Ideas to explain the ferocity of MJK's murder

[shinealight11]

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.

As bad luck would have it, I was exposed to the 13 Miller's Court photograph at a very young age. It might be that I'm incapable of looking at it dispassionately. I'm probably more in need of a psychologist than a JtR forum

[Rosella]

You are not alone, Shinealight11. Hello, from a fellow newbie.

I've been following JTR for more years than I care to remember. Last year my teenage niece got hold of one of my books on the subject.

She didn't read the text but she took the book to school. I think she has permanently traumatised her year level, as most have now seen the Millers Court photos and Catherine Eddowes mortuary photo, and many went back for a second look!

Going back to the very beginning of this thread, I'm afraid I'm in the camp of Jack's ferocity gradually increasing with each of his murders (Stride's excepted as I believe he was interrupted.) I think Mary Kelly's body would have been similarly treated by him even if she didn't have a private room to take him to. The room just enabled him to take his time without interruption.

[The Good Michael]

Going back to the very beginning of this thread, I'm afraid I'm in the camp of Jack's ferocity gradually increasing with each of his murders (Stride's excepted as I believe he was interrupted.) I think Mary Kelly's body would have been similarly treated by him even if she didn't have a private room to take him to. The room just enabled him to take his time without interruption.

Time=Greater ferocity? I disagree. I think the escalation had to do with what came after the initial ferocious attack, rather than a greater ferocity in the aftermath of the attack. I don't even see how that could be proved.

Mike

[shinealight11]

I've been following JTR for more years than I care to remember. Last year my teenage niece got hold of one of my books on the subject.

She didn't read the text but she took the book to school. I think she has permanently traumatised her year level, as most have now seen the Millers Court photos and Catherine Eddowes mortuary photo, and many went back for a second look!

Yes. I sometimes think the "No-Face" we keep staring at in this case is not Jack's, but Mary's.

[RockySullivan]

What about the possibility the Mary Kelly was in the middle of being dismembered when something interrupted the ripper and he left quickly before the job was finished.

[Rosella]

There was speculation, wasn't there, that attempts had been made to get the head of Eddowes? Maybe Jack tried the same trick with Mary with his knife and that was what the axe found in her room was going to be used for. (I'm not suggesting he brought it. It was probably used by Mary/Joe for chopping kindling.) Perhaps there was movement in the Court outside and he thought better of it.

[RockySullivan]

There was speculation, wasn't there, that attempts had been made to get the head of Eddowes? Maybe Jack tried the same trick with Mary with his knife and that was what the axe found in her room was going to be used for. (I'm not suggesting he brought it. It was probably used by Mary/Joe for chopping kindling.) Perhaps there was movement in the Court outside and he thought better of it.

I read recently that some sort of expert had determined from looking at the photos that MK's leg had been split by an axe. Is that accurate?

[John Wheat]

Maybe the greater ferocity was down to Mary Kelly reminding Jack of his mother.

[barnflatwyngarde]

How does anyone know there was ferocity here? Ferocity implies a frenetic savagery. I believe he took his time and kept at it because he wasn't satisfied. I don't think it was because of a particular hatred for this woman over another.

Mike

I agree with The Good Michael.

I don't think we can assume that the ferocity of the attack negates the possibility that the killer may have been deliberate and studied in his mutilations.

Perhaps the killer found himself in a sort of psychopathic nirvana within the confines of Millers Court.

After the hurried mutilations of the previous killings, he found himself in a private room that was well lit and unlikely to be be disturbed as he took his time and finally realised most of the fantasies that had been rattling around his head for a long time.

Ferocious?
Yes!

Slow and methodical?
Quite possibly!

[Wickerman]

I read recently that some sort of expert had determined from looking at the photos that MK's leg had been split by an axe. Is that accurate?

That was Nick Warren, he was a surgeon. It was only a suggestion, nothing indisputable. I think it was the apparent split in the right thighbone that led in part to that suggestion. It may not have been a split bone though, just a trick of shadows.
I don't think the idea gained a lot of favor, I'm surprised he even offered it.

What about the possibility the Mary Kelly was in the middle of being dismembered when something interrupted the ripper and he left quickly before the job was finished.

Precisely my thoughts. Given the inconsistent areas of mutilation, and most apparently incomplete, I have to wonder if he intended to go further but was interrupted by something.

[Wickerman]

Maybe the greater ferocity was down to Mary Kelly reminding Jack of his mother.

Mary was about 24, how young do you think 'Jack' was?

