Kelly's Killer

[Errata]

But don't you think this mght have been because he couldn't get to those bits in the previous killings or he didn't have time to attack them? And with the exception of Stride, all of the women had the womb area and the pubic area attacked to some extent. Also, Eddowes was facially attacked - that's pretty personal.

Maybe. I mean, clearly I don't know I'm going on instinct mostly. But It's certainly possible that JtR could have had the time with his victims to at least make token forays into the Kelly level of mutilation. So lets say the primary targets of a sexual attack are the obvious places associated with sex, sex organs, breasts and mouth (clearly there are exceptions, but these involve decapitation and dismemberment, so we'll put that aside).

For the victims previous to Kelly, with the exception of Eddowes, the external genitalia was untouched. Eddowes has a long slash that starts at the hip and divides the (right?) external labia from the pubis. But had the external genitalia been targeted, there would be no reason to start at the hip, and one would expect further mutilation. Given the length and depth of the slash, I'm confident that it was a skip. That the knife hit something, skipped over and the force carried it across. So with the previous murders, there is no purposeful mutilation of the most obvious target.

Kelly on the other hand had her external genitalia ravaged. Which doesn't require really anything in terms of time or effort.

When a killer takes a uterus, it can be sexual. It can also be an attack on the organs of generation, like a revenge based hysterectomy or something. If it's a fetish, then that is essentially the motive. Whatever else he gets out killing these women, it's the uterus he's after. But if it's some sort of revenge or mommy thing, then the uterus is still the motive. And he's careful with it. He takes the uterus, takes care to remove it intact, but leaves the vagina which is an odd choice for a sexually charged crime.

Kelly's uterus was removed, but it wasn't taken. If I recall it was under her head. What we don't know is what happened to the vagina. The intimation is that literally everything was taken out. But if the vagina had been attached to the uterus, one would think that would be noted, since that would be new. And no separate mention is made as far as I know, so it may be AWOL. That would be a very significant difference. As is the fact that he left the uterus at the scene.

In the previous murders, their breasts and mouths were untouched. Except Eddowes who had her lips cut when he cut off her nose. But again, it isn't purposeful. Now the breasts are easy to get to, being right there on the chest. And as he had a knife, with a minimal amount of effort he could have exposed them and mutilated them. Or not exposed them and stabbed at them. But evidently they might as well have not existed.

Kelly's breasts were excised, and her lips were cubed.

The facial mutilations of Eddowes and Kelly seem similar, but they really arent. Eddowes was essentially drawn on with a knife. Specific cuts were made that altered her features, and probably completely obscured her face in blood. Kelly's face was obliterated. And a completely different technique was used. She had parts cut off, almost flensed, and everything else came from long crossing slashes. Both mutilations would have taken roughly the same amount of time. If I had to guess, I would say that Eddowes looked like someone Jack didn't want to "watch" while he killed so he disfigures her just enough to obscure the resemblance. Kelly on the other hand I would say was being punished. He took her face, something she would have been proud of, and something that quite possibly was one of the problems.

Kelly is also the only one on whom any attempt at dismemberment was made. Her killer took her heart, which is intensely symbolic, and left her eyes intact, quite purposefully. The facial mutilations would have been easier if allowed her eyes to be cut, but he specifically cut around them. Maybe he wanted her to watch.

The thing is, just because a killer mutilates bodies doesn't necessarily mean he wants to do it more. I mean, it is far easier to cut out the entire contents of the abdomen than root around for one organ. He doesn't do that. He seems to have a system. He has goals he wants to achieve, and his method revolves around that. It's entirely possible that you could leave him with the corpse of a woman for two days and he would never do anything more than essentially what he does on the streets. A guy who wants uteri does not necessarily want to rend women down to their component parts. I mean he might, but there's no rule. If part of his thrill was the possibility of discovery, then the last thing he would want is to be in some safe room.

Anyway, Kelly looks like one of those wives who is finally caught by a crazy and abusive ex. The other victims look like abandoned anatomy projects. It just doesn't strike me as the same.

