Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Trevor Marriott]

Then why did he cut out her entrails and appear to position them almost ritualistically?

The entrails were not cut from the body, they were simply outside the abdominal cavity and this suggestion of ritualistic positioning is another misleading fact started by ripper researchers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, so you don't believe MJK's killer was someone trying to make her mutilations look like the ripper's work?

Then at least we agree on that one, Michael.

Which frankly, only makes me more confused about who you think killed her and why, if not the same vile piece of work who did for Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, taking the opportunity to up his game to the unprecedented level we see in room 13.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
If we knew a motive it might lead us to her killer, and I also dont belive she was killed by the same hand as Chapman Eddowes and Nichols and that her murder was made to look like a Ripper killing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

I have to say if I was a copycat killer and wanted to kill Mary for whatever reason and make it look like JTR. One of the things I would do is remove an organ or some part of her body since it was well known he took a kidney etc in previous murders. And less time flaying the top part of the right leg to the bone for instance since he never touched them in any other murder.
Unless of course, you think it was another maniac working in the vicinity at the same time as Jack. For it to be an ordinary murder and just covered up to make it look like Jack you have to ask yourself would he go to all that trouble to totally destroy the poor woman with the time and the danger involved? Or would he just cut Mary's throat, slit her open in the chest and take something and get the hell out of there.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have to say if I was a copycat killer and wanted to kill Mary for whatever reason and make it look like JTR. One of the things I would do is remove an organ or some part of her body since it was well known he took a kidney etc in previous murders. And less time flaying the top part of the right leg to the bone for instance since he never touched them in any other murder.
Unless of course, you think it was another maniac working in the vicinity at the same time as Jack. For it to be an ordinary murder and just covered up to make it look like Jack you have to ask yourself would he go to all that trouble to totally destroy the poor woman with the time and the danger involved? Or would he just cut Mary's throat, slit her open in the chest and take something and get the hell out of there.

But that is what makes the Kelly murder different from the rest.

Organs cut and ripped out, none taken away !
Body and face badly mutilated
No medical knowledge shown by the killer
Killed in a locked room

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

But that is what makes the Kelly murder different from the rest.

Organs cut and ripped out, none taken away !
Body and face badly mutilated
No medical knowledge shown by the killer
Killed in a locked room

Can you please explain why you would think Kelly's "Body and face badly mutilated" is exclusive to Kelly and Kelly alone when it comes to the victims of JtR?

[Abby Normal]

I have to say if I was a copycat killer and wanted to kill Mary for whatever reason and make it look like JTR. One of the things I would do is remove an organ or some part of her body since it was well known he took a kidney etc in previous murders. And less time flaying the top part of the right leg to the bone for instance since he never touched them in any other murder.
Unless of course, you think it was another maniac working in the vicinity at the same time as Jack. For it to be an ordinary murder and just covered up to make it look like Jack you have to ask yourself would he go to all that trouble to totally destroy the poor woman with the time and the danger involved? Or would he just cut Mary's throat, slit her open in the chest and take something and get the hell out of there.

well DK
its obvious that this copy cat killer knew all about escalation. ; )

[Darryl Kenyon]

But that is what makes the Kelly murder different from the rest.

Organs cut and ripped out, none taken away !
Body and face badly mutilated
No medical knowledge shown by the killer
Killed in a locked room

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Organs cut and ripped out, none taken away - Trevor, I think we are going to have to disagree on whether the heart was taken.
Body and face badly mutilated - An escalation is the answer to this, plus in his mind, less time constraint.
No medical knowledge shown by the killer - Again we are going to have to disagree. I feel that Jack had some rudimentary knowledge, on using a knife and perhaps the inside of a body but that's it.
Killed in a locked room - To me, that shows some learned behavior on behalf of the killer IE it was getting too hot out on the streets.

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you please explain why you would think Kelly's "Body and face badly mutilated" is exclusive to Kelly and Kelly alone when it comes to the victims of JtR?

I think even you can work that one out. No other victims were subjected to the same facial, or abdominal injuries as Kelly for starters.

no other victims were killed indoors

Eddowes and Chapmans organs were removed by someone with anatomical knowledge. Kellys were simply ripped out without the perpetrator showing any signs of anatomical knowledge.

But of course it perhaps become a different ball game if you accept that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes, and that Kellys heart was not missing, then you might have a possible link to all three

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Eddowes and Chapmans organs were removed by someone with anatomical knowledge. Kellys were simply ripped out without the perpetrator showing any signs of anatomical knowledge.

