Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Batman]

What JtR wanted was the defeminization of his victims by mutilation and amputation with a knife. It has long been recognized that the destruction of MJK, was a total wipeout of her female characteristics and therefore had no need to take away anything else which he hadn't already taken away from her.

JtR showed two signs of medical knowledge in a modern analysis. The first was the kidney had been cut at the renal artery. The second is that MJKs heart was disconnected through her ribs rather than under her ribs. That's where it ends.

Bond got it right when he did a meta-analysis of all the Ripper murders. The medical knowledge vs no-medical knowledge is a very small column against a much bigger column of no-medical knowledge.

Meaning JtR learned as he went along. Which is evident from the escalation and experimentation he did.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor, If he did remove the uterus [I do respect that you think otherwise Trevor], but if he did does this not indicate that he wasn't an expert or he would know this. Also, I seem to remember someone pointing out that Kate had her kidney removed from the front rather than the back which apparently is a lot easier.

Hi Darryl

What is a common denominator in all the murders? It is that all the victims had their abdomens mutilated, some more than others.

What isnt a common denominator is that all the victims having had their abdomens ripped open had organs removed at the crime scenes..

Another common denominator is that only two victims were found to have organs missing at the post mortems, and that those two victims were the only two left for 12 hours at two different mortuaries and in the case of Chapman left outside the mortuary on a handcart for some time.

There is one significant dissimilarity between the murder of Eddowes and Chapman which in my opinion shows that the organs from both were not removed by the same person.

If you remove Kelly from the equation on the basis that no organs were taken from her. then it makes the theory that the killer removed the organs even weaker,and shows that in those 12 hour windows anything could have happened to those bodies, and if the organs were removed by bona fide medical professional at the mortuaries then that would explain the anatomical knowledge as seen and described by the doctors when they carried out the post mortems

If the killer wasn't an expert then I would suggest he would not have had enough time to remove a uterus and a kidney based on the time it took Dr Browns expert.

It is suggested that the killer had at least 5 mins to do all that he is supposed to have done.My latest research shows that he may not have even have had as long as 5 mins in any event.

From what I am led to believe removing the kidney from the back is procedure adopted in more modern times, and necessitates the patient being on their side

In Victorian times there was no medical need to remove a kidney from a live donor. So how many person outside the medical profession would have that type of knowledge and expertise to do that in 1888

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Trevor, If he did remove the uterus [I do respect that you think otherwise Trevor], but if he did does this not indicate that he wasn't an expert or he would know this.

Agreed.

[Darryl Kenyon]

On another medical point, if organ harvesting was a motive. It should be noted that there is no need to remove the intestines to remove a uterus.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor, If he did remove the uterus [I do respect that you think otherwise Trevor], but if he did does this not indicate that he wasn't an expert or he would know this. Also, I seem to remember someone pointing out that Kate had her kidney removed from the front rather than the back which apparently is a lot easier.

[Trevor Marriott]

Quite, although "improvising" might be closer to the mark. Also, it's worth noting that it's fairly easy to open an abdomen and cut out a couple of abdominal organs, which cannot be said of the heart.

Sam

It may not have been be easy even if you have the medical skill and expertise to do so quickly, given the condition of the body, after the abdomen had been ripped open and mutilated, and the fact that the abdomen would be blood filled, the organs would be wet and hard to grip.We know how long it took Dr Browns expert to just remove a uterus

If these organs were removed at the scene by someone with anatomical knowledge, then that persons skill and expertise had to be on a par with Dr Browns expert to be able to do all that he is supposed to have done in the time available to him. So how many others would have had that type of skill in 1888 to be able to do all of that in almost total darkness?

On another medical point, if organ harvesting was a motive. It should be noted that there is no need to remove the intestines to remove a uterus.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

What this tells us is that the organ harvesting in Chapman and Eddowes wasn't what he wanted all along and was experimental in itself.

Quite, although "improvising" might be closer to the mark. Also, it's worth noting that it's fairly easy to open an abdomen and cut out a couple of abdominal organs, which cannot be said of the heart.

[Batman]

"WHY did Jack leave behind the uterus when he had removed Chapman's, Eddowe's (and was probably going for Nichols' until he was put off)?"

What this tells us is that the organ harvesting in Chapman and Eddowes wasn't what he wanted all along and was experimental in itself.

[c.d.]

"There is obviously a discrepancy between Kelly's murder and the other 'canonical' four, the others 'only' suffered slight mutilations in comparison to Kelly's utter annihilation."