[caz]

Hi Henry,

I'm afraid you will still have to take my word for things, although I will happily provide you with more food for thought:

a) It was a Tunnocks chocolate wafer biscuit, which requires unwrapping before demolishing.

b) It is fair to say the ferocity of my attacks is at top whack every time I unwrap a fresh Tunnocks and I demolish it in seconds, usually with a nise cuppa Typhoo.

c) What made me select this biscuit and not another biscuit? Because the Jammy Dodgers from Christmas are all gone and yes, I just take my chances and eat whatever is left in the fridge until my next trip to Tesco. Usually it's a Tunnocks.

d) I rarely have to abandon a biscuit, but yes I would devour the next biscuit as soon as poss thereafter, with the same level of pleasure.

e) It's nonsense to suggest I dipped my finger in the chocolate last time and wrote the initials of a former love on the wall near the ripped open packet. I left those initials on the wall of the British Legion club and used the wrapper to wipe my bum on. (Don't fall for that old chestnut - Ed.)

f) I think you are right. I am the woman who will be blamed for eating biscuits until I'm caught or I die. Or my partner scoffs them all first.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So far nobody has come forward with a PLAUSIBLE reason to discount Mary Kelly as a Ripper victim ( which is what I want).
so Sad
Keep Well
Jimi

Hi Jimi,

Unfortunately I can't see that happening. I've been around these boards since the dawn of time - okay, since the end of 1998 - and I've seen a million reasons offered, but none of them plausible.

Another strange argument I keep seeing lately (kicked off by ex poster Perry Mason I think) is that we can't be dealing with a lone serial killer because this kind of thinking has got us nowhere over 120+ years. In fact I believe the opposite to be true. Only a serial killer would have been this hard to identify, not having been caught in the act, or later with any incriminating evidence; not having left any crucial clues behind (like the Blackout Ripper for instance); not having confessed; having no clearcut motive or any tangible connection with any of the victims.

Conversely, individual murders committed for conventional motives such as jealousy, revenge, financial gain and so on, are generally cleared up pretty quickly - especially domestic murders - yet not a single Whitechapel murder has produced a really strong suspect or likely motive, and not one of them is any nearer being solved today than it was back in the day.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

Carol, I'm so sorry. I can't do that.

I want to eat them. All of them.

Just me.

[Henry Flower]

Tunnocks! Ohmygod Tunnocks! MmmmmmmMMMMMMM!

Anyone want to start a Tunnocks thread? Let's face it, SPE is right - we'll never definitively name the Ripper, so why don't we just compare notes on biscuits instead?

I know, it's kinda off topic, but....

Maybe not: Thomas Tunnock started his company just two years after the Ripper murders. Can anyone PROVE that the murders didn't stop because Thomas Tunnock had begun planning the world's finest wafer biscuits and stickiest teacakes? That's one heck of a distraction. I'm not saying Tunnock was definitely the Ripper, but he wasn't dead at the time and I have yet to read any serious author who has solid proof that he wasn't the Whitechapel murderer. That's usually evidence enough for a Ripper paperback isn't it?

[Heinrich]

...
Hi Heinrich
If you can PROVE Barnett killed please name your sources/evidence. ...

I have done so on another thread, Jimi.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2983&page=20

From Post 194 and following you can evaluate the proof.

[lynn cates]

new haystack

Hello Caroline.

". . . we can't be dealing with a lone serial killer because this kind of thinking has got us nowhere over 120+ years."

Haven't seen that one. This is far too strong, containing, as it does, the modal word.

I, however, would suggest for a few researchers to look in a new direction--try to find the needle in a different haystack, if you will. After all, our results could hardly be more dismal.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hi Jimi,

Unfortunately I can't see that happening. I've been around these boards since the dawn of time - okay, since the end of 1998 - and I've seen a million reasons offered, but none of them plausible.

