Definitely canonical

[Malcolm X]

I dont know what youre issues are to keep posting that Im wrong each post Mal, but youll note that I mentioned a severed boiled arm and that Marys arm was essentially severed as well.

Best regards

i'm not personally attacking you at all Perrymason...i just think you're wrong on this Kelly murder

``You keep painting Jacks cutting as something impossible to imitate....when the evidence with Alice suggests the polar opposite is true.``

yes Alice Mckenzie is similar... could be another killer, but could also be Jack... because nobody knows if he stopped killing or simply downgraded

* Cause of death from severance of the left carotid artery.
* Two stabs in the left side of the neck 'carried forward in the same skin wound.'...........very strange!
* Some bruising on chest.
* Five bruises or marks on left side of abdomen.
* Cut was made from left to right, apparently while McKenzie was on the ground.
* A long (seven-inch) 'but not unduly deep' wound from the bottom of the left breast to the navel........very strange!
* Seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia...... very strange!
* Small cut across the mons veneris..... very strange!

very strange means:- a killer that was interested or thinking about mutilating this region of the body, in a very similar way to the ripper, it looks like what the ripper would've done to TABRAM; if he had killed her........... a beginner......he was thinking ``well maybe, i'm not sure; maybe next time i kill``..........this murder is quite interesting.

i'm very glad you mentioned Alice...uuuuuummm

[Sam Flynn]

The only thing that can be said about her heart is that he took it, the implication is that he wanted it.

That doesn't necessarily follow, Mike. Like Eddowes' kidney - or even Chapman's womb - it could have been a spur of the moment decision.

Since he took no other organ, that seems to be a fairly safe bet.

I can't see any reason why we should assume that the Ripper distinguished between "taking out" and "taking away". Besides, he removed practically every organ from the neck downwards and - as I've said before - he couldn't take all that lot away with him, even if he'd tried.

And skin flaps of her abdomen are in no way required to access her heart.

A bit easier than sawing through the ribcage with a knife, perhaps. The benefit of taking the "southern route" is that you're only dealing with soft tissue, rather than bone - and, let's face it, it's a lot more "fun" from the perspective of someone who enjoys getting his hands stuck in.

[Malcolm X]

i for one think that he targeted her heart... that was his goal a week or so before!

[perrymason]

That doesn't necessarily follow, Mike. 1. Like Eddowes' kidney - or even Chapman's womb - it could have been a spur of the moment decision. 2. I can't see any reason why we should assume that the Ripper distinguished between "taking out" and "taking away". 3. Besides, he removed practically every organ from the neck downwards and - as I've said before - he couldn't take all that lot away with him, even if he'd tried. A bit easier than sawing through the ribcage with a knife, perhaps. The benefit of taking the "southern route" is that you're only dealing with soft tissue, rather than bone - and, 4. let's face it, it's a lot more "fun" from the perspective of someone who enjoys getting his hands stuck in.

Hi again Sam,

On your point 1 above, it was suggested by senior medical opinion that the killer of Annie did what he did specifically to obtain her uterus, and removing a kidney through the victims front is not what a slash and grab artist would get from Kate.

On point 2, you dont see any difference between just removal and removal and theft of organs. There are potentially some huge differences between the 2 when preference is shown for organs never sought before, and ones that were taken twice before are left behind. When he cuts a coveted organ free then leaves it, your only argument to keep Jack alive is that despite the fact that he approaches and executes the murders of the abdominally mutilated Canonicals with little if any interest above or below the midsection, he actually has no preference and takes what he does based on spur of the moment thinking.

Once again youve categorized the killer as a man who simply cuts anywhere-anytime, takes any random organ he decides to on the spot, and is capable of just slicing and decorating the bed with the things he removes.. completely for his own recreation and not to achieve access or removal goals.

On point 3, again, Annies flaps were to make an abdominal entry point that he could use to enter the abdomen and to remove and take the uterus and partial bladder. As you say, almost all of Marys midsection and chest cavity is emptied and placed about her to enable access to abdominal organs that he cuts free and....... that he chooses not to take. He used to cut intestines free so he could access the abdominal organs easier...I could see his leaving them behind in the same way Marys killer left her intact uterus behind....Marys killer didnt want abdominal organs specifically. But the Ripper surely did.

