Did Mary know her attacker?

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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?

[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

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]

Colin is of course right.
Much of what represents our personal positions here and on many other issues is to some degree a matter of 'gut feeling' - and that wouldn't be particularly strange. Heck, even policemen and modern investigators have to work from 'gut feelings' when there are lack of sufficent data or evidence.

I agree with Colin on some points (Emma Smith, George Hutchinson, possibly Schwartz), not on others (Tabram, the Swanson Marginalia), and again - it's all based on how we independetly interpret the evidence at hand, and a personal gut feeling. Since there is such lack of information, it is hard to claim anything else.

Also a good point, Colin, about 'Mary Jane' and not simply 'Mary'. I haven't really thought of that before, but you may be right.

All the best

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Looking at the previous murders, I can not see the perpetrator adopting the above method.

But if you look at the previous murders, you won't see the perpetrator killing prostitutes indoors either. Obviously, if we're prepared to accept the possibility that the killer could alter the type of venue when committing his crimes (as we should be), we should make the same sort of allowances for a possible change in approach. 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.

The killer needn't have arrived on the scene from 11:45pm. He may have noticed her at that time (where she lived etc) and resolved to return at a later stage.

Regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Hi Observer,



Either through prior experience of a contractual nature, or by waiting for Kelly to finish with a client, and then seeking the auspicious moment to enter and attack. Alternatively, if Blotchy was the killer, it could be argued that his 11:45pm visit was a reconnaisance effort.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi again

I'm thinking Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, brief encounter, place and fee agreed, and then the quick kill, Jack the stalker seems alien to the above three murders. Can you see Jacky changing his MO? It's poss9ible I suppose

Observer

Keep on believin what you do...

Hi Michael,

I'm going to throw a little empathy in your direction, but first:

You really are determined to keep testing the depth of the water with both feet, aren’t you? Now where have I seen that phrase recently?

Sincerely,
Michael

"Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet."
African Proverb

You really should reconsider your "signature", in light of the position, which you have taken in this particular discussion.

Anyway:

We all have "gut feelings", Michael !!! But we must be willing to acknowledge that even when based on the tangible and/or circumstantial evidence that is available; they are still "gut feelings".

I have several !!! In some cases, my belief is nothing less than heartfelt; while in other cases, my belief is not quite as profound.

To name a few:

--- I am inclined to believe that Emma Smith fabricated the circumstances of her attack, in order to avoid self-incrimination. Had she been injured by a client or group of clients, who just happened to get a little rough, she may have been fearful that an admission to being a destitute prostitute would have landed her in the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, upon her anticipated recovery.

--- I am inclined to believe that Martha Tabram was stabbed thirty eight times with a single weapon, in a non-frenzied, somewhat calculated manner of "trepid foreplay"; and a thirty ninth time, with the same weapon, but with much less trepidation.

--- I do not believe a single word of Israel Schwartz's statement.

--- I am inclined to believe that Stride's murderer may have been disturbed, and that the completion of his "work" was thus precluded; that he was then enraged and obsessively compelled to do something, which he considered morally wrong – kill twice in the same excursion; and that he genuinely blamed the "Juwes" for this unfortunate set of circumstances. You know the rest …

--- I do not believe a word of George Hutchinson's statement – meaning of course, that I do not believe he was anywhere near Miller's Court, during the morning in question.

--- I am inclined to believe that St. Botolph's Church, St. Botolph Without Aldgate was never known as "The Prostitutes' Church", until the entrenchment of some sort of folklore, in the twentieth century.

--- I am inclined to believe that the Bethnal Green neighbourhood, which stood where The Boundary Estate stands today, was never known as "The Old Nichol", and perhaps not even "The Nichol", until the entrenchment of some sort of post Arthur Morrison / "A Child of the Jago" folklore; which would be post-1896, after the entire area had been demolished for re-development.

--- I am inclined to believe that Mary Jane Kelly was known to herself, as well as her loved-ones, friends and acquaintances as "Mary Jane"; and that we are unknowingly showing a lack of respect for her memory, by referring to her simply as "Mary". Not so much in this day and age (excepting in the American "South"); but in generations past, Mary Jane, Mary Ann, Mary Ellen, etc… were first names in themselves. This may have been particularly so, within certain elements of Roman Catholic society, where it was believed that there was only one "Mary".

--- I am inclined to believe that the alleged "Seaside Home Identification" was a figment of Anderson's bigoted and egotistical imagination.

--- I am inclined to believe that the so-called "Swanson Marginalia" is a forgery/hoax.

--- I could go on, listing many, many more …

I base these beliefs, Michael, on the foundations of that evidence (tangible and/or circumstantial), which we have at our disposal; and of course, my personal interpretations of that evidence. But, I concede that they are nothing more than "gut feelings".

In many instances, I have come to believe in these theories, simply because I have had to defend their plausibility. Unfortunately, a defensive posture can prompt a stubborn adherence to what was initially perceived as being merely a possibility.


Colin

[Observer]

Hi again Ben

Let me make myself a bit clearer. Kelly was with Blotchy earlier on in the evening, they retired to Kelly's room at 11:45 a.m. For the killer to have stalked Kelly he would have to have stalked both Kelly and blotchy prior to 11:45 a.m. He would then need to wait in Dorset Street until Blotchy left Kelly, for some strange reason Blotchy would have needed to vacate Kelly's room just before 4:00 a.m. the killer then entered Kelly's room and murdered her. of course Blotchy could have left at any time after 11:45, but Kelly was murdered at 4:00am. why the waite? Looking at the previous murders, I can not see the perpetrator adopting the above method.

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

But Kelly retired at 11:45. p.m. she never went out again, the odds are she was murdered at approx 4:00 a.m. How did her killer stalk her between those times?

Either through prior experience of a contractual nature, or by waiting for Kelly to finish with a client, and then seeking the auspicious moment to enter and attack. Alternatively, if Blotchy was the killer, it could be argued that his 11:45pm visit was a reconnaisance effort.

Best regards,
Ben

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I certainly agree with that, Michael. All good points.

All the best

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


I think instead of claiming that Mary was very much like the priors, which is incorrect, isnt it advisable that the list you compare her with are similar, and likley all died by the same hand?

Its clear that only some of the women were virtually identical kills. Why would he do some almost the same way, and some completely different? Liz Stride is the other glaring example of a victim that has no business in a Canon that only includes 3 women that have similar wounds and circumstances, only 2 of which were most likely by one man.. perhaps 3...but of the 2...Polly and Annie, despite the fact that Pollys organs remained with her, are closest in style and injuries. Kate's partial uterus is the key element in that attribution I would think.

I think its clear you cannot use the wounds to bundle these prior 4 as evidence of a single killer, nor should the wounds on the fifth be used to favourably compare with priors. But there can be a case made for repetitive methodology on all 4 priors.

Best regards.