Ideas to explain the ferocity of MJK's murder

[GUT]

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

G'day Jeff

Don't take what I said as gospel, it is just what I was told when I made some inquiries.

[Harry D]

Sorry, but I don't buy into this idea that MJK's killer was trying to destroy her identity. If he was, then he patently failed. There was only one woman living in the hovel called 13 Miller's Court, it wasn't exactly rocket science to figure out who the victim was. You don't attack someone in their own home if you're trying to create a 'Jane Doe' situation. Notwithstanding her injuries, MJK's body was still identified quicker than Stride's.

Also, if the focus was to destroy the face, then I don't believe the extensive mutilations could've been incidental to that. There's no way. Whoever sat in that stuffy, cramped room dissecting her body piece-by-piece did so because they wanted to. If one concedes Eddowes was also a Ripper victim, then we've already seen the killer was extending to facial mutilation. More time, more violence. That's why the whole concept of the escalation in violence fits so snugly with the rest of the murders. A little too snugly for some, maybe. Personally, I'm still not wholly convinced that MJK was a Ripper victim. However, I draw the line at some kind of cover up.

[Ausgirl]

One detail that puts me in a spin with Kelly's murder is that fleshless section of thigh. I mean. Look at it. It's been completely stripped, down to bone. Like a joint of meat.

And then he puts the meat on a table. Did he take some with? Was he descending into cannibalism, is this why he started taking bits away with him? I dunno. But it crosses my mind.

Mary Kelly wasn't just murdered, she was utterly destroyed. Everything, absolutely everything that made her a woman, a human being, was mutilated into a ruin.

It's like a work of art (and no, I am not being flippant, nor at all Cornwellian here!). Just a way of thinking about this... Keeping in mind the 'decorative' nature of some of the wounds to previous victims. Mary Kelly could literally be a finished work of "art" for this killer. he went to a LOT of trouble to make sure what was seen would never in a million years (well, at least a century or two) be forgotten.

So I am two minds about "frenzy". Is a cold kind of frenzy possible? A slow, horrible dedication to this brutal task? It -looks- frenzied but there's careful elements. How long did he take to strip all the meat off her thigh? Why would he hurry? Did he enjoy it, all that time to -take- his time.. sorry, just riffing out loud there.

Mary Kelley's murder bothers me on several different levels, some of them quite deep.

Was her hand really INSIDE her body cavity? That'd be the first I've heard of that.

[c.d.]

I certainly don't mean to trivialize what took place but think of it as comparable to eating ice cream. One bite of ice cream doesn't satiate you. All it does is make you want more ice cream.

c.d.

[GUT]

I certainly don't mean to trivialize what took place but think of it as comparable to eating ice cream. One bite of ice cream doesn't satiate you. All it does is make you want more ice cream.

c.d.

I think that is likely.

[Mayerling]

Sorry, but I don't buy into this idea that MJK's killer was trying to destroy her identity. If he was, then he patently failed. There was only one woman living in the hovel called 13 Miller's Court, it wasn't exactly rocket science to figure out who the victim was. You don't attack someone in their own home if you're trying to create a 'Jane Doe' situation. Notwithstanding her injuries, MJK's body was still identified quicker than Stride's.

Also, if the focus was to destroy the face, then I don't believe the extensive mutilations could've been incidental to that. There's no way. Whoever sat in that stuffy, cramped room dissecting her body piece-by-piece did so because they wanted to. If one concedes Eddowes was also a Ripper victim, then we've already seen the killer was extending to facial mutilation. More time, more violence. That's why the whole concept of the escalation in violence fits so snugly with the rest of the murders. A little too snugly for some, maybe. Personally, I'm still not wholly convinced that MJK was a Ripper victim. However, I draw the line at some kind of cover up.

Grant that killing a person in their home or apartment or room in some slum is not going to totally rule out the person's identity ("Oh, that is where Ms Kelly sleeps."), but it could be that the body might have been recognizeable for some facial reason if seen by the authorities. Put it this way (and I am not trying to say this is what happened, but I am inventing a "f'r instance" idea):

In 1886 there was a famous poisoning trial that ended in acquittal of one Adelaide Bartlett for the murder of her husband Edwin. After the trial, Adelaide managed to lose the public attention on herself and drift off into a happy oblivion. Nobody really knows what happened to her, but she may have ended up (like Madeleine Smith and Florence Maybrick) in America. But for the sake of an argument, suppose the lady known as Mary Kelly was actually Adelaide, being tracked down by one of her husband's friends, or some member of his family. He finds her, and does his actions on her body, but is determined to make facial recognition impossible as the police would certainly recognize her face if only partly mutilated or if left alone. He may also have craftily started carving up the faces of victims earlier to make what he does to "Mary" seem a natural extension of his insanity.

Then my suggestion might make a little more sense. At least it did to me. It does not necessarily stand that this is the solution to the carnage in that room, but I offer it as a suggestion.

Jeff

[Ginger]

But for the sake of an argument, suppose the lady known as Mary Kelly was actually Adelaide, being tracked down by one of her husband's friends, or some member of his family. He finds her, and does his actions on her body, but is determined to make facial recognition impossible as the police would certainly recognize her face if only partly mutilated or if left alone. He may also have craftily started carving up the faces of victims earlier to make what he does to "Mary" seem a natural extension of his insanity.