On point 4, the only people who imagine that what Jack the Ripper really wanted ultimately was just to cut and stick his hands in corpses, are the people that believe he killed Kelly. Without Marys inconsistencies placed at the foot of the Ripper, the random meaningless thigh peels, uterus-placed-under-her-head-with-a-breast kind of mindless behavior, the glut of gore and posed remains scenario......the Jack the Ripper that would remain is the one that may have killed 3 women consecutively in order to mutilate their abdomens to enter and take organs from that region.....specifically. Since he doesnt open their chests before Mary, it would appear the goal of an organ in her chest was brand new with that crime.

Of all the many, many things about that night and whats done to Mary that are first and only occurrences within the Canonical Group, rejecting already extracted organs from the region that was his sole focus before Mary should have been an indication that this killer didnt covet abdominal organs at all.....not that Jack now decided he didnt want them. Maybe Marys killer didnt know why Jack took abdominal organs, so he didnt repeat those acts....but he sure didnt have Jacks interest in them.

He doesnt change everything about his approach, his attack, his demonstrated focus on cutting into the abdomen to get at abdominal organs to take with him on his last murder,.. I dont believe thats a viable premise.

Best regards Sam

[Nothing to see]

MJK was Jack's. Not someone else who decided randomly to go postal on pros. This has been discussed many times before and I won't go there.

Before Kelly, Jack was outside, operating in risky situations where it's possible he could have been discovered. He took what he could and got out.

He's got Kelly inside. He's in control. He can do to her what he wants. And he did. I've always wondered if he did indeed take the heart away with him or burn it in the kettle on the fire.

Canonical 5. They were Jack's.

[perrymason]

MJK was Jack's. Not someone else who decided randomly to go postal on pros. This has been discussed many times before and I won't go there.

Before Kelly, Jack was outside, operating in risky situations where it's possible he could have been discovered. He took what he could and got out.

He's got Kelly inside. He's in control. He can do to her what he wants. And he did. I've always wondered if he did indeed take the heart away with him or burn it in the kettle on the fire.

Canonical 5. They were Jack's.

That means you buy into Bond and others theories...despite the fact that less than a year later Bond suggests Alice McKenzie didnt belong to Jack because her killer lacked skill and knowledge...the very observations he suggested Jack the Ripper victims did not display the previous Fall...disagreeing with the Senior Medical opinion of the men that actually examined the victims personally...Bond only did one Canonical autopsy.

The murder in room 13 was likely committed by someone that knew Mary based on the circumstantial evidence...and that potential connection could address much of the violent and angry components seen in her murder and no others. Perhaps even spiteful acts, like sticking organs around her and under her head.

I would think a crime of passion and a murder with clinical disposition make 2 entirely different crime scenes....like Marys was compared with the more clinical murder-extractions done outdoors.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

On your point 1 above, it was suggested by senior medical opinion that the killer of Annie did what he did specifically to obtain her uterus, and removing a kidney through the victims front is not what a slash and grab artist would get from Kate.

Well, he wasn't going to get hold of much else by opening their abdomens, was he?

On point 2, you dont see any difference between just removal and removal and theft of organs

I honestly don't. Besides, he "thieved" Kelly's heart, did he not? Presumably because "it was there" for the taking - much the same as Eddowes' kidney.

Once again youve categorized the killer as a man who simply cuts anywhere-anytime, takes any random organ he decides to on the spot

Isn't that what Jack did? He was hardly going to be able to cart Chapman's and Eddowes' intestines away with him, was he? I mean, he was in the wrong part of town for one thing - had he chosen Limehouse, at least he might have tried to get away by shoving them over his head and passing himself as a Chinese dragon.

On point 3, again, Annies flaps were to make an abdominal entry point that he could use to enter the abdomen and to remove and take the uterus and partial bladder.

What else is he going to take?

On point 4, the only people who imagine that what Jack the Ripper really wanted ultimately was just to cut and stick his hands in corpses, are the people that believe he killed Kelly.

It has nothing to do with Kelly. It's not as if Nichols', Chapman's and Eddowes' killer had an aversion to sticking his hands into women's innards.


