Jack had to slip up

[NOV9]

Hi again,

The answer Sox just posted should be noted by those that assume Mary was perhaps standing when first attacked...the vast majority of blood was found on or beneath the mattress.

Nov 9th...."I never said that I was imagining this killer sitting in near darkness.
have you read anything that I wrote?"...yes I have...and the remark I made should have cued you to the surroundings that night, when youve suggested a rage influence was present. The only rage is evident in the initial attack, and Marys face...the rest of that crime scene shows deliberate actions, done with some care and attention....in the dark, or near darkness.

He may well be a Jewish, Polish Immigrant...but so you know that is speculation made by Anderson..no proof is offered with it. I myself believe he was Anti-semetic, because I think he wrote the GSG, and it referred to Jews on Berner St that had alleged Jack killed Liz...when the Ripper knew better.

My best regards.

Perrymason,

The only Cue I got was you saying that I had no clue about the murder site,

"Nov 9th...if you imagine this killer sitting in near darkness in a small room flailing away, youre incorrect"

Did I miss something?

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

You do a good job of drawing differences in M.O. in connection with Mary's murder. I just don't see any of them as being that significant to reach a conclusion that it was someone other than Jack who killed Mary. Therefore, my friend, it looks as though we will have to agree to disagree.

c.d.

Hi Cd,

Ill address the points inside the quote my friend, and dont get frustrated with me...trust me a bit and consider the situation...

Michael,

You keep making the same argument over and over. Namely that if you can show differences in M.O. between the previous murders that we attribute to Jack and Mary's murder we are forced to conclude that she was killed by someone other than Jack. As has been pointed out numerous times, there are differences in all the murders. No two are exactly the same. Do we therefore have to accept different killers in each instance?

Since Im wide open to the similarities as well cd, perhaps we need to clarify Jacks style prior to Mary, using on the C4 victims. He mets his intended target while she is out after midnight on the streets, very likely as a "wolf in clients clothing". He attacks before they can utter a sound...meaning he interferes with their breathing somehow, gets them under his control, lays them down, cuts the throat, and then lifts the skirts to cut the abdomen and pelvic area. And that mirrors what with Mary...she may well have been indoors, sleeping, and struggling while the killer cuts..not after she is under control.

You compile a list of minor differences but shrug off major similarities:

1. Mary was a prostitute just like the others.

As I said, a sleeping part time prostitute in her own room is considerably different that a working one outdoors in the dark streets. Have you considered that he actually liked the night..the air.

2. Mary had her throat cut just like the others.

After an apparent attack that involved cuts prior to the throat cut..the C4 victims do not have their throats cut until they are lying down.

3. Mary had her abdomen ripped open just like the others.

Mary was hollowed out..no need to mince words here...so when did he ever, ever extract an organ he did not also take?

4. Mary had an organ taken just like the others.

Marys missing organ has nothing at all to do with her being a woman, and in the two previous organ extractions, the uterus, complete, and partial...is taken. Even when he also takes something else, he doesnt leave the uterus.

5. Mary was killed in the same general area as the others.

So were more than 11 women in little more than a year. Seems to me there is no need for speculation...other killers killed prostitutes too. And with knives. Explain Alice.

Is it really that big a leap of faith to accept a different M.O. in different circumstances?

Nope....but neither is it a huge gamble to take the position that the most vital elements and pattens shown in the prior murders....dark alleys/streets, subdue quietly-cut throat-excise what is desired, and take it with him when he departs....are for the most part not in evidence here.

And finally is there really that big a difference between slicing someone's nose and cutting it off completely?

Dont we have a medical opinion that refers to Kates cuts as "playful", at least the chevrons...can we say Marys cuts look the same?

And the whole indoor/outdoor argument goes by me completely. I mean it pretty much had to be one or the other, right?

Agreed. But when he is 4 for 4..possibly...with a 1000 batting average, looking for whores where he was most likely to find them after midnight... possibly asleep in their room, and in a courtyard that he could easily be trapped in, doesnt sound like a high percentage target, or objective..why switch.

c.d.

My best bud.

[c.d.]

