Mary Kelly - Dismembered Leg?

[DVV]

I'm afraid that I don't understand this one. After Chapman the murders seemed to get spaced farther apart. There could be numerous reasons for this. Serial killers seem to vary their schedule for a variety of unknown reasons.

I agree, Hunter, there could be numerous reasons.
One being that the district was intensively patrolled in October.

On such a basis, I speculate that it could have prompted Jack to focus on his real obsession - Mary.
Hence the 9 Nov murder, indoors and "half domestic"... Perhaps the last of the series. As soon as Mary was living alone and then became "available". (Waow...my English is more broken than ever...sorry!)

Speculation, I know... It happens sometimes...!

Amitiés,
David

[Hamrammr]

Hello Hunter!

Sorry for answering on behalf of David.

But I think, that he agrees at least to some point;

They were the easiest prey...

All the best
Jukka

I think most people would agree that it was because they were the easiest prey rather than because the killer had some vendetta against them. I know it's far too easy to draw comparisons but if we do look at the Yorkshire Ripper case, he killed prostitutes because they were easy prey, more or less offering themselves to be taken. It's more plausible than the vendetta or organ-hunting theories.

I think Ian Huntley talks about the ripper in his book The Gates of Janus (haven't got around to reading it yet). His and Sutcliffe's insights on the Whitechapel murders could be quite illuminating, though it's hard to be sure (especially in Huntley's case) whether anything they said could be trusted.

The book The Lost Boy about the moors murders is a very well written book, if unsurprisingly bleak and unsettling.

D

[DVV]

Hi Hunter,

as Jukka said, I think we agree on many points.
The only difference is that I seriously suspect Fleming.
I plead guilty for that...
But I don't think my approach is biaised for that.

Yes, prostitutes are easy preys - as criminology clearly shows.
Am I allowed to add that Joe's ex-fiancée was a prostitute ?

Amitiés, Hunter and Jukka,
David

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Hunter!

Sorry for answering on behalf of David.

But I think, that he agrees at least to some point;

They were the easiest prey...

All the best
Jukka

[Hunter]

Hi David,

Martha was killed on a landing inside George Yard buildings- at least according to witnesses. It wasn't in a room, so to speak, but it wasn't in the street either.

Let me ask you this- why were all of the victims prostitutes?

[DVV]

Hi Hunter,

You must be kidding.

Tabram killed indoors ?
Did she hold the key or did PC Barrett come with a pickaxe ?

Amitiés,
David

[Hunter]

Hi David,

I usually try to avoid disecting other people's posts because it can be annoying to some ( I've found out the hard way). But, permit me to do this so I don't appear like I'm rambling.

-no murder since the double event

I'm afraid that I don't understand this one. After Chapman the murders seemed to get spaced farther apart. There could be numerous reasons for this. Serial killers seem to vary their schedule for a variety of unknown reasons.

-only murder indoors

Tabram was killed indoors. Of course, some don't include her as JTR's, but there were so few murders in this series its hard to say that Kelly's murder being indoors means anything except maybe, the killer got lucky. I think he was an opportunist because he picked the easiest targets as victims so I don't imagine him getting too sophisticated with his method of obtaining victims because he really didn't have to. Even at the height of the Ripper scare the prostitutes were still doing business. He may have looked for someone that had her own room to act out his fantasy more completly, but he didn't have to know her ( on a personal level) to do that.

-most mutilated victim

Someone had to be. It would be logical to assume that a mutilator would try to go farther each time as he got more bold. That seemed to be the pattern- with the exception of Stride. The privacy of a room gave him the ultimate opportunity- whether by accident or design.

-probably JtR last murder - at least in a full "Ripper-style"

There could be many reasons for that. I don't think, with the information currently at hand, I could venture a plausable guess as to why he stopped( if he did).

I think she didn't venture out again after Blotchy

Maybe not. All the killer had to do was knock on the door. Women like her were usually open for business all night. I don't believe that her being drunk means much. She seemed to get drunk alot. Alcoholics learn to function somewhat anyway. I know. I've had relatives like that. That was one problem that all of the victims evidently shared. Polly Nichols was staggering drunk just before she was murdered. Chapman had spent all night drinking and I doubt Eddowes had sobered up any more than to be able to walk without falling down.

None of this means that I think Hutchison didn't kill Mary. He may have. But there are just as many plausable reasons that someone else did too. And since we don't know for sure, I'm not prepared to implicate any particular individual with something as serious as murder until we know more than we currently do.

[DVV]

Hi Syglass,

Many things are possible considering the lack of credible information in many areas so one must strive to find the probable; and even that could be incorrect with the lack of proof.

I wonder if one might see something personal in Annie Chapman's murder as well if there had been a crime scene photo of her; with her uterus removed, her intestines draped over her shoulder and her pitiful belongings laid at her feet. The attacks on Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes showed a remarkable amount of savagery.

Hi Hunter,

see post #26.
And believe me, I'm not obsessed with suspects.
Except one.

Amitiés,
David

[Hamrammr]

Hello Dean,

Feel free to start a thread on any topic you wish. There are many on Mary Jane and they usually evolve into a Hutchinson debate, which somewhat relates to my earlier post.

As far as Mary's head is concerned, I don't think it is believed that the killer got between the bed and the wall. She likely got near the wall in a defensive posture, then, after she was killed the murderer pulled her to the center of the bed to perform the mutilations. Since he would have been on the open side of the bed he may have turned her head towards him to slash the face and left it in that position when he was through.

There has been some debate as to whether he posed his victims after the mutilations. Its possible, but it appears to me that they were just left in a position that facillitated mutilation.

One note on the personal aspect; assuming that implies someone she knew. I can't recall a single case during that time of a "domestic" killing that included mutilation on that level unless the killer was intending to dispose of the body; which wasn't the case here. Most murders by persons known to the victim conclude after the original intent ( which was the killing itself) is accomplished; unless, of course, there is a desire to dispose of the body. Domestics are usually successfully prosecuted as well because the motive can be traced. None of the Whitechapel murders seem to fall into that catagory and that's why most people considered them an abberation from the typical violence that was seen.

Hunter/Spyglass

Thank you both for your comments. Very sensible and very informative. From what you both say it is clear the ripper was on the open, not the wall side of the bed, and likely this is why her face is toward the camera. He would clearly had to have moved around her while he worked though. I remember reading about a similar horrific, contemporary case in one of Paul Britton's books, possibly The Jigsaw Man concerning a similar level of brutality. Obviously disturbing and shocking, but at the same time baffling as to why anyone would go to such lengths. It's clearly not just the killing that these monsters craved but the total and utter defacement and dehumanisation of their victims. Will we ever understand why they did it? Do we want to?

D

[Hunter]

Hello Dean,

Feel free to start a thread on any topic you wish. There are many on Mary Jane and they usually evolve into a Hutchinson debate, which somewhat relates to my earlier post.

As far as Mary's head is concerned, I don't think it is believed that the killer got between the bed and the wall. She likely got near the wall in a defensive posture, then, after she was killed the murderer pulled her to the center of the bed to perform the mutilations. Since he would have been on the open side of the bed he may have turned her head towards him to slash the face and left it in that position when he was through.

There has been some debate as to whether he posed his victims after the mutilations. Its possible, but it appears to me that they were just left in a position that facillitated mutilation.

One note on the personal aspect; assuming that implies someone she knew. I can't recall a single case during that time of a "domestic" killing that included mutilation on that level unless the killer was intending to dispose of the body; which wasn't the case here. Most murders by persons known to the victim conclude after the original intent ( which was the killing itself) is accomplished; unless, of course, there is a desire to dispose of the body. Domestics are usually successfully prosecuted as well because the motive can be traced. None of the Whitechapel murders seem to fall into that catagory and that's why most people considered them an abberation from the typical violence that was seen.

[spyglass]

HI HAMRAMMR!
You make some intresting points.
I have wondered also whether it was possible that the body had been moved or touched before the photos were taken bearing in mind that this was the first time a murder victim had been photographed in situ.
I know that Dr Bonds report describes the position of the body as we see it in the picture, But was his report written before are after the photo was taken?
Simon D Wood wrote an essay to be found in Dissertations titled "ROOM 13 MILLERS COURT". In it he suggests that he thinks the bed was moved away from the wall for the photographer to take pic 3.
Lets remember this was a new avenue for police investigation at the timeand so would not have been as thorough as modern day crime scene investigation is.

[spyglass]

HI HUNTER!

Thanks, and I agree with what you say.

[Hamrammr]

Hi Syglass,

Many things are possible considering the lack of credible information in many areas so one must strive to find the probable; and even that could be incorrect with the lack of proof.

I wonder if one might see something personal in Annie Chapman's murder as well if there had been a crime scene photo of her; with her uterus removed, her intestines draped over her shoulder and her pitiful belongings laid at her feet. The attacks on Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes showed a remarkable amount of savagery.

Does anyone think it's worth starting a new thread about the likelihood of MJK's death being partially or completely personal? The subject may have been done to death (no pun intended). If not then can I ask if anyone thinks Mary's head ended up in the photograph position by itself or if the killer did that on purpose? I would have thought that if he was eviscerating her face and standing in the gap between the bed and the partition, that her face would have been turned toward him. Was he holding her face? And did it return to the 'photograph' position when he let go? And is this even important?

D

P.S. In 'UserCP' there is no option to edit signature! Victimisation. Or do I have to get promoted to get this option?

[Hunter]

HI DVV !
I just like to get as many facts and views as possible.As in most of the debates concerning JTR...one can never be 100% certain of anything.

Hi Syglass,

Many things are possible considering the lack of credible information in many areas so one must strive to find the probable; and even that could be incorrect with the lack of proof.

I wonder if one might see something personal in Annie Chapman's murder as well if there had been a crime scene photo of her; with her uterus removed, her intestines draped over her shoulder and her pitiful belongings laid at her feet. The attacks on Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes showed a remarkable amount of savagery.

[spyglass]

HI DVV !
Fair enough,
And I agree with you about Trevor Marriott's conclusions, However unlikely... it is still feasible as with Nick Warrens axe theory.
I just like to get as many facts and views as possible.As in most of the debates concerning JTR...one can never be 100% certain of anything.