A metaphor, by way of making a general point: Lifting one's line of sight tends to allow one to see better, and further ahead.

[Malcolm X]

The murder in room 13 was likely committed by someone that knew Mary based on the circumstantial evidence...and that potential connection could address much of the violent and angry components seen in her murder and no others. Perhaps even spiteful acts, like sticking organs around her and under her head.

I would think a crime of passion and a murder with clinical disposition make 2 entirely different crime scenes....like Marys was compared with the more clinical murder-extractions done outdoors.

Best regards

yes this could be so.. GLENN used to argue in favour of this too, i know that OUIJA board is probably a load of crap, but it said Kelly was murdered by a friend/ a trusted one/ a dear one, nearly all the time... quite a few boards said the same thing..

now if this hoax Ouija Board was gathering info off ``GOOGLE`` etc, it should have said THE RIPPER. yea' yea' i know what you're thinking, but some answers from that OUIJA board were very creepy indeed.

especially when i deleted it from ``BOOKMARKS`` the previous day and the next.... it was back on the screen again, i almost died of fright when i saw it.

[Mr.Hyde]

I have absolutely no doubt that JTR was "a friend,a trusted one",etc.
These were not random murders.

[perrymason]

I have absolutely no doubt that JTR was "a friend,a trusted one",etc.
These were not random murders.

I think the accurate way to frame that might be that in the case of Mary Kelly, the above seems to have merit.

But remember...there is only one Canonical victim that is killed in completely different circumstances to the others, circumstances that implied someone known to her as her killer.....none of the 4 others have that kind of circumstantial evidence present.

That the killer arrived in the middle of the night doesnt suggest pre-meditation, unless he was trying to catch her asleep....he could have gone there to kill her, or gone there just to confront her or even just sleep with her, and it turned violent when he got answers he didnt like.

Random is a tricky term....a random choice to kill spur of the moment, or randomly choosing who to kill.

Best regards

[Malcolm X]

I think the accurate way to frame that might be that in the case of Mary Kelly, the above seems to have merit.

But remember...there is only one Canonical victim that is killed in completely different circumstances to the others, circumstances that implied someone known to her as her killer.....none of the 4 others have that kind of circumstantial evidence present.

That the killer arrived in the middle of the night doesnt suggest pre-meditation, unless he was trying to catch her asleep....he could have gone there to kill her, or gone there just to confront her or even just sleep with her, and it turned violent when he got answers he didnt like.

Random is a tricky term....a random choice to kill spur of the moment, or randomly choosing who to kill.

Best regards

it could also be that the Ripper knew Kelly as a friend.......but not the other victims....it seems strange that Kelly was singing in her room for so long to a total stranger, but this friend; might have only known KELLY for two weeks!

i find it hard to imagine this killer as a Copycat, but a friend yes... HUTCH was supposedly a friend too, but at only 22 years old this is a real problem.... even if all suspect descriptions are 50% inaccurate.

my guess is the killer is either Blotchy face, Hutchinson, or Mary went out again........ least likely is Mary going out again.

if HUTCH killed her, he almost definitely broke in close to 4am... after stalking her outside.........but how BLOTCHY met Kelly on the street is a real mystery, my guess is he waited outside her ``local pub``, waited for her to leave, with beer in his hands as a lure to get him into her room...or as a new friend in her life, that just so happens to be walking by...or her new friend arranged to go for a drink with her that night, from the previous day...who knows!

least likely is.....the killer was getting drunk with Kelly in a local pub, far too many witnesses, but he could've been standing at the bar, while KELLY was in the corner with her friends, shouting her mouth off and getting drunk.... she left, he quickly brought beer from the landlord and followed her...... this feels a bit creepy, so maybe!

now unless the Ripper was a total oddball, it's likely that he went into pubs, probably before he started stalking the streets.... did he go into a pub near KELLY's place and suddenly take note of her sitting in the corner........ no idea!

i favour him choosing her as a victim a couple of weeks before

[perrymason]

From my perspective Mal, Mary may well have been asleep....heard a tap on the window or the door, or the door opening itself...she exclaims "oh-murder" when she sees who it is, and lets him in while she slides back onto the bed. Maybe she even expected him to perhaps pop in that night....the "oh-murder" is just her way of saying...."at almost 4am you show up?"

