Definitely canonical

[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 ...

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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

[perrymason]

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.

[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

[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.

[Barnaby]

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.

I completely agree. He preyed on the most vulnerable but that wasn't his ideal. He got "lucky" - if you will - with MJK.

That he couldn't realize his ideal more often suggests both that it was harder to commit and get away with these crimes against women of higher means (obviously) and that he couldn't afford the services of more expensive prostitutes.

[pinkmoon]

Police did interview her ex Barnet after the murder could he have killed her and disguised it as a ripper murder?.kelly was in arrears with her rent she probably wouldn't have been to picky with who she did business with.

[Nick Spring]

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

Kelly is different in many ways. All roads lead to Kelly or she was by another hand.

[The Good Michael]

I completely agree. He preyed on the most vulnerable but that wasn't his ideal. He got "lucky" - if you will - with MJK.

That he couldn't realize his ideal more often suggests both that it was harder to commit and get away with these crimes against women of higher means (obviously) and that he couldn't afford the services of more expensive prostitutes.

Do you really think he knew what his ideal kill was? Or do you think it just escalated due to opportunity? By this I mean, did he actually know what he wanted to do? My opinion is that he became creative when the opportunity came, but had no idea or plan for such a thing.

Mike

[Nick Spring]

Do you really think he knew what his ideal kill was? Or do you think it just escalated due to opportunity? By this I mean, did he actually know what he wanted to do? My opinion is that he became creative when the opportunity came, but had no idea or plan for such a thing.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Totally agree. He had the opportunity and acted accordingly. He would have achieved this earlier had the opportunity arisen.

Best

Nick

[MDRice]

"Kelly is different in many ways. All roads lead to Kelly or she was by another hand."

I used to be of the same opinion. Either she was killed by a different offender or she was the target the whole time. However, when you examine the other deaths in detail it becomes apparent that those previous to Kelly involved a classic disorganized offender (such as Richard Trenton Chase) and there is too much consistency to attribute this to purposeful staging. Additionally, it goes against all logic to ascribe to the commonly thought notion that JTR had medical knowledge and carefully removed certain organs. That makes no sense when you add in the other aspects of the crimes and the fact that there was no time. Even modern doctors with their full access to the latest equipment were quoted in a recent JTR documentary as saying there is no way, even with the best of equipment, that they could have done the organ removals that JTR was supposed to have done in the time he was supposed to have done them, especially not IN THE DARK. It was their opinion, in fact, that not only could they not have done these things, but no one logically could have. To me, this logically and necessarily points to the fact that one disorganized killer was responsible for Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Liz Stride, and Catherine Eddowes, but someone else did the intricate organ removals--either while the bodies were unattended on the streets, or when they were in the morgue, probably to sell them. Additionally, in so many aspects, Mary Kelly's death was just not consistent with the others. It differs in areas of MO, signature, and victimology. The specifics of the horrors done to Mary Kelly and the amount of time and organization it took to do them just is not consistent with the disorganized blitz style attacks of the others. Although it is true that sometimes serial killers will evolve from fully disorganized to include aspects of organization, it is just not very probable that an offender could go from full disorganized to the levels of organization found in Mary Kelly's case in one changing of victim, that is just so improbable to point to it being statistically impossible UNLESS the first disorganized offenses were staged, and there is just nothing that points to that possibility.

[Errata]

Do you really think he knew what his ideal kill was? Or do you think it just escalated due to opportunity? By this I mean, did he actually know what he wanted to do? My opinion is that he became creative when the opportunity came, but had no idea or plan for such a thing.

Mike

Serial killers fantasize for years before ever killing someone. So yes. I think he knew what his ideal kill was. Which is not to say there was a script. I think he knew how he wanted to feel, and he had some fantasies that made him feel that way. He started acting them out, but would change to maximize the feeling he wanted. Whether it be relief, power, control, whatever. If strangulation did nothing for him, he wouldn't have done it. Restraints did nothing for him. He didn't use them. He didn't take their eyeballs or something like that because it didn't interest him. Cutting them open did interest him. So did throat cutting. So did uteruses. He may not have had a step by step guide with him, but he knew what gave him pleasure. And I think his ideal kill looked a lot like the murders he committed. I think it changed and shifted as he tried new things, but this was not a guy who was ever going to be the killer who nailed a woman to a table, or stashed her corpse in a storm drain and visited it at night. His murders were always going to look a lot like what he actually did.

[Barnaby]

In my original post I did not mean to insinuate that he knew what his ideal kill was, but I see that it does read that way. I meant it in more relativistic terms. Yes, I think he would report a preference for killing relatively younger and more attractive women in a place that afforded privacy and time than killing older women on the streets.

This is my belief, but really there are no data to justify it! On the other hand, there are data to suggest that his preference was for the latter (based on the victimology). I fall into the camp, however, that interprets this as that Jack killed women who were easily available and this does not necessarily reflect a preference, more of a forced choice.

To leave the world of a very sick individual and provide a more real-world example, lots of guys would like to date supermodels but most of us don't and end up being quite content nonetheless. So I'm sure Jack derived satisfaction regardless. However, after MJK, could Jack be content returning to his usual methodology?

[Nick Spring]

Serial killers fantasize for years before ever killing someone. So yes. I think he knew what his ideal kill was. Which is not to say there was a script. I think he knew how he wanted to feel, and he had some fantasies that made him feel that way. He started acting them out, but would change to maximize the feeling he wanted. Whether it be relief, power, control, whatever. If strangulation did nothing for him, he wouldn't have done it. Restraints did nothing for him. He didn't use them. He didn't take their eyeballs or something like that because it didn't interest him. Cutting them open did interest him. So did throat cutting. So did uteruses. He may not have had a step by step guide with him, but he knew what gave him pleasure. And I think his ideal kill looked a lot like the murders he committed. I think it changed and shifted as he tried new things, but this was not a guy who was ever going to be the killer who nailed a woman to a table, or stashed her corpse in a storm drain and visited it at night. His murders were always going to look a lot like what he actually did.

Hi Errata,

I think your right in this and Kelly gave him the ultimate opportunity when it arrived.

Best

Nick