Hello Harry,

"Slight mutilations." Isn't that a contradiction in terms? When is any mutilation slight? And couldn't it simply be a matter of having more time alone with his victim?

"WHY did Jack take to killing indoors when before he was targeting prostitutes on the backstreets?"

We can only speculate but I would think it was because of increased police presence on the streets and because he had decided that he wanted more time alone with his victim.

"WHY did Jack leave behind the uterus when he had removed Chapman's, Eddowe's (and was probably going for Nichols' until he was put off)?"

Why focus on a slight deviation from the previous killings? I think it much more important to focus on the fact that like the previous killings he removed internal organs from his victim.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"Man known to Mary...its the only logical interpretation of the known data."


Hello Michael,

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is the only logical interpretation but I do think she knew her killer. And while that may sound extremely important as a clue it could also mean it was someone she had only known a day or two which would remove any personal aspect to her killing.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

When we have evidence that suggests Mary was very drunk when she arrived home with a man, to whom she sang for over an hour off and on, at which point the room became quiet and dark....seems pretty obvious that one of 2 things happened. Blotchy faced stayed in that dark and silent room with Mary, or he left without anyone seeing him. In either case Mary remains in that room, and since its dark and quiet, and she entertained for over and hour, in bed undressed seems probable. Alone or with Blotchy.

That precisely where her killer first strikes. She isnt found outdoors soliciting..as is the most relevant feature of ALL the previous kills...(which by the by is just assumed in 2 previous Canonical cases.)

In most of the data that exists about multiple killers, "stranger" victims are almost always the case. They dont kill people they know. Thats how they elude investigators.

In Marys case its almost certain she knew him. She was attacked while her back was turned to the room and her orientation was on the right hand side of the bed. She was waiting for someone to join her in bed. Thats almost certainly the guy who causes the call out at near 4am. One that is heard by 2 people, and is preceded by a cat upstairs being stirred to wake the owner. he tapped on the window or door, and Mary, hung over and half asleep opens the door and in annoyance says, "oh-murder.........which was likely followed by, .."what are you doing here", or "you woke me"? Nevertheless, she lets him in.

Man known to Mary...its the only logical interpretation of the known data.

[Michael W Richards]

"There is NOT ONE scintilla of information that is known to exist that Mary EVER brought clients to her room, and seranding someone for over an hour doesnt count as a sex act."

Hello Michael,

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true what conclusion can we draw from it? It appears that you are trying to argue that this means that she COULDN'T have ever brought a client home. But if we follow that logic it would also mean that if her killer was not Jack, and that a better suspect was someone who had never killed before, could we not simply dismiss that suspect for the simple reason that he had actually never killed before? As a further example of that type of reasoning, Mary could never have engaged in prostitution because there was a time when she had never done so.

So it would seem that all we can conclude is that based on past evidence that she was unlikely to have brought a client back to her room but we can not rule out the possibility that she did so.

c.d.

The conclusion of my statement cd is that without any evidence that she ever did, including that last night, its just wasting time speculating to suggest otherwise. Its like saying that the earth may one day crash into the sun. No, there is no evidence that the Earth is on a path like that, and no, something like that has never happened, but for the sake of argument lets just pretend that it could and extrapolate on that? You see the futility of exploring the improbable when faced with historical data that denys its possibility?

[Wickerman]

If she had a definite appointment for him to come by that night then there would have been no need for her to go out.

Do you have a scenario to propose that is problem free?

c.d.

When reports do exist that Kelly was seen out on the streets after her liaison with Blotchy, why reject them in favor of speculation?

[MrBarnett]

In which pubs were the C5 last seen before they were killed? And which of them would have still been open when the women were killed?

Help us out here, Bats.

[MrBarnett]

No, not pubs near where he murdered. Pubs where victims were last seen of course.

You misquoted me. The full sentence says... "Pubs are always hot spots for JTR related activity... given his victims."

Ah, so JTR's victims were unusual in that they drank in pubs?

Blimey, you're narrowing it down. I wonder what % of the adult population of Spitalfields had ever walked through the door of a public house.

What do you think?

[Batman]

Pubs are always hot spots for JTR related activity?

What on earth does that mean? You do know that there was a pub on practically every street corner in London at the time? It would have been impossible to commit a crime of any kind in the East End more than a short walk from a pub.

A few posts back you were telling us Jack was familiar with specific murder sites, and had recce'd them, now it's if. Make up your mind and give us a chance to consider your words of wisdom.

No, not pubs near where he murdered. Pubs where victims were last seen of course.

You misquoted me. The full sentence says... "Pubs are always hot spots for JTR related activity... given his victims."