I believe at this point she is killed due to a momentary loss of self control by a man who resorts to violence when arguing with a woman, and when he regains some control, he does what he thinks will help him escape suspicion for this murder....by making her a bloody Ripping mess. The acts that we see that are not required.....such as skin flaps from the abdomen to remove and then leave abdominal organs...flesh taken from bone, Marys face, organs set aside....are to me indications that he performed acts that have no purpose. So why did her do them?

Cause he is now indoors and can take some time to just fool around? Maybe

Cause he is experimenting with new acts and sensations? Maybe

Cause he has always had a strong desire to cut flesh with a knife, despite the deliberate abdominal nature of some of his earlier crimes, they were just unfulfilled cutting fantasies until Mary? Maybe

Cause he was doing things that meant nothing to him personally but were to only create an illusion of a madman? Maybe

Cause he wasnt Jack the Ripper, and the focus that was seen in Ripper victims wasnt his focus? Maybe.

Theres far too many "maybe's" to address before anyone can state with any authority that Jack Killed Mary.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Cause he is now indoors and can take some time to just fool around? Maybe

Cause he has always had a strong desire to cut flesh with a knife, despite the deliberate abdominal nature of some of his earlier crimes, they were just unfulfilled cutting fantasies until Mary? Maybe

Cause he was doing things that meant nothing to him personally but were to only create an illusion of a madman? Maybe

Cause he wasnt Jack the Ripper, and the focus that was seen in Ripper victims wasnt his focus? Maybe.

Theres far too many "maybe's" to address before anyone can state with any authority that Jack Killed Mary.

Precisely the same arguments can be used against any of the other canonical victims, Mike, provided you apply the same loaded and arbitrary assertions - which I've highlighted in bold/red type for convenience.

This one is commendably neutral, however, and might have applied in some or any of the previous murders: "Cause he is experimenting with new acts and sensations? Maybe"

Turning all this on its head, you've missed the biggest one of all, namely:

"There was someone else capable of such an appalling act of disembowelment and mutilation at large in that part of town at that time? Maybe."

[Malcolm X]

From my perspective Mal, Mary may well have been asleep....heard a tap on the window or the door, or the door opening itself...she exclaims "oh-murder" when she sees who it is, and lets him in while she slides back onto the bed. Maybe she even expected him to perhaps pop in that night....the "oh-murder" is just her way of saying...."at almost 4am you show up?"

I believe at this point she is killed due to a momentary loss of self control by a man who resorts to violence when arguing with a woman, and when he regains some control, he does what he thinks will help him escape suspicion for this murder....by making her a bloody Ripping mess. The acts that we see that are not required.....such as skin flaps from the abdomen to remove and then leave abdominal organs...flesh taken from bone, Marys face, organs set aside....are to me indications that he performed acts that have no purpose. So why did her do them?

Cause he is now indoors and can take some time to just fool around? Maybe

Cause he is experimenting with new acts and sensations? Maybe

Cause he has always had a strong desire to cut flesh with a knife, despite the deliberate abdominal nature of some of his earlier crimes, they were just unfulfilled cutting fantasies until Mary? Maybe

Cause he was doing things that meant nothing to him personally but were to only create an illusion of a madman? Maybe

Cause he wasnt Jack the Ripper, and the focus that was seen in Ripper victims wasnt his focus? Maybe.

Theres far too many "maybe's" to address before anyone can state with any authority that Jack Killed Mary.

Best regards

well if you favour a break in, or a surprise visit at this time from a friend then this could point towards Hutch, because we've already proven in the past on this forum, that his lurking outside is perfect for a 4am break in; in fact his tactics are a requirement, there's no other way to be sure that she's at home or even on her own, the killer has to wait outside as per Hutch.

but it might not be as easy as this, because since i've returned to this forum, HUTCH is starting to look more innocent every day.

[Ben]

but it might not be as easy as this, because since i've returned to this forum, HUTCH is starting to look more innocent every day.

He really hasn't looked any more or less innocent than he did 120 years ago, Mal.