Tweet
I apologise if these ideas have already been floated, but I've been toying with two explanations for the scene at 13 Miller's Court that morning.
1. The killer attacked Mary's body so ferociously because he found her highly sexually desirable. This could not be said of the other victims, who had -- let's face it -- seen better days. Since the killer's motivation was sexual, is it not logical to suppose that his violent impulses would be vastly magnified when confronted with a young and attractive woman?
2. Mary Kelly was so ferociously attacked because she was carrying a concealed knife and managed to stab the killer before he overpowered her in the initial attack -- perhaps fatally. In other words, he walked (or shambled) away from Miller's Court with a sort of karmic death sentence. If true, I believe this could point the way to fruitful research (for instance, did a male of the right age and description to be Jack the Ripper turn up with a critical knife injury at London hospital or anywhere else in the hours or days following the murder?)
I don't buy the theories that Mary was not a Ripper victim, the idea being that her body was mutilated to cover up a domestic or otherwise unrelated murder. In my view, it's simply not feasible to believe that a "regular" murderer could stomach or even conceive of such an horrific attack. There is a psychological threshold that needs to be pushed back before Miller's Court can happen; if you like, the killer needs to get used to mutilating bodies to a lesser degree /in the dark/ before doing it to such a high degree /in the light/.
A caveat might be that if Mary's murderer was not Jack the Ripper, he was nevertheless psychologically equipped for Miller's Court due to working as a butcher or animal slaughterer. But I don't believe that either. Jack the Ripper's hand is all over Miller's Court, and there is a distinct escalation in postmortem violence from Nichol's to Chapman to Eddowes to Kelly that points to the same man involved in all four murders. (Stride may or may not have been a Ripper victim. If she was, the Ripper's power was seemingly going to his head and the close-calls of the Double Event might explain the long delay before Mary's murder and the fact it was done off the streets. He reigned himself in, if you like, to extend his time at large before something "buckled" him, as he knew it would before long.)
Any thoughts anyone? I'd be most interested in informed speculation on these ideas, especially #2.
1. The killer attacked Mary's body so ferociously because he found her highly sexually desirable. This could not be said of the other victims, who had -- let's face it -- seen better days. Since the killer's motivation was sexual, is it not logical to suppose that his violent impulses would be vastly magnified when confronted with a young and attractive woman?
2. Mary Kelly was so ferociously attacked because she was carrying a concealed knife and managed to stab the killer before he overpowered her in the initial attack -- perhaps fatally. In other words, he walked (or shambled) away from Miller's Court with a sort of karmic death sentence. If true, I believe this could point the way to fruitful research (for instance, did a male of the right age and description to be Jack the Ripper turn up with a critical knife injury at London hospital or anywhere else in the hours or days following the murder?)
I don't buy the theories that Mary was not a Ripper victim, the idea being that her body was mutilated to cover up a domestic or otherwise unrelated murder. In my view, it's simply not feasible to believe that a "regular" murderer could stomach or even conceive of such an horrific attack. There is a psychological threshold that needs to be pushed back before Miller's Court can happen; if you like, the killer needs to get used to mutilating bodies to a lesser degree /in the dark/ before doing it to such a high degree /in the light/.
A caveat might be that if Mary's murderer was not Jack the Ripper, he was nevertheless psychologically equipped for Miller's Court due to working as a butcher or animal slaughterer. But I don't believe that either. Jack the Ripper's hand is all over Miller's Court, and there is a distinct escalation in postmortem violence from Nichol's to Chapman to Eddowes to Kelly that points to the same man involved in all four murders. (Stride may or may not have been a Ripper victim. If she was, the Ripper's power was seemingly going to his head and the close-calls of the Double Event might explain the long delay before Mary's murder and the fact it was done off the streets. He reigned himself in, if you like, to extend his time at large before something "buckled" him, as he knew it would before long.)
Any thoughts anyone? I'd be most interested in informed speculation on these ideas, especially #2.
Comment