Definitely canonical

[Malcolm X]

is Mary part of the C5?.........Y...E....S
was MARY killed by JTR?.........N.....O
was MARY killed by JTR?.........Y...E...S
who was the Ripper?..............Y....O...U...R...S...E....L.. ..F

[Malcolm X]

if anyone is saying this is a Copycat... dont you think that this a bit too extreme for a.... ``Mr, i've never killed anyone before Barnett type``?

dont try to PIGEONHOLE the Ripper... be careful of this, do not read too much into his mutilations....this killer was experienced and as the murder location shows.... he was brash, foolish, crazed and very devil may care, this killer has the personality traits of the ripper..but definitely not a beginner.... not a hope in hell!

in my opinion the Ripper gained the most self-confidence....... by fleeing the Stride murder scene, later on; he probably felt like ``Spring heeled Jack``

[perrymason]

if anyone is saying this is a Copycat... dont you think that this a bit too extreme for a.... ``Mr, i've never killed anyone before Barnett type``?

dont try to PIGEONHOLE the Ripper... be careful of this, do not read too much into his mutilations....this killer was experienced and as the murder location shows.... he was brash, foolish, crazed and very devil may care, this killer has the personality traits of the ripper..but definitely not a beginner.... not a hope in hell!

in my opinion the Ripper gained the most self-confidence....... by fleeing the Stride murder scene, later on; he probably felt like ``Spring heeled Jack``

Im pretty sure that no other Ripper murder started with the killer slashing at a conscious womans face.

Your correct...dont read too much into the mutilations here, because excluding only one or two acts, all of the acts seen performed in that room were performed on other victims and reported in the press... with details.

I think a reasonable argument for Marys state could be that her killer, in attempting to re-create a Ripper scene once he realized he had killed the woman, performed acts that were not previously seen and serve no greater purpose than the resulting damage, and are uncharacteristic of Ripper acts in general.

For the most part, the man that killed, Annie and Kate cut where he had to in order that he accomplish a goal of obtaining organs. He cuts the throat to kill, and cuts the body to open and extract. Since Polly so closely matches those two in many respects, and yet she is the only one of the three killed openly in the street...that is the one murder that interruption may have played a part in.

The coroner at Pollys inquest suggested the very same thing....and related that to the next murder being in a backyard and successful with the organ theft.

Best regards.

[Malcolm X]

Im pretty sure that no other Ripper murder started with the killer slashing at a conscious womans face.

Your correct...dont read too much into the mutilations here, because excluding only one or two acts, all of the acts seen performed in that room were performed on other victims and reported in the press... with details.

I think a reasonable argument for Marys state could be that her killer, in attempting to re-create a Ripper scene once he realized he had killed the woman, performed acts that were not previously seen and serve no greater purpose than the resulting damage, and are uncharacteristic of Ripper acts in general.

For the most part, the man that killed, Annie and Kate cut where he had to in order that he accomplish a goal of obtaining organs. He cuts the throat to kill, and cuts the body to open and extract. Since Polly so closely matches those two in many respects, and yet she is the only one of the three killed openly in the street...that is the one murder that interruption may have played a part in.

The coroner at Pollys inquest suggested the very same thing....and related that to the next murder being in a backyard and successful with the organ theft.

Best regards.

it looks like Mary put up a fight, not only do we have ``oh murder`` but there are some defensive cuts on her fingers, plus the bed sheet was badly cut and covered in blood on the top right hand side, suggesting that Mary either covered her face with the sheet, like a frightened child scared of ghosts, or the sheet was covering her face, my guess is because she might have screamed ``oh murder``that she saw him coming, thus she tried to hide under the bed sheet and the ripper killed her through the sheet..... i find this totally horrible!

he either broke in, or he woke up, got out of her bed, put on his trousers... got his knife out and suddenly attacked her.... he cant get behind her, so this is a full frontal attack.... he dived on top of her, in a similar way to how G.Chapman attacked his lover ( an example only)

i dont think he strangled her, i think he ripped the sheet open with wild slashes, and then slit her throat, he probably then got off her, the bed sheet decended back over her face, and as usual he waited for his victim to bleed out under the sheet, hence it's soaked in blood. she died....... he flicked the bed sheet out of the way... back over to the right hand side and then he dragged her corpse back towards the left hand side of the bed..

then after death, he almost decapitated her like EDDOWES.... the arterial spray is over to the right hand side.... so maybe the bed sheet was too, i.e he slashed her throat and then moved the sheet out of the way while she was still alive.............we'll never know.

