Mary Kellys cadaver would not be out of place....

[perrymason]

The salient point is that the publicity did. How was the average man in the street going to know about about this (alleged) approach by that American quack otherwise?

Hi Sam,

I would think that since the American doctor was refused his samples by legitimate sources he might have to resort to less than legitimate ones. The streets were full of men that could acquire things, some that acquired them at the point of a knife.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

I would think that since the American doctor was refused his samples by legitimate sources he might have to resort to less than legitimate ones.

But that's making one huge leap of faith, Mike - anyone purporting to procure said organs would have been taking an enormous risk by getting a presumably desperate-for-cash loony to do his dirty work for him in such an extravagant manner.

Even if Baxter's story were true, the anonymous American's request was made quite some time before the Ripper murders - if it ever happened, that is, and I have some niggling doubts that it did. All that aside, it remains a fact that there were far less dangerous ways of securing samples of said organ than cutting women open in the public streets.

The whole idea is preposterous. And so saying, it's back into my imaginary Tardis I go, to kick Wynne Baxter's irresponsible arse once again.

[dmann30]

Michael,

I would like to be sure I understand that you do not believe the person who did that to MJK was at the very least a little bit not right in his head? That if you or I were a butcher, one of us would just feel like going into someone's room and performing those atrocities? I do not agree that the person who did this was completely insane - there was something resembling method to the madness - but honestly Michael, I am not buying that he was sane either, IMO of course.

[perrymason]

Michael,

I would like to be sure I understand that you do not believe the person who did that to MJK was at the very least a little bit not right in his head? That if you or I were a butcher, one of us would just feel like going into someone's room and performing those atrocities? I do not agree that the person who did this was completely insane - there was something resembling method to the madness - but honestly Michael, I am not buying that he was sane either, IMO of course.

Hi dmann,

Sadly we have history to show us that many killers did what they did after the murder itself as a means of preserving their freedom.

I think of a man in Toronto a few years back who wanted to rape a small girl, and when he acted on that impulse, he then felt compelled to cut her into pieces and put the parts duffel bags.. so he could dispose of the remains without exposing himself to being caught.

Mary was cut to pieces after she was murdered...her killer may have only slashed at her a bit then slit her throat to accomplish her murder, so perhaps everything that makes people sick by merely looking at the pictures of Mary Jane was done to a dead woman...which at that point in time, isnt far removed from the types of things med students did and still do to cadavers.

Could a sane man who killed in a moment of anger do that afterwards? Do killers cut up and bury murder victims? Do they pour acid on the bodies? Do they cut off fingers so there can be no fingerprints to check? Do they pull out the teeth of a dead woman they said they once loved for the same reason?

We both know all those answers are yes.

Cheers dmann

[dmann30]

Michael,

I see your point very clearly. People who are sane do strange things under stress. I guess my point is that this was more than just preserving freedom Michael. This was more along the lines of exploration, both of the body and of limits (if that makes sense). This particular scene does not strike me as a sane man covering his tracks, nor does it strike me as a medical student checking out the body. That is not the feeling I get from it at all. It feels infinitely more like someone interested in what is in there for a completely different reason than medical study.

P.S. I realize that what happened to MJK occurred after she was dead, but that does not make the occurrence any less atrocious (to my p.o.v. anyway).

Thank you, Michael.

[perrymason]

Michael,

I see your point very clearly. People who are sane do strange things under stress. I guess my point is that this was more than just preserving freedom Michael. This was more along the lines of exploration, both of the body and of limits (if that makes sense). This particular scene does not strike me as a sane man covering his tracks, nor does it strike me as a medical student checking out the body. That is not the feeling I get from it at all. It feels infinitely more like someone interested in what is in there for a completely different reason than medical study.

P.S. I realize that what happened to MJK occurred after she was dead, but that does not make the occurrence any less atrocious (to my p.o.v. anyway).

Thank you, Michael.

Hey D,

My take on this scene is that the man who cut Mary up was transfixed by the experience of doing so.....lost, if you will. He does things to the corpse that seem only to satisfy some curiosity...like how would the thigh look without flesh on it....maybe he liked the curious look of that leg....bone leading to supple calf of a once attractive woman. The placement of extracted items.

I think if anything her mutilation shows us a man without an objective beyond cutting......Jack the Ripper showed different objectives at the start of this alleged series...a focus even....the killer in room 13... to me... was trying to deface her corpse and got lost while doing so.

Might have even shocked himself that he could do that.

Cheers again D

[Sam Flynn]

I think if anything her mutilation shows us a man without an objective beyond cutting.....

So the excision of eight or so organs counts for nothing, Mike?