Michael,

You keep making the same argument over and over. Namely that if you can show differences in M.O. between the previous murders that we attribute to Jack and Mary's murder we are forced to conclude that she was killed by someone other than Jack. As has been pointed out numerous times, there are differences in all the murders. No two are exactly the same. Do we therefore have to accept different killers in each instance?

You compile a list of minor differences but shrug off major similarities:

1. Mary was a prostitute just like the others.
2. Mary had her throat cut just like the others.
3. Mary had her abdomen ripped open just like the others.
4. Mary had an organ taken just like the others.
5. Mary was killed in the same general area as the others.

Is it really that big a leap of faith to accept a different M.O. in different circumstances?

And finally is there really that big a difference between slicing someone's nose and cutting it off completely?

And the whole indoor/outdoor argument goes by me completely. I mean it pretty much had to be one or the other, right?

c.d.

Hi folks,

Before we discard discussion of whether Mary was strangled or not, its worth noting that possibly all the priors were, before he cut. There is no sign of struggle with any of them, and they all...excluding perhaps Liz...were cut after they were "co-operative", and on the ground. Liz's throat may have been cut while falling.

An opinion was given that Mary was attacked in the upper right corner of her bed, possibly with a sheet over her face. The splatter on the wall, and the fact that the blood is primarily on the bed, or under it, supports that suggestion.

So...Jack doesnt want uteri or kidneys anymore, doesnt want to kill outdoors, doesnt necessarily care if he meets his victim while she is prostituting in alleys, or has to visit them in their room, doesnt take the organs he has extracted anyway, but chooses a new one which means further invasive cutting, ..doesnt "cut off a nose to spite a face", but instead erases it completely...and now decides that he will restrict access to his crime scene when he leaves, by purposefully engaging the spring lock. But he does want to spend precious minutes stripping Marys right thigh of flesh, and almost stripping her left......but he doesnt see the need to subdue his victim first...before cutting the throat..at least this time.

Hmm.....seems like serial killers either do change almost all their habits suddenly and without provocation, or this wasnt done by Jack the Ripper.

My best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

There is no way we can tell what his aspirations were as he cut their throats, is there?

True, Fisherman - although I guess that sawing through the ribcage and eviscerating the thorax in the open air wouldn't have been particularly feasible Seriously, though, if the killer felt like removing any organs, then the abdomen was the "obvious" (to use your word) place to start.

[NOV9]

Something that's always bothered me as well! I think Dew said in his memoirs that he slipped and fell in the blood on the floor, but that may well have been hyperbole. That having been said, the killer couldn't have left that place without a trail of footprints even if the blood had spurted in one corner. Unless the floor was completely level--or uneven in the corner enough for an 8-pint pool of blood, there would have been blood everywhere. It wasn't a big room! Another reason why I like McCarthy who could have done the killing etc, nipped into his store, picked up a few wet rags and gotten rid of any footprints without anyone knowing. He might also have been able to get rid of any 'dirty' linen etc there.

It was not a big room only 10x12 feet, and you made a very interesting point about "McCarthy who could have done the killing etc, nipped into his store, picked up a few wet rags and gotten rid of any footprints without anyone knowing. "

He does seem a likely person staying in his Buffer Zone.

He may have thought that Mary would like him if he held back on collecting rent.

Jack was probably not a very popular guy with the girls, because of his hatred for women.

Someone bleeds out like Mary did in the mattress or on the wall, and Jack slopping the body parts around from bed to table could not have keep the floor clean from blood.

You know that was probably why no one saw Jack leave, because he never did.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:
"I'll stick to my original statement that they were his only "real options", Fisherman. There is literally nothing else in the lower abdomen that could realistically have been taken away by the killer, and nothing in the upper abdomen that couldn't have been removed without lifting the intestinal tract well out of the way, ideally removing the intestines completely, to allow unhampered access to the liver, spleen and pancreas."

Think you may have misunderstood me slightly here, Sam. I agree that the way he left them points to him settling for the meagre options you suggest. And I agree that time would have been of essence, diminishing his possibilities of advanced surgery. And that was why I wrote that you were in all probability right.
There is no way of knowing, however, how much the Ripper himself felt that time and positioning of the victims hampered him. For all we know, he may have felt "Ah, finally! IŽll begin with the uterus, move on to the liver, dig the lungs out and end it by grasping the heart". There is no way we can tell what his aspirations were as he cut their throats, is there? And that is why I prefer "obvious options" to "only real options".
It is a minor point though, and much of a semantic one. And since my own stance is that he was perfectly happy (if that is the word for it...) with what was primarily offered by the abdomen cut, it is not much of a topic for an epic battle, I feel!