[Malcolm X]

he ripped out her heart.... well this depends on the Ripper's motives, to me 5 murders dont make sense and neither does him ripping her up so badly and finally him stopping/ vanishing .... i wont comment here

anyway, sticking to this thread i promise to be a good boy this a C5 murder

but what we can talk about is.... why did her rip her up so badly/ destroy all of her sexuality.... he destroyed her lovely face, cut off her gorgeous breasts, removed her reproductive organs, and removed her sexy thighs........... is this madness, from a cold calculating intelligent killer, that left no clues, committed a perfect murder......i leave you guys to ponder this...

he did not butcher her for the sheer hell of it because he could...... his goal was to remove any traces of womanhood and to take her heart

i think, he was totally sane and in complete control of his emotions, look how the organs are carefully placed around the body and not thrown on the floor or bounced off the walls.... he was calm and he was on a mission!

[Mitch Rowe]

In actual fact Chapman's abdomen was accessed by removing four flaps of the belly wall, not three. Three are mentioned in situ, the fourth, with the navel, was taken away by the killer. This may or may not indicate some interest to the killer, especially when one considers that the navel was left on a flap of skin when the long cut to Eddowes abdomen was made.

Wolf.

This is true. But I think it was mentioned that part could have been attached to a part the ripper took with him? I will have to go back and study this again because either in the chapman case or the MJK case I think phillips describes putting the flaps back together and it was obvious a piece was missing. He called it "wanting".

We dont have any drawings or anything to actually show us what happened to these poor girls so we can only guess how it was done. When we dont exactly thats when I feel history becomes part of the equation. The fact that both doctors mention three flaps in any context has a certain value to me.

Its not merely the number itself wich disturbs me. Its tha act. I admit I was floored when first read about it in Chapmans case. I didnt even know about Bonds report at that time! Im a lifetime crime buff. I have been amazed and puzzled by murderers actions since I can remember. And in all my years I never heard/read or seen any kind of removing of the skin like that to get to the innards at least. I know the black dahlia had a chunk of meat cut from her leg and I know of a case where an SK killed prostitutes and at least one had a tattoo removed but not to get to organs.

So.. Coming into all this I thought I knew a thing or two about the criminal mind and after reading about the skin flaps it affected me as something peculiar. And right there at the scene! I can understand a guy like Dahmer needing to do it that way but I was expecting to see something like Eddowes.

OH.. And one more thing I want to mention. I dont exactly know how the professionals would connect any crimes but I refrain from giving the differences much value. Im not saying I ignore them. Im just saying they need a stronger case for themselves to be significant in the process.

[Sam Flynn]

Re. the piece of flesh attaching the navel, Phillips has this to say: "The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part, and the other from another part of the body... On placing these three flaps of skin together, it was evident that a portion was wanting" (The Echo, 19th Sept 1888).

It sounds to me that it could have been an "offcut", perhaps liberated by converging trajectories of the knife in the process of cutting out the three flaps themselves. At any event, it doesn't sound like this fragment would have been a "flap" designed to access the contents of the abdomen... unless yer man was into keyhole surgery

Wolf's point about Eddowes is interesting, inasmuch as if her killer had lopped off that "tongue of flesh" including her navel, he might have made off with that, too, as a keepsake. However, it appears in Eddowes' case that the loop of flesh around her navel was made as a byproduct of making the wound that opened up her abdomen.

[Mitch Rowe]

Thanks Sam.
Good point about JTR not taking the navel portion from eddowes. I was gonna say taking skin could be considered a vital organ and that would kinda go along with my skin fascination theory but that theory is just a feeble attempt at explaining JTRs motives and if the truth be known he either ate them or fed them to his wife and kids or fed them to his dog or fed them to the poor girl he had locked in his basement!

[Midnyte]

Hello there,
One thing that was different in each of the murders was the amount of clothing in the way of the targeted organ.
For example, Polly and Annie had lower organs removed, so only the skirt had to be raised enough for that. But with Eddowes, the kidney was the target, and the clothing described as being on Eddowes at the time, which was many layers of skirts and an apron, made one long cut through the clothing necessary to gain accessability to the inner abdomen.
The umbilical area is very tough to cut through, so it would be easier to cut around the area.
In the case of Annie and Mary, there was easier access, so an inverted T cut would open the abdomen. (An autopsy would use a Y cut to open the abdomen). This would be from the chest to the navel, under the breasts, and down each ribcage to separate those 2 flaps. The 3rd flap would be the rounded belly from navel to pubis, and from hip to hip.