Jack the Ripper showed different objectives at the start of this alleged series...

We have no idea what his "objectives" were at any part in the series.

a focus even....

There's nothing quite like time-pressure to focus the mind.

Might have even shocked himself that he could do that.

Possibly, but he'd have been somewhat desensitized if he was the same person who inflicted the entirely spurious facial wounds on Catherine Eddowes.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I am amazed that the perpretrator of kellys murder, even managed to reach the end of Dorset street after that bloodbath, he must have been a raving lunatic, who would have almost certainly had given himself away, not only in the amount of bloodstains, but his overall manner.
He must have had a means of escape which would have involved someones help, or at the very least a place of safety close by.
That is of course if JTR , was kellys killer, but if the murder involved a copycat killing, and the intention was to blame the former for the ghastly deed, then he could have been as sane as you or I, and the violence was simply done for self presevation , not from an act of madness.
Regards Richard.

[perrymason]

Youre the bold sections Sam....I thought that fitting..

So the excision of eight or so organs counts for nothing, Mike?.....Not at all, but he only kept one. The rest were placed about Mary Jane. There can be no reasonable claim that suggests any of the organs that he left behind had the same significance to him as the single organ that he takes with him. And that coveted organ was a gender neutral one. I believe Jack killed women for a reason, beyond the most obvious in terms of likely prey. There were derelict men around too....he could have slit a few of those. He didnt apparently, and that is important I feel.

We have no idea what his "objectives" were at any part in the series........You may not Sam, but I tend to believe and the physicians comments support a belief that his objective with the first 2 killings was to acquire what he did only on the second try. It was suggested that the extraction of said organ was likely the reason itself for the kill. You may not like or agree with that aspect of these cases, but your argument, as youve rightly pointed out in your own way, is with the men who made the statements, not with my use of them.

There's nothing quite like time-pressure to focus the mind........only if its a mind that knows what it wants in the first place.

Possibly, but he'd have been somewhat desensitized if he was the same person who inflicted the entirely spurious facial wounds on Catherine Eddowes........I suppose that might be true, however even Kates terrible wounds pale in comparison to what was done in room 13. Besides,....I dont believe the man that killed Kate killed Mary Jane, so I have no conflicts there.

Cheers Samuel

[perrymason]

Hi,
... but if the murder involved a copycat killing, and the intention was to blame the former for the ghastly deed, then he could have been as sane as you or I, and the violence was simply done for self preservation , not from an act of madness.

Regards Richard.

I think thats what Ive been trying to say, but I prefer your phrasing Richard......what evil men do to cover their tracks, eh?

All the best Richard

[Sam Flynn]

So the excision of eight or so organs counts for nothing, Mike?.....Not at all, but he only kept one.

I presumed that a wheelbarrow wasn't part of his "murder kit", Mike - but you never know!

I didn't answer your other points, because they each draw in some way on the hilarious routines of the comedy double-act Bagster and Baxter (They go wider than this discussion anyway.)

[perrymason]

Hey Sam,

After reading your post I thought of a story to illustrate my point on excising 8 but taking only 1....

A neanderthal comes across a wounded animal, and looks around for something to bonk it on the head with. He picks up a small branch, and it breaks when he tests it. He tries using a piece of mud and it crumbles. He finds a rock, tests in on his hand while its sitting on another rock....like a neanderthal might, not too bright ......and voila, he finds his objective,... a bonking instrument.

What values, forensically, does this prehistoric man show us that he places on the 3 items he handles. It shows us that he only values 1, because he only uses 1. He only wanted 1 thing to use....he tried others, but 1 thing was what he wanted.

Thats the same story with 8 excised and 1 taken.....he only wanted the one that left the room with him apparently. An organ that Jack the Ripper had never shown interest in....and while leaving the excised organs he had shown interest in previously.

And I would think the desire for that organ came upon him as he worked on the corpse,..... because had he gone into that room wanting Marys heart at the outset, at least 50 % or more of whats done to her would be just time wasting. I dont see evidence that half or more of the cuts that Jack made on Annie were unnecessary....or time wasters. And I see no evidence that Annies killer had any inclination towards a heart extraction.

Cheers SF

[slysnide]

JTR may have split open his vics from the sternum to the pelvis, but that was always said to happen with one blade, and in one stroke (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Perhaps it was just for his own convienience? After all, he didn't gut the vics above or around the chest to take any hearts. So making such a long cut is just neccessary to properly evicerate the victim such that they don't get in the way when he goes after what he took from the first 4 vics (so the intestines would naturally have to be pulled out and up rather than out and down). And that's another clue separating MJK's killer from JTR. Her killer didn't take her kidneys or uterus, but rather the heart. And what's the motive for taking the other organs? Since it's generally agreed that JTR had reasonable medical experience as he dissected the women much like a mortician would, then it seems that his motive for making off with them was one of two things: 1) to keep them for personal study as docs would keep such things after dissections if allowed to; 2) cannibalism. For they can't be trophies as organs don't last that long. Albert Fish did the same in the twenties.