[John Wheat]

Mary was about 24, how young do you think 'Jack' was?

To Wickerman

I was thinking maybe the name Mary Jane. Or maybe she looked like a young version of Jack's mother.

Cheers John

[Mayerling]

Hi all,

First on the possibility of either the cry of "Oh Murder!" being by a party spotting the Ripper covered in blood, holding a knife, or holding Mary's heart in his hand (which would be surprising, even if he felt triumphant), or the possibility of somebody interrupting the dissection of Mary Kelly:

In either case there would have been a second victim, unless that witness was smart enough to have a cocked gun with many bullets in it, and fired it into Jack. He couldn't afford to have been spotted that well by a witness - not like the vague situations about spotting suspects that had pervaded the case on every level so far (and afterwards).

Second - the mutilations of Mary's face to the point of total destruction:

Well if she was pretty it is bad, but he already showed that he was capable of mutilating the faces of other victims in the case. But I keep thinking of all her mutilations leading up to the face. There is a curious suggestion - and it's in a detective story, though not related to this situation.

The story is by G. K. Chesterton: one of his wonderful "Father Brown" tales. It's called "The Sign of the Broken Sword". In discussing a historical mystery of recent events (totally fictitious to us of course), Father Brown poses a question to his friend Flambeau. The question is "Where do you hide a tree?" Flambeaus thinks, and says "In a forest!!" The follow up question is "Where do you hide a body?" This leads to the tale of the so-called event. A recent historical event was the defeat (after an engagement) of a "General Gordon" figure by a charismatic foe in South America, and how the public was shocked when the Gordon figure was found killed on the battlefield after his surrender with a sword through his body (the broken sword). His charismatic enemy has been labelled a cowardly murderer for this, but remains silent. Eventually Father Brown explains to Flambeau that you hide a dead body in a forest of bodies. That is on a battlefield. [I recommend reading the rest of the story to fully understand what this leads to.]

My point is the following: Given the gruesomeness of the body of Mary Kelly and how it was found, the attention of everyone was on the state of the body - not as much on the face of the victim. How to hide the destruction of the face of the victim? On a horribly mutilated body as well!!

I think the killer was intending to destroy Mary's face - to render identification of the body as that of one Mary Kelly hard, and to render further identification of who "Mary Kelly" actually could have been nearly impossible.

But to cut up her face only in that room would have suggested too much - so the killer had to really set a stage up to hide his intentional destruction.

And I think it worked to this day. Look at the threads of discussions on Mary Kelly, and the difficulties of identifying who she actually was!

Photos of other victims as they normally looked are not totally impossible to find and compare to the morgue photos. Just think of Annie Chapman. Hell, think of the New York prostitute known as "Old Shakespeare" as well. Their normal photos appear on this site with other figures in the case like James Kenneth Stephen and Walter Sickert.

But how are you going to compare either of those photos of the destroyed Mary Kelly to any photograph of a 25 year old woman?

There is one idea I once had about this matter - you need the permission of the authorities in Britain for it.

Open up Mary's grave, get the skull out, and have it examined by experts like those who handled the recent recovery of the skeleton of King Richard III. Eventually, with computers, you can rebuild her face. That is, of course, if the skull is still there and in tact!

By the way - I first the photos of Mary Kelly in the 1970s when one was republished in the paperback edition of Donald Rumblelow's "The Compleat Jack the Ripper" in 1976. I still have that book. Now they are commonly (too commonly, I feel) republished in Ripper books and true crime books. That (or those) damned photo (s) bug the hell out of me, and I'm 61 this year. To me they and the photos of the sawn in half Elizabeth Short (the "Black Dahlia") are the worst photographs of atrocities (short of some of the Nazi photos) that I have ever had the misfortune to view. It's one of the reasons that I have rarely commented on any of the threads dealing with Mary Kelly - I don't want to haphazard read a column and see one of those pictures.

Jeff

[GUT]

But Jeff as I understand it we don't even know the precise location of her grave, I've been told that the marker is an approximation. The only real hope is if the plate on the Coffin "Marie Jeanette Kelly" remains to assist.

[Mayerling]

But Jeff as I understand it we don't even know the precise location of her grave, I've been told that the marker is an approximation. The only real hope is if the plate on the Coffin "Marie Jeanette Kelly" remains to assist.

Hi GUT,

That is a problem, and it may be unsolvable. For the government to allow disinternment for a time, it has to be a specific, readily available grave that can be reopened without disturbing other graves. No fishing expeditions would be allowed under normal circumstances. I didn't know this situation.

Jeff