Did Mary know her attacker?

[perrymason]

Colin that was a singularly magnificent post. I can easily concede "hunches" rather than "fact" when faced with such honest and interesting observations.

So I will. For the sake of integrity, and camaraderie, and accuracy...I should not have referred to my opinions as being most likely.

Some really good thoughts Colin...maybe not on Stride , but pretty darn interesting nonetheless.

Thanks for the supportive comment Glenn. Its nice not to always be the bad guy.

Cheers gents,.. ladies.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

As we learn from Bundy, to cite one example, different venues called for different approaches, and while Bundy adopted various false guises to inveigle several of his victims, he simply "invaded" when it came to indoor kills.

Ben,
No offense, but I think we should be cautious about comparisons with other serial killers when investigating Jack the Ripper - the Ripper was no Ted Bundy to begin with and many serial killers are individuals in their own right. What we should be looking at is what the Ripper did in his previous murders and nothing else.

All the best

[Chava]

Excellent points, Colin.

Now I'd like to ask one small question (to which I have no good answer!) to the esteemed posters of the board:

Why did he not take Kelly's uterus as well as the heart?

[Sam Flynn]

Now I'd like to ask one small question (to which I have no good answer!) to the esteemed posters of the board:

Why did he not take Kelly's uterus as well as the heart?

Why not her kidney(s)? Truth is, we can't answer the question one way or another, Chava - and it'd have little to do with the central question of this thread, unless one wanted to invoke tortuous symbolism about the murder being personal. It strikes me that one would struggle to get more "personal" than running away with a woman's womb or, indeed, her "external organs of generation" and sumptuous breasts. Hearts, by contrast, are unisex.

[perrymason]

Excellent points, Colin.

Now I'd like to ask one small question (to which I have no good answer!) to the esteemed posters of the board:

Why did he not take Kelly's uterus as well as the heart?

Hows this Colin........one answer to that question would be is because they were different men, with different reasons for taking organs.

I share the conviction of other posters that the uterus was not a randomly selected commodity with Annie or Kate, and it may have been the ultimate objective of Pollys killer.

Using Polly as the baseline, when compared with the very next victim attributed to Jack, one might conclude that Polly's wounds were leading to similar results as seen with Annie. This is why I feel she may have been the interrupted murder....because she has wounds consistent with an ultimate objective of abdominal organ excision.....Liz Strides "wound" is what kills her.

Cheers Chava.

[perrymason]

Why not her kidney(s)? Truth is, we can't answer the question one way or another, Chava - and it'd have little to do with the central question of this thread, unless one wanted to invoke tortuous symbolism about the murder being personal. It strikes me that one would struggle to get more "personal" than running away with a woman's womb or, indeed, her "external organs of generation" and sumptuous breasts. Hearts, by contrast, are unisex.

Tell that to a jilted male lover capable of violence Sam. I think hearts are gender neutral only when refraining from seeing it being separate from emotional or relationship terms.

Someone stole her heart. Someone took her kidney....seems one of those has meaning beyond "meat".

Cheers Sam...and I hope Colins squeezing civility out of me has appeased any anger you might have had towards me regarding this thread.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Just so we are certain that the information used to counter comments regarding the differences that exits in Mary Kellys case from the preceding Canonicals...heres a few..

-The first 4 were all killed outdoors, not at their known residence, and were assumed to be soliciting at the time.
-Three of the first 4 have abdominal mutilations as the primary area of mutilation.
-Two of the first 4 have the same organ taken, one complete, one partial. Both were specifically female.
-All 4 were middle aged
-1 had facial mutilations
-1 had no mutilations at all
-None had hearts taken
-There was never an abdominal organ extracted and left at the site in the first 4....the intestines I believe are considered a system, rather than a simple organ
-The previous organ donors did not have their midsection's emptied
-None of the previous 4 victims had access to their bodies inhibited by a barrier...such as a locked door.
-Two of the previous victims killers were attributed skill and knowledge by medical examiners, or likely done by the same man
-None of the previous victims had already paid for a bed the night they were killed.
-None had their own room in their own name.
-1 of the priors had, the week of her death, ended a live-in, or long running relationship

...the items in bold are almost certainly irrelevant for various reasons, the primary one being that most of them were outside the killer's control or had nothing to do with the physical act of murder itself - e.g. what happened in the victims' past, including when they were born; the doctor's later opinions; whether the victims had a room to their name; etc.

The other apparent differences aren't very compelling either: Kelly, too, had abdominal mutilations - pretty major ones; the removal of a heart from a semi-naked corpse in a private room is a tricky enough proposition, and infinitely more tricky when attempted in the open air with a fully-clothed victim; apart from the uterus, bladder and kidney there are no "portable" lower abdominal organs at all - therefore the removal of them from the scene of the open-air murders is hardly remarkable; the fact that the others had no room of their own makes the fact that they were killed in the open air almost inevitable; etc.