Enough of my rhetorical questions. Here's a real one: How do we know that MJK's heart wasn't destroyed through the savagery of the killing? After all it looked more like the work of a butcher than the work of a doctor. Removed organs weren't removed as nicely as everything around them was destroyed, meaning you wouldn't have to have much expertise to remove them when everything else around them is mutilated. Question two: It is said that a group of doctors examined the body at the crime scene rather than at the morgue where it'd be hard to steal away with such things. Given the stated reactions of the police who maintained the crime scene from the public, then is it possible that they just accidentally lost it? Or that a doctor took it? After all, it was a small room. 12' by 7' wasn't it? And the docs knew what they were in for when presumably told there was yet another ripper killing.

And MJK was nearly half the age of the others, killed indoors, screamed for help thus eliminating the element of surprise the ripper presumably had since given the public areas the others were killed at and the fact that the police were on patrol, then they couldn't have screamed since they'd be there to catch the killer before he'd have time to go to work on the deceased whom had specific organs removed & stolen of which MJK did not, meaning that all of this breaks the MO severely. Though after the double murder it'd be obviously hard to try and kill in the streets again, making it a necessity to go indoors and prey on whomever he could instead of prostitutes in their forties wandering the streets at odd hours of the night as the other four were. So maybe it was a necessity (to answer my own question).

I however would like to re-point out that it wouldn't have been as hard to remove the organs of MJK when everything else around them was destroyed. So maybe Jo Barnes was the killer? He was suspected of it, and framing the ripper would be easy. Given the hysteria another murder would cause, the public wouldn't be bright enough to recognize that the MO didn't fit, not that they'd even care after that since it would be even more savage than the previous killings (and it was). The police on the other hand would notice, but without hard evidence like with the previous victims who hadn't any evidence pointing to the killer either, then there'd be nothing they could do about it except succumb to the public's opinion as they'd have no evidence to deter reports of MJK being a ripper victim. And given how truly butchered MJK was, then perhaps Jo Barnes killed MJK in a rage if he killed her at all, and realizing what he'd done he would've had to find an escape route. Enter framing JTR. So then he butchered her, but made sure to remove the organs without damaging them as JTR did, but without a place to store them he left them there on the bed.

And lastly in reference to the point posed in the first post: Being in the presence of a gruesome murder is one thing. Actually killing & butchering them? That's something else.

[caz]

Who the hell is Jo Barnes?

The man who took out Mary's heart did it because he could.

The man who took out Annie's bits and Kate's bits did that because he could.

I'm sure it was just a case of one man doing whatever he fancied doing and was able to do, given the individual circumstances and limited time.

The man would not have been the same man from victim to victim. He would have emerged each time with a new experience to add to the old, and to be judged on its individual merits or otherwise. Whenever he set out again with his knife he arguably took with him a slightly revised wish list and had to reassess his options according to the opportunities offered.

Of course, if one believes he always set out with the same object - to extract and sell wombs from malnourished, alcoholic, potentially diseased and menopausal women - then one will find it hard to imagine a moving wish list, either from choice or absolute necessity. If he doesn't take a womb away with him when he can, it can't be the wombinator.

But I see it the other way round. The fact that he didn't bother taking Mary's womb away with him suggests to me that there never was a wombinator. If the killer was known to Mary, he'd have needed to make it look like Jack's work, so why go to all that trouble and then not take a kidney away with him, even if he didn't recognise the womb? Everyone knew what kidneys looked like and everyone knew that Jack had taken one from the previous victim. Many believed he'd eaten half of it and posted the other half off to Lusk, and might well be after a replacement.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

But I see it the other way round. The fact that he didn't bother taking Mary's womb away with him suggests to me that there never was a wombinator.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

That caption above to me tells me a lot about our discussions, because what youre suggesting is that pre-existing evidence thought to be pivotal to the killer of Polly and Annie at least is made invalid by the fact that Marys killer didnt take her excised uterus away. Medical opinion clearly suggests that Annie died so that she could donate her uterus to the killer. Not any organ....the one he took.

Instead of the more pragmatic position that if the killer in room 13 didnt want the uterus then he may not have the same interests any longer, or he may not be the same man.

My best regards Caz