Another strange argument I keep seeing lately (kicked off by ex poster Perry Mason I think) is that we can't be dealing with a lone serial killer because this kind of thinking has got us nowhere over 120+ years. In fact I believe the opposite to be true. Only a serial killer would have been this hard to identify, not having been caught in the act, or later with any incriminating evidence; not having left any crucial clues behind (like the Blackout Ripper for instance); not having confessed; having no clearcut motive or any tangible connection with any of the victims.

Conversely, individual murders committed for conventional motives such as jealousy, revenge, financial gain and so on, are generally cleared up pretty quickly - especially domestic murders - yet not a single Whitechapel murder has produced a really strong suspect or likely motive, and not one of them is any nearer being solved today than it was back in the day.

Love,

Caz
X

Well, isn't someone statistically far more likely to be killed by a one off than a serial killer? Shouldn't the assumption be that every murder victim is a solitary kill and let a preponderance of evidence put them in as a victim of a serial killer?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have been asked to start this thread as there seems to be a lot of 'discussion' as to whether Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim.

There are 3 possible scenarios that I can see

1. Stand Alone murder
2. Copycat Murder
3. Ripper Victim

It is a lot easier for me if Kelly wasn't a ripper victim as this would fit in with the theory Joseph Levy recognised his cousin Jacob and put him under some form of house arrest, however I don't really feel like I can justify this as I do think Kelly was a Ripper victim, for me it was a logical escalation.

However there seems to be talk on the boards recently about Kelly not being a Jtr killing, so I thought we could put it together on one thread. If anyone has any thoughts on my 3 scenarios or indeed has some of there own please feel free to add them.

Keep well
Jimi

Jimi,

You would have to get round this: why was someone murdered in such a gruesome fashion only a few weeks after similar murders?

If Mary Kelly was a one-off then the timelines support this.

To get round this, people argue copycats etc. Don't go with it. Think the simple explanation is that he had more time.

A more interesting question is this: if the idea was to strip someone bear (all along I mean, only this time he had the time), then what exactly was the motive? You would have to argue that he probably was insane, which would place our asylum suspects at the top of the pile.

[lynn cates]

suggestion

Hello Errata. Excellent suggestion. It seems the exact reverse happened with Stride. "She must have been part of a serial." "Why, then, no mutilations?" "Hmm, interrupted, I suppose."

As to your further suggestion, Mr. Evans, for example, has said that the evidence supports 3--Kelly is excepted.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

One good question deserves another.

Hello Mac. Good question. Another one is this. "If someone wished to strip another bare to the bone all along, why wait? Surely if "Jack" could find MJK in that cul-de-sac in November, why not also at the end of August?"

Cheers.
LC

[Rya]

With respect to the mutilations alone (setting aside other issues), there is evidence both for and against a sole killer of all the canonicals, I think.

For the victims previous to Kelly, with the exception of Eddowes, the external genitalia was untouched. Eddowes has a long slash that starts at the hip and divides the (right?) external labia from the pubis. But had the external genitalia been targeted, there would be no reason to start at the hip, and one would expect further mutilation. Given the length and depth of the slash, I'm confident that it was a skip. That the knife hit something, skipped over and the force carried it across. So with the previous murders, there is no purposeful mutilation of the most obvious target.

Actually all four of the canonicals whose bodies were mutilated suffered attacks on their genitalia, although these differed in nature. Swanson's internal report of 19 October mentions two stab wounds to Nichols's "private parts," although we have no other information about this, and Llewellyn fails to mention these injuries at the inquest. Swanson also elaborates on Chapman's mutilations, claiming that the "pubes" were removed along with the rest of the lower abdominal wall; again, Phillips modestly refrains from discussing this at the inquest, which could lead to speculation about other mutilations which were glossed over and thus unknown to us today.

In Eddowes, we have the laceration across the labia, along with two other cuts; the dragging slice downward on the right side of the pubic area actually was a continuation of the original vertical incision from the sternum, which the killer pulled all the way to a point behind the anus. Each of the inner thighs were notched with deep incisions, which leads me to believe that these were not accidental, but done with some intent. It is the one detail, along with the facial mutilations, which becomes repeated in the Kelly murder, where the entire vulva, along with a portion of one buttock, is taken away through an incision begun at the inner right thigh (note Bond's lovely Victorian phrase "external organs of generation"). Additionally, the flesh comprising the pubic region is removed in a fashion similar to Chapman, but quite dissimilar to Eddowes (where this was not done). The uterus is removed with a sloppy block cut in Chapman, taking the cul de sac of the vagina (plus much of the bladder) along with it. In Eddowes, the uterus is removed cleanly (at least the fundus). So you could, I suppose, argue that the cut in Chapman is either a sloppy attempt at taking the uterus, but it could equally have been a failed attempt at cutting out the vagina (he only got the upper portion). In Eddowes, the killer also cut out what appears to be the entire decending colon (the sigmoid colon retracting back into the rectal cavity). I don't think, as some others seem to, that this was an accident either, but more likely a deliberate attempt to, in effect, cut Kate's ar*e out from the inside. In Kelly, we don't have specifics about what was done to the uterus and vaginal cavity, as Errata mentioned above.

So people can draw their own conclusions to all of this. I find more simularities between Eddowes and Kelly than I do between Eddowes and Chapman (where asphxyia was also present). I can see Phillip's reluctance to assume that the latter two were killed by the same man. But I also see some details in Kelly that corresspond to each of the earlier murders.

To me, there is something infantile about many mutilation murderers: Kemper, Gein, Nilsen. Here, it seems like a little boy exploring the female anatomy for the first time (except with a knife instead of his hands), until he finally gets up the courage to be alone with the object of his fixations. Of course, this is an observation that tries to explain the progression in the mutilations. It is equally possible that more than one hand was involved, either separately or in tandom (if in tandom, it would explain a few things about the crimes, although the police seemed to have dismissed this possibility at the time).

Finally, one thing which is consistent in all of these murders seems to be the prevalence of oblique incisions. If someone is going to stab or slash at a victim's abdomen, such a angle would usually only be done by accident. In dissection, you cut obliquely; you shelve and reflect tissue, as does the killer repeatedly. This oddity alone would have been enough to have puzzled a man like Phillips, who would have never seen anything like it before in a murder case. I don't mean that it indicated "expertise" of any particular kind; its just plain weird, especially if the object is to inflict mortal injury on the victim of the knife wounds.

[lynn cates]

sic et non

Hello Rya. I completely agree. There is evidence both for and against the four who were mutilated. I am glad that you do not include Liz.

Given your remarks on genitalia, I presume you also wish to consider Martha along with the four?

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Finally, one thing which is consistent in all of these murders seems to be the prevalence of oblique incisions. If someone is going to stab or slash at a victim's abdomen, such a angle would usually only be done by accident. In dissection, you cut obliquely; you shelve and reflect tissue, as does the killer repeatedly. This oddity alone would have been enough to have puzzled a man like Phillips, who would have never seen anything like it before in a murder case. I don't mean that it indicated "expertise" of any particular kind; its just plain weird, especially if the object is to inflict mortal injury on the victim of the knife wounds.

You are exactly right here, Rya. It is just as much a part of why Phillips considered the anatomical knowledge as what many people believe the 'clean cut' extraction of the uterus, the upper part of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder was... if not more. The pelvic extraction is singled out because it was all the Lancet mentioned in regards to a 'skilled hand', but Phillips noted even more. The abdominal cuts had a familiarity to him that shouted knowledge with a purpose; even though it may not have been. And as you stated, he had never seen this before in a murder. No one had.

Excellent post.

[DVV]

Hi Rya, excellent post as Hunter said.

But I also see some details in Kelly that corresspond to each of the earlier murders.

Indeed. The most striking similarity is the way the killer gained access to the abdomen in the Chapman and Kelly cases. That makes Kelly definitely canonical.