There is no evidence to suspect that whoever removed Kelly's organs was any less "expert" than whoever did the same to Chapman or Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have to say if I was a copycat killer and wanted to kill Mary for whatever reason and make it look like JTR. One of the things I would do is remove an organ or some part of her body since it was well known he took a kidney etc in previous murders. And less time flaying the top part of the right leg to the bone for instance since he never touched them in any other murder.
Unless of course, you think it was another maniac working in the vicinity at the same time as Jack. For it to be an ordinary murder and just covered up to make it look like Jack you have to ask yourself would he go to all that trouble to totally destroy the poor woman with the time and the danger involved? Or would he just cut Mary's throat, slit her open in the chest and take something and get the hell out of there.

Lets forget about the organs being removed for a moment

If the killer was only interested in killing and mutilating he would continue to do just that, which is what he did from the start. Why would he worry what the papers said. He wouldn't be interested in the organ issue, he probably wasn't even capable of removing organs,

But someone wanting to make her murder seem like the work of that killer would simply carry on in that fashion, murder and mutilate which is what happened with Kelly

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

I think even you can work that one out. No other victims were subjected to the same facial, or abdominal injuries as Kelly for starters.

Can you give an example of a serial lust murderer that exactly replicates mutilation injuries because nowhere in criminology does it say they are expected to do so to link them. We expect variations. We expect escalations. We don't expect exact duplications.

no other victims were killed indoors

Can you show me a reference which says crimes should be segregated according to if they occur indoors or outdoors, especially with serial killers.

Eddowes and Chapmans organs were removed by someone with anatomical knowledge.

Philips had that view with Chapman. Brown didn't with Eddowes.

Kellys were simply ripped out without the perpetrator showing any signs of anatomical knowledge.

Bond was given the task of a meta-review of all the evidence concluded no medical knowledge at all for any of them.

But of course it perhaps become a different ball game if you accept that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes, and that Kellys heart was not missing, then you might have a possible link to all three

I am more interested in what support you have for your claims about duplicate carbon copies of lust murder victim injuries and also about the "indoor vs outdoor attacks" segregating out different offenders claim.

[Trevor Marriott]

There is no evidence to suspect that whoever removed Kelly's organs was any less "expert" than whoever did the same to Chapman or Eddowes.

Dr Bond was not involved directly with any of the other murders, and we know from the doctors reports into those murders that they suggested anatomical knowledge was evident that is fact.

Bond in his report to Anderson states "In my opinion he (the killer) does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals"

This quote must be in relation to Kelly because he never saw the other victims.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Dr Bond was not involved directly with any of the other murders

Doctor Bond doesn't describe any of the cuts used to remove the organs, so how can we tell how expert/inexpert those cuts were? Pretty inexpert, I'd bet, but then again neither was expertise apparent in the others.

Chapman's mutilator cut a hole in the right hand side of her abdomen by means of three pieces ("flaps") of flesh, then proceeded to - unnecessarily - shift her intestines out of the way before removing her uterus, damaging the bladder and large intestine in the process. Phillips appears to admit to some anatomical skill, but his own description of the wounds strongly indicate otherwise.

Eddowes' mutilator made a single, longitudinal (if somewhat zig-zag) cut down her abdomen, pulled her intestines out and removed the bladder and uterus (albeit the latter was not as completely removed as in Chapman's case), cut the colon and removed the left kidney, but not without apparently jabbing her liver and spleen in the process. The doctors who examined Eddowes discerned no surgical skill or expertise in what happened to her.

[Abby Normal]

I think even you can work that one out. No other victims were subjected to the same facial, or abdominal injuries as Kelly for starters.

no other victims were killed indoors

Eddowes and Chapmans organs were removed by someone with anatomical knowledge. Kellys were simply ripped out without the perpetrator showing any signs of anatomical knowledge.

But of course it perhaps become a different ball game if you accept that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes, and that Kellys heart was not missing, then you might have a possible link to all three

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

then why would he take the time to rip them open and do things like lay there intestines out of the way if they didn't take organs?

[Darryl Kenyon]

If you think that Mary was killed by another hand you are going to have to believe that there was another serial killer/mutilator out on the loose who had killed before.
Someone who was killing for the first time with Mary being the target just does not wash. He would have had to have a degree of planning to make it look like Jack [thus organized]. Perhaps in my other post I was giving a copycat too much credit by saying he would remove something to make it look like JTR, maybe he would maybe he wouldn't. What I am sure of though is that he wouldn't hang around cutting Mary to pieces and flaying her to the bone.
Think about it, with it being his first murder he would be in a state of panic. Yes, perhaps he would cut her throat and stomach, maybe even gash her face and maybe even throw some of Mary's insides around to make it look like Jack. But would he really spend all that time ripping the poor woman to pieces? I doubt it. But Jack would, given the fact that he was almost caught in the act in at least two murders and it didn't put him off murdering not long after. He would feel rather comfortable in the seclusion of a private room.

Comfortable enough to even make perhaps, the embers of a fire into a large one. Can't really see Barnett, Fleming or anyone else who might wish to murder Mary taking that chance.