The best!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

But she wasn't strangled first was she? Wasn't Kelly killed directly with a slash across the throat?

We don't know for certain, Chava. She may have been partly strangled - could the evidence have been obliterated by the extensive knife wounds? Then again she may not, and it's not as if we're certain that all the Ripper's previous victims were strangled either. On another tack, given the fact that she was killed indoors, it's possible that she could have struggled a bit before being smothered with her own pillow.

[Chava]

The answer Sox just posted should be noted by those that assume Mary was perhaps standing when first attacked...the vast majority of blood was found on or beneath the mattress.

But she wasn't strangled first was she? Wasn't Kelly killed directly with a slash across the throat? Because if so, then her heart would have pumped out a ton of blood quite forcibly before it began to slow down, which would have meant blood all over the wall and I assume onto the floor. Some blood might have seeped out unto the mattress after the heart gave out, but I think a quantity of blood must have hit the wall and so on first. And then dripped...

[Sam Flynn]

Sam writes:
"The removal of Eddowes' kidney simply does not square with a killer taking "sexual" organs - it squares with one taking whatever he can get away with at the time. The kidney, uterus and bladder were the only real options available to the killer in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square."

And that, of course, has a true ring to it, though I would not mind changing "only real options" for "obvious options".

I'll stick to my original statement that they were his only "real options", Fisherman. There is literally nothing else in the lower abdomen that could realistically have been taken away by the killer, and nothing in the upper abdomen that couldn't have been removed without lifting the intestinal tract well out of the way, ideally removing the intestines completely, to allow unhampered access to the liver, spleen and pancreas.

Hi again,

The answer Sox just posted should be noted by those that assume Mary was perhaps standing when first attacked...the vast majority of blood was found on or beneath the mattress.

Nov 9th...."I never said that I was imagining this killer sitting in near darkness.
have you read anything that I wrote?"...yes I have...and the remark I made should have cued you to the surroundings that night, when youve suggested a rage influence was present. The only rage is evident in the initial attack, and Marys face...the rest of that crime scene shows deliberate actions, done with some care and attention....in the dark, or near darkness.

He may well be a Jewish, Polish Immigrant...but so you know that is speculation made by Anderson..no proof is offered with it. I myself believe he was Anti-semetic, because I think he wrote the GSG, and it referred to Jews on Berner St that had alleged Jack killed Liz...when the Ripper knew better.

My best regards.

[Sox]

But Mary's room had to have almost 8 quarts of blood soaked into the mattress and on to the floor. How did he not make footprints in blood leaving her place out onto the main street? and the police did not take notice to this?

According to the report, most of the blood was soaked into the matress or under the bed.

[Chava]

But Mary's room had to have almost 8 quarts of blood soaked into the mattress and on to the floor. How did he not make footprints in blood leaving her place out onto the main street? and the police did not take notice to this?

Something that's always bothered me as well! I think Dew said in his memoirs that he slipped and fell in the blood on the floor, but that may well have been hyperbole. That having been said, the killer couldn't have left that place without a trail of footprints even if the blood had spurted in one corner. Unless the floor was completely level--or uneven in the corner enough for an 8-pint pool of blood, there would have been blood everywhere. It wasn't a big room! Another reason why I like McCarthy who could have done the killing etc, nipped into his store, picked up a few wet rags and gotten rid of any footprints without anyone knowing. He might also have been able to get rid of any 'dirty' linen etc there.

[NOV9]

Hi Fisherman,All three organs are comparatively solid and portable. The heart and kidney are also edible. I'd go for portability over cannibalism, on balance.

Sam,

I know that this question is out of context with what you just quoted.

But Mary's room had to have almost 8 quarts of blood soaked into the mattress and on to the floor. How did he not make footprints in blood leaving her place out onto the main street? and the police did not take notice to this?