Oh, my! That would make a magnificent novel!

[Wickerman]

"She had two false teeth which projected very much from the lips."
Morning Advertiser, 12 Nov. 1888.

Regardless how you mutilate the face, the false teeth remain another indicator.

[Ausgirl]

A personal relationship with MK would explain the facial damage, maybe extreme hatred, looking at the organ removal. General rage, depersonalisation and humiliation, just incredibly extreme in this case.

I've never seen anything like that stripped-down thigh before though. Unless the killer planned to eat some of it.

[pinkmoon]

I think all of the victims would have suffered the same appalling fate as poor mary if they were killed inside and he had the extra time .

[Rosella]

I think he may well have taken a few slices (and I'm not being facetious here) of flesh to eat as well as the heart.

In my opinion Jack had enjoyed mutilating Kate Eddowes' face and while he was with Mary, fairly secure indoors, he decided to continue on where he'd left off. He may have started off in a frenzied manner and then settled down to quietly and systematically dissect a female body, piece by piece.

I don't think that Jack intended that this body should be left unidentifiable as Mary Jane Kelly. I don't believe he cared about that. He was expressing his feelings about females in general by what he did in that room in Miller's Court, from Mary's head to her feet, IMO.

[RockySullivan]

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.



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.

Thanks wickerman. While many of the torso's heads were never found, i imagine they'd look like Mary Kelly's.

[Harry D]

Grant that killing a person in their home or apartment or room in some slum is not going to totally rule out the person's identity ("Oh, that is where Ms Kelly sleeps."), but it could be that the body might have been recognizeable for some facial reason if seen by the authorities. Put it this way (and I am not trying to say this is what happened, but I am inventing a "f'r instance" idea):

In 1886 there was a famous poisoning trial that ended in acquittal of one Adelaide Bartlett for the murder of her husband Edwin. After the trial, Adelaide managed to lose the public attention on herself and drift off into a happy oblivion. Nobody really knows what happened to her, but she may have ended up (like Madeleine Smith and Florence Maybrick) in America. But for the sake of an argument, suppose the lady known as Mary Kelly was actually Adelaide, being tracked down by one of her husband's friends, or some member of his family. He finds her, and does his actions on her body, but is determined to make facial recognition impossible as the police would certainly recognize her face if only partly mutilated or if left alone. He may also have craftily started carving up the faces of victims earlier to make what he does to "Mary" seem a natural extension of his insanity.

Then my suggestion might make a little more sense. At least it did to me. It does not necessarily stand that this is the solution to the carnage in that room, but I offer it as a suggestion.

Jeff

Nothing wrong with throwing out ideas, Mayerling. It's just not something I can get on board with for reasons already stated. Furthermore, if the Ripper had wanted to make Mary Kelly unidentifiable, why not simply remove the head?

[Michael W Richards]

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/.

I think the above reflects more on your own perceptions of what people are capable of shinealight, but its not an accurate representation of what we see in everyday life today, let alone in the midst of a unknown killers trail of victims. There was an opportunity to toss another body on the assumed JtR pile in order to deflect any suspicions that may have been cast upon parties known to Mary. Whether that opportunity was taken isn't clear, but the opportunity was there for the taking.

In everyday life we see murderers who cut up bodies to dispose of them, however there is no evidence that most of these people ultimately sought post mortem mutilations which in effect necessitated the murders being executed in then first place. There is evidence within the Canonical Group that at least 2 consecutive murders did have that as the ultimate objective.

Most murders happen for reasons which are evident within the evidence and by people without any defined mental illness,...for money, love, power, to protect secrets, to erase a threat, to remove obstacles, when being caught committing other crimes.....the facts are that mentally ill killers who kill just to satisfy their inner demons are few and far between. Its one reason to keep an objective opinion about why, individually, these murders may not all be by someone who could not control murderous impulses.

Ive likened this current state of Ripperology to this comparison...why decide that you are looking for a unicorn just because you've found some hoofprints?

Cheers

[Harry D]

IMO, Nichols & Chapman are almost definitely by the same hand. Stride is a maybe. I think there's more to suggest an interrupted ripping rather than a separate killer. Given the murder location, it's unsurprising that something might've spooked him before he could finish the job. Which leads me to wonder why the Ripper chose that spot in the first place? Then again, killing must be like an addiction for certain minds, and he needed his next fix despite the risks involved.

With Eddowes, I just can't make my mind up. The nature of the mutilations were notably less clean and precise then Chapman's, but there are nevertheless solutions to this. From a deterioration of the Ripper's physical (and/or mental) state, to simply being frustrated by Eddowes' various under-garments. Whatever the case, there was still undoubtedly a level of skill required to remove the innards under the blanket of darkness within a matter of minutes. WHY the facial mutilations, though? I know we talk of the violence escalating from victim to victim, but what could've triggered the same man to suddenly direct attacks on the face when hitherto he was only interested in abdominal mutilations? If you set out with a desire to dehumanize your victims, wouldn't the face be one of the first areas you'd target?