Ideas to explain the ferocity of MJK's murder

[lynn cates]

floating your boat

Hello Shinealight. Thanks.

"Also, Mary was said "to have been possessed of considerable personal attractions" according to McNaughten."

Which means that, at least, Sir Melville fancied her.

Out of curiosity, why are we supposing a sexual motivation?

Cheers.
LC

[John Wheat]

Maybe Mary Jane Kelly reminded him of someone he knew e.g. his mother?

[Rosella]

What about the decorative effects on Kate Eddowes' face, when the killer had very little to no time?

What has always intrigued me is, IF Hutchinson really saw Jack accompanying Mary back to her room at around 2am and Elizabeth Prater (in the room above Mary's) and Sarah Lewis, just opposite, heard screams of 'Murder" at about 4am, what was Jack doing in those two hours?

You might say 'the obvious', but no trace of any sexual contact of Jack's was found on any of the other victims, was it ? What would be so alluring about stripping off and climbing into MJK's grimy bed?

Did he just talk, hoping that in her drunken state Mary would just drift off? Two hours is a lot of talking! It's been speculated that in fact she was asleep with the sheet over her face when the first attack occurred.

this is my first post in the Forum so please be gentle!

[The Good Michael]

You might say 'the obvious', but no trace of any sexual contact of Jack's was found on any of the other victims, was it ? What would be so alluring about stripping off and climbing into MJK's grimy bed?

I think any evidence of what the killer did sexually would be found in his own pants and not externally, regardless of a "found" shawl.

Mike

[markmorey5]

I don't believe you can separate what happened with this murder from the theory that it was conducted by someone else. When I did my research I showed all of the autopsy reports to a surgeon who I worked with at the time, and he commented on the skills required in some circumstances, such as removing a kidney in near darkness in a tight timeframe virtually by feel. He thought that was nothing short of amazing. He also had a theory on how the women't throats were cut with no blood spray, something that didn't happen with Kelly. By comparison he thought the report on Kelly was the sort of thing you would see in an abbatoir and had no skill involved whatsoever. His opinion was that it could have been a crude lookalike gone too far, or the killer had an other or personal motive for butchering and disfiguring her.

His opinion was that it wasn't the same killer because it showed no anatomical skill.

[Disco Stu]

Oops. You'll need an extra bullet for the author of this page then!

http://www.casebook.org/victims/mary_jane_kelly.html

That was copied from the Wiki: Typo's or not, you're statement would hold true.

[The Good Michael]

That was copied from the Wiki: Typo's or not, you're statement would hold true.

Typo's? Haha!

Mike

[Rosella]

Well, Dr Frederick Brown's report on Kate Eddowes stated 'There was no sign of a recent connection', so the doctors at the time were certainly looking for semen etc on the victims.

I dont think that JTR was particularly interested in having sex. it was mutilation and grubbing inside those mutilations that gave him satisfaction. He may even possibly have been impotent.
Which is why I've always been intrigued by the possibility that he and MJK were just talking until she fell asleep.

[The Good Michael]

Well, Dr Frederick Brown's report on Kate Eddowes stated 'There was no sign of a recent connection', so the doctors at the time were certainly looking for semen etc on the victims.

I dont think that JTR was particularly interested in having sex. it was mutilation and grubbing inside those mutilations that gave him satisfaction.

I'm at the opposite end. I am fairly certain that the murderer took sexual satisfaction from these murders, and if not at the moment, then later in remembrance. If he had sexual performance issues, it may have not been the case during the murders. He may have easily taken care of his needs quickly in a heightened state with no need to have extra time to do so. He may not even have needed to touch himself. I have no doubt there was a sexual component to all the murders save Stride's.

Mike

[kensei]

I've written before of how I imagine it. I think there was definitely a sexual element to it and it was done excitedly, but not in a frenzy. There was a methodical tone in how the killer placed each body part in the places where he placed them- in particular I think the scene in the graphic novel "From Hell" where he holds the severed breast in his hand and thinks to himself "Pillow for you" before placing it under her head actually happened. Even the facial mutilations do not seem to me to have been frenzied since Mary's hair was not messed up- in fact he seems to have gone out of his way to keep it nice. He was carefully leaving the scene the way he wanted it to look when people found it for maximum shock value, including the way he stuck her hand into her abdominal cavity. I imagine him talking with her as she prepared for bed and then faded asleep from her drunkenness, then maybe passing a little more time touching her before he killed her. I think he stripped down at least to being shirtless, both for sexual gratification and to keep his clothes from being bloodstained. It was a cold dark night, hence the fire he lit for warmth and light. And I don't think the cry of "Oh, murder!" that was heard was uttered by Mary, but by someone passing by who saw the killer leaving- maybe he had blood on his face, maybe he still had the knife in his hand, maybe he was holding Mary's heart in full view, something overt. This would cut down considerably on the amount of time he had to spend with her. Those are my thoughts, flawed though I'm sure they are.

[John Wheat]

Maybe Jack knew Mary Jane Kelly.

[Damaso Marte]

Why do we need an explanation other than "he was indoors and had more time'

[John Wheat]

Why do we need an explanation other than "he was indoors and had more time'

I'm not sure we do.

Cheers John

[GUT]

Why do we need an explanation other than "he was indoors and had more time'

and he was a right B....

[The Good Michael]

Why do we need an explanation other than "he was indoors and had more time'

We don't unless we wish to explain the word 'ferocity'. I don't think the word has merit here. This seems to me nothing but place, light, and time.

Mike