We've been here before, but the same rules apply - namely that it's important to consider which factors were indisputably within the killer's gift to influence, and which weren't, before we deem a difference to be significant. We must also weed out those features which could have more mundane explanations, before we can even entertain the thought of using them a some sort of "benchmark". I know that leaves us comparatively little to go on, but at least it provides a more even playing field.

[Sam Flynn]

I hope Colins squeezing civility out of me has appeased any anger you might have had towards me regarding this thread.

I harbour no anger towards you, Mike - I really don't.

[Chava]

Sam, he's 2 for 2 taking uterus (I'm assuming that 'uterus' is 4th declension so the plural is 'uterus' as well!). He's got the means and the opportunity. I can see him taking her heart as well as her organs of generation. Hell, he could have stuffed a breast or two in his little packet along with all the rest.

But he didn't. And it's not like he wouldn't have been able to find it, what with Kelly having been disassembled into component parts as if she were a Mercedes in a chop shop.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, he's 2 for 2 taking uterus (I'm assuming that 'uterus' is 4th declension so the plural is 'uterus' as well!). He's got the means and the opportunity. I can see him taking her heart as well as her organs of generation. Hell, he could have stuffed a breast or two in his little packet along with all the rest.

But he didn't.

I see no definite issue with this. It's dangerous, from such a small sample, to attribute much in the way of significance in the finer points of the previous murders. Even then it's worth recalling that the Ripper left uteri, kidneys and bladders behind in those as well.

[Chava]

Sam, it looks as though he was disturbed in the Nicholls and Stride murders so we can't conclude he didn't intend to take anything. He certainly took from Eddowes, so I believe that was his intent with Stride.

[perrymason]

"...the items in bold are almost certainly irrelevant for various reasons, the primary one being that most of them were outside the killer's control or had nothing to do with the physical act of murder itself - e.g. what happened in the victims' past, including when they were born; the doctor's later opinions; whether the victims had a room to their name; etc."

Sam, contextually it doesnt matter what specific items I mentioned you consider not relevant, since its most....but I believe who he kills, what he takes, and what their immediate circumstances were the night they are killed are the central questions of the stories. You have no serial killer unless you can weave those 5 women into that "tapestry"...and it cannot be done by excluding key data.

"The other apparent differences aren't very compelling either: Kelly, too, had abdominal mutilations - pretty major ones;"

True, her entire gut is emptied, not too discriminating..and he takes nothing from it.......

"... the removal of a heart from a semi-naked corpse in a private room is a tricky enough proposition, and infinitely more tricky when attempted in the open air with a fully-clothed victim; apart from the uterus, bladder and kidney there are no "portable" lower abdominal organs at all - therefore the removal of them from the scene of the open-air murders is hardly remarkable; the fact that the others had no room of their own makes the fact that they were killed in the open air almost inevitable; etc."

That of course is based upon Random Selection by the killer, which is not what is being suggested, nor is it proven. Had he desires for specific organs, the evidence exists in at least two victims to counter that view, and his choice of outdoor venues is therefore fine... if only interested in obtaining abdominal organs that would be easiest under the circumstances to obtain.

So why would that man then move to a venue that increases his privacy ease and time constraints to get those very organs,.... forget any fascination with the taking of abdominal organs, cut them out but not take them ...and instead, leave them all, placing them in funny places?

"We've been here before, but the same rules apply - namely that it's important to consider which factors were indisputably within the killer's gift to influence,"....


Like when he kills, where he kills, who he kills, what he does and what he takes you mean?

"..... and which weren't, before we deem a difference to be significant. We must also weed out those features which could have more mundane explanations, before we can even entertain the thought of using them a some sort of "benchmark". I know that leaves us comparatively little to go on, but at least it provides a more even playing field."

[/QUOTE]

What it leaves us with Sam, is absolutely none of the information that any investigator worth a pinch of salt would consider some of the most relevant information concerning the murders.

Cheers Sam.

[perrymason]

Question:

How many of the C5 victims had either abortions or miscarriages that we know of...and which ones?

I believe Liz had at least one abortion in Sweden. Perhaps her uterus wouldnt be target for a uterus hunter. Does anyone know of the others?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Right you are, Fisherman, but at the same time, it's clear that Mary Cox was out soliciting that night without bringing any clients home. If Mary Cox solicited on the streets and "serviced" them there despite the availabilty of a private room, then it's more then reasonable to infer that Kelly may have done similarly."

...which makes me think that you may have missed out on a few posts, Ben; for what I have done is to suggest that Cox may well have had nocturnal visitors in the court that night - but omitted to say so to the police.
We have only Cox´s own words to go on in this matter, and she may have left out a name or two, keeping customers from being scrutinized by the police. It is just a guess, but I feel that there is at least a chance that we may be too eager to swallow Cox´s "warming up-sessions" as being non punter-related.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

I believe Liz had at least one abortion in Sweden. Perhaps her uterus wouldnt be target for a uterus hunter. Does anyone know of the others?

Unless Stride's killer was her hometown physician fresh in from Sweden, I think we can rule out her alleged abortion as a motive for not having cut her open.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott