Jack had to slip up

[NOV9]

Hi Folks,

To Paul firstly, you are making my argument for me ...the heart was a slip up, an indicator that perhaps this was a spurned/lost love issue, with the recipient of the bad news being unstable. Had Marys killler taken her uterus or entire pelvic region, we would have an "elevated" Jack most likely. IMHO.

Cd, the removal of Kates kidney was not at the expense of at least 3/4 of her uterus as well, it was both. The issue here being continuity in the focus on the pelvic and abdominal region of a woman...a heart has no gender.I never said he wouldnt do more after Kates injuries, new things, I just think repeating every prior act to some degree, then omitting to take the most female organs, is unJacklike.

Nov 9th...if you imagine this killer sitting in near darkness in a small room flailing away, youre incorrect, ..because he piece by piece extracts or removes and then places things about her corpse. Her face is anger related, I agree...Unlike Kates wounds which were spiteful and serious, but hardly virtually erasing her identity...had Kelly been just a little curious why the woman he slept with almost every night was gone for two or three in a row, maybe she would have been id'd quicker...but Mary only exhibits some initial rage, in the attack, and her face..

BlackKat, I dont know where it went, but I do know it wasnt in the room.

Without countering everything, let me just say that if you feel that being a woman wasnt relevant to Jack the Ripper when seeking organs, then a heart makes fine sense. I dont feel it was unimportant, in fact he takes Kates only 3/4 after removing a new objective...why didnt he just take the kidney? But no...he takes even a partial uterus, portions of the womans external vagina from Annie.

Seems clear to me he was intentionally killing women, and taking female related organs primarily. The 2nd and 4th victim both lost uteri. So hows a heart fit into the profile...the mad serial killer vexed by his impotence, or rage at whores or women...Heres the thing.....how can a heart be specifically female?.......how about when it comes from an object of the killers affection, or source of rejection....one who is female.

Now remember we have a lover of hers that will be declared insane in the near future...just like his family genes indicated.

My best regards all.

Hi,

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

I never said that I was imagining this killer sitting in near darkness.
have you read anything that I wrote?

[NOV9]

[QUOTE=detective abberline;2041]

Detective Abberline, McCarthy's store was certainly open late into the night. I'll check, but I believe an inquest/police witness puts him there at around 1.00 am.

Hi. Why then didn't he talk about people or more spefically men he had seen exiting Miller's Ct? I don't think he killed Mary but he must have known what she was up to.

Cheers

Hi,

Why don't you think McCarthy killed Mary?

At Body dumpsites, the condition of the victim tells allot about the Killer would you agree?

[NOV9]

Hello all,

I think that the notion of a key access and closure by the killer is untenable....McCarthy forces open his own door...there was no key, nor an extra one owned by McCarthy.

Why didnt he use the window access? He did know of it. I believe its for this reason...show. To show the people in attendance and the crowd gathering it was the only way to get in. To prove the door was locked. Why the fuss?

Because they entered earlier by using the window, but did not want that known, outside the force. A Medical Man is there by 11:30am...looks in the window, and states later that he saw there was nothing he could do for her...so he just waited until 1:30pm, and the forced entry. Bullocks.

We know there was nothing he could do for her...but there was plenty he could still do...knowing the body would remain in that room until a forensic exam had been completed, and knowing Dorset Street would fill with locals making the guarding officers jobs difficult. They needed to do the site inspection, make notes on Mary, and get her corpse out of there... for crowd control at least. I think those notes started being taken before 1:30pm.

If the killer left via the door, and the latch was "on", to allow him entry earlier, whether he reached in himself, or she left it "on" when she fell asleep....at the very least he must have set the latch "off" himself. If the door was unlocked when he came in for her, he still has to engage the lock himself when leaving.

Now.....when has Jack ever put an obstacle between people finding the body, or the arriving investigators access to it,...and the deceased?

My best regards all.

Jack wanted people to find his victims, and he wanted to shock them with what he did, he probably would come back to watch their reactions.

There were thousands of prostitutes walking Whitechapel, and I do not think that he even knew Mary.

My take is that it was someone very close to Mary whom wanted to control her but failed, just one of the triggers that set him off.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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! I´ll 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

[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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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.