It was just a matter of practicality and time in which method was used, but the object was to mutilate the body, and perhaps take a trophy.
Another link between Eddowes and Kelly is the lower genital mutilation, which I see as the same in the other flap of flesh on the table. "The flaps from the abdomen AND THIGHS were on a table"."The flap from the thigh, including the external organ of regeneration, part of the buttock etc.."

Thanks
Joan

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Im pretty sure that no other Ripper murder started with the killer slashing at a conscious womans face.

I can never buy into that. If that's what happened, then Mary must've given her consent to be completely ripped up to her killer. She would've screamed the house down and fought for her life.

As for a copycat, that's ridiculous and next to impossible for someone who hadn't murdered and mutilated a person before to do that amount of extensive damage, and the only mutilator of that caliber, or mutilator at all, who was operating at the time was the Ripper.

[Jon Guy]

I believe it was her breast Jon, although I dont recall specifically all that was under her head.

On her picking up a client.....what you would need is a single believed witness that either sees Mary go out, sees her out, or sees her return after 11:45 November 8th. You do not have that in Hutchinson.

If you sit and carve flesh from bone on one half of a limb, thats curiousity or some kind of dysfunctionally motivated mutilation. If you slash a face beyond the ability for it to be easily recognized, thats dysfunctional motivation at work.

The only such cuts that I see that precede Mary might be the facial wounds Kate gets, and the severing of 2ft of her colon to place between her arm and body.

Hiya Michael

Yes, a breast was under the head, as well as the kidneys and uterus.

Unless I am mistaken the doubt surrounding Hutchinson`s evidence is based solely on the character, Mr Astrakhan, and not the fact that Kelly was out and about at that time of the morning.

Regarding Kate`s injuries, what about the cut at the top of her right thigh running into her genitals. This is similar to the cuts made to Kelly which resulted in her losing the top of her thigh, external organs of generation and her right buttock.

[Jon Guy]

The umbilical area is very tough to cut through, so it would be easier to cut around the area.

Another link between Eddowes and Kelly is the lower genital mutilation, which I see as the same in the other flap of flesh on the table. "The flaps from the abdomen AND THIGHS were on a table"."The flap from the thigh, including the external organ of regeneration, part of the buttock etc.."
Joan

Apologies Joan, I have just seen your interesting post,which is spot on.

[Malcolm X]

I can never buy into that. If that's what happened, then Mary must've given her consent to be completely ripped up to her killer. She would've screamed the house down and fought for her life.

As for a copycat, that's ridiculous and next to impossible for someone who hadn't murdered and mutilated a person before to do that amount of extensive damage, and the only mutilator of that caliber, or mutilator at all, who was operating at the time was the Ripper.

exactly, well said

[Sam Flynn]

Another link between Eddowes and Kelly is the lower genital mutilation, which I see as the same in the other flap of flesh on the table. "The flaps from the abdomen AND THIGHS were on a table"."The flap from the thigh, including the external organ of regeneration, part of the buttock etc.."

I do too, Joan. As I said in my dissertation:

"We shouldn't overlook the fact that at least two cuts went down as far as Eddowes' thighs, both of them forming large flaps of skin that included both labia and other parts of the groin. Very similar wounds were later to be inflicted on Mary Kelly, albeit much more extensively and with even greater violence. It is worth considering that these wounds inflicted on Eddowes constituted the Ripper's first attempt at denuding the flesh on the thighs."

[FrankO]

The fact that it (the uterus) is left when taken twice before and even in a partial state is curious.

Hi Mike,

I agree that it was curious. But then again, even though it wasn't taken away from the crime scene, it wasn't like it had been left untouched in the body either. I do think that, as a result of majorly twisted curiosity, the Ripper's first interest involved the genital area of his victims, then the other feminine parts (thighs, buttocks, breasts, face) and that in general, if he had enough time so that he could give rein to his anger and hate, he wanted to take his victims apart bit by bit, completely destroy or annihilate them.

In MJK's case he came much closer than in the other cases. Perhaps because, in her case, he could do a lot more in the sense of annihilating he didn't feel the need to actually take away her femininity, but instead chose her whole life, if you will: her heart. The Ripper showed interest in a piece of belly wall in Chapman's case and in a left kidney in Eddowes' case, so I think we should be carefull about attaching too much weight in the fact that he didn't take away the uterus in MJK's case.

Obviously, I say all this under the assumption that MJK was a Ripper victim, which I am inclined to believe but isn't necessarily true.

All the best,
Frank