelly's killer's objective was not just to kill her, or to cut her, he wanted to obliterate her very existence. This type of overkill savagery is actually not uncommon in domestic violence cases of homicide in which the offender and the victim have shared an intimate volatile relationship lasting some time or of exceeding intensity, and such savagery and rage almost always denotes an obvious pre-offense relationship (please see Vernon Geberth's article here: http://www.practicalhomicide.com/Res...mviolence.htm). Moreover, the killer of Mary Kelly shows an organization not present in the other murders. He spent a huge amount of time with her and had to have somehow planned in order to know that her on again off again boyfriend and the other female prostitute who had been staying with her were not going to show up. This is just not consistent with the disorganized behaviors present in the murders of Annie Chapman, Mary Ann Nichols, Liz Stride, and Catherine Eddowes--which were blitz style attacks that lasted only minutes and could not have included the intricate removal of organs that have been attributed to the JTR offender (it is only logical that the organ removals were done post-murder while the bodies were unattended, or at the morgue, by some unsavory characters who probably sold them).

Additionally, the victimology of the supposed canonical Ripper victims is lucid when taking into account Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Liz Stride, and Catherine Eddowes, these four women shared many similarities. Kelly, however, is an anomaly. In fact, the only things she shared with these traits of the other women is that she was a prostitute prone to drink (as in fact most were) and they were from the same area (along with probably hundreds of other women).

Thoughts?

Gracias,
MD Rice

Hi all,

Sam, to address your post that suggests I loaded the possibility questions....hows this, ....since all the previous victims had their abdomens and pelvis as the focal point of the postmortem activities, does the lack of that same focus in room 13 constitute grounds for questioning her inclusion? Maybe.

One thing you cannot ascribe to Jack the Ripper, if the killer in room 13, is that he was focussed during the postmortem activities.

Marys killer was a scattered madman at best..Annies was a man focussed on his objectives...and before you say we cant know his objectives....I will only say again for the thousandth time,....his objectives are what he did....thats all we can know at this time, and that may be all he wanted. Assuming he wanted anything else requires proof....what he did and what he takes is proof in and of itself. He chose actions.

Pollys killers objectives were to kill her and mutilate her abdomen...cause thats what happened, so thats all we can know...Annies, to kill her and mutilate her abdomen so he can take organs from that region. Kates, to kill her, mutilate her abdomen to take organs from that region, and planned or unplanned beforehand, to cut her face up.

Marys killers objectives were to kill her, to slice her into smaller pieces and empty her abdomen and chest placing organs around her body, and to take her heart.

Now that the known objectives are clear, which at this point can only be the results, you may note that Marys killer was acting quite differently that the killers of the previous women mentioned....add into the equation the myriad of different circumstances that exist in that murder.....indoors, may not have picked her up while soliciting, she is nearly naked, he attacks with a knife before she is subdued...he eliminates her facial features, he inhibits access to the corpse when leaving....he leaves an intact uterus that was the focus of Annies murder, by medical opinion.....and on.

I admire Davids enthusiasm for this murder and the suspects and witnesses involved, and I agree that skin flaps are an unusual way to access abdominal organs...even moreso when that was done and no abdominal organs are even taken,.. but there is plenty about this murder that needs answers before Mary can be seriously attributed to Jack. Skin Flaps... just like the ones reported on by the press Inquest coverage in Annies case, aint enough.

Best regards Sam, David, all.

[DVV]

The bloodhounds certainly wouldn't have made the situation in worse than it was by that time.
It is indeed a pity they weren't used ...

Hi Halomanuk,
I can't decide. Are you too much optimistic or do you love dogs too much?
Whatever, it proves that you are good-minded.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Who "injected" Hutchinson into this thread? Be honest, now - who was it? Oh, it was you... don't do it again, please!

[halomanuk]

The bloodhounds certainly wouldn't have made the situation in worse than it was by that time.
It is indeed a pity they weren't used ...

[Malcolm X]

yea' CCTV would've got the Ripper that's for sure......that and his DNA/ fingerprints............good grief, you can even see his fingerprints in the KELLY photos..........look at her right lower leg.

what the police needed were those Bloodhounds and bloody quick too...as soon as she was discovered

[Ben]

But the fact is, he did muster enough courage to enter Commercial street police station at 6pm on monday 12th

Yep, and it's a funny ol' coincidence that he just happened to muster that courage around the time that the inquest details - including Lewis' sighting of a man loitering outside Miller's Court - first entered into the public domain.

[DVV]

Hi Jon,
I don't believe in an undecided and fearful Hutch. His actions (walking alone all night in the worst streets of London), his "straightforward" statement, his "military appearance", rather suggest a self-confident person.
But I'm afraid we're a bit off-thread, my friend!

Amitiés,
David

[Jon Guy]

!
Strange also, as I've pointed out elsewhere, to go the police station at 6pm.

Hi David

Turning up at the cop shop at 18.00 ensured he would not appear, that day anyway, at the inquest. the poor man may have been hanging around Shoreditch all day absolutley sh##ing it.

His plan may have been to give his statement and then walk out and begin "dining out" on his celebrity status.

He may have been aware of Barnett been asked to leave Bullers boarding house due to all the attention he was receiving from the press and like, and was holding court in a nearby pub.

[DVV]

Hi Richard,
in my opinion, a very strange behaviour.
On the murder night, Hutch is bold enough to watch the man in the eyes, and concerned enough to loiter almost one hour. But on the morrow, having heard of the murder of his "friend" Mary, he seems no more interested in the matter.
Strange behaviour also on Sunday morning. The man who had waited around Miller's Court 45 minutes is now unable to warn a constable, or to follow the suspect. And what an extraordinary meeting!
Strange also, as I've pointed out elsewhere, to go the police station at 6pm.

Amitiés,
David

[richardnunweek]

Hi David,
What unusual behaviour?
To have reservations about going to the police, when you realize that you may have been seen ,albeit innocently standing opposite the crime scene, at a time when a bloody murder, of a woman was taking place, and proberly committed by the Whitechapel fiend.
To have serious reservations ,of informing the police of a man he saw with the victim, which would not only place him in the frame, but also make it known to the most frightning killer of all time , that he could reconize him, i feel would be enough for him to have serious doubts upon being a good citizen.
But the fact is, he did muster enough courage to enter Commercial street police station at 6pm on monday 12th, and according to my beliefs , i feel he showed immense character in doing so.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Abberline dismissed Hutchinson. What's good reason, besides the fact Hutchinson wasn't Jack?

Maybe Hutch was Jack, maybe he wasn't.
But Hutch's account, and Hutch's behaviour during several days, raise many other questions.

Amitiés,
David

[halomanuk]

What pity CCTV didn't in 1888! You can't move around central London without having your photo snapped every few mins.

Well the CCTV should have been the police from both the City and the Met working and co-operating together instead of trying to outdo eachother all the time !
The simple fact that detained drunks would be kept overnight in the Met district no matter how drunk they were compared to the City police who only held them until the Sergeant deemed them sober enough to leave show the opposite thinking between the 2 forces.

[Nothing to see]

Abberline dismissed Hutchinson. What's good reason, besides the fact Hutchinson wasn't Jack?