Ideas to explain the ferocity of MJK's murder

[shinealight11]

I wonder about the sexual attractiveness? I suppose it's different strokes for different folks (pace Kosminski). Some might fancy her, some, a drab.
LC

That sounds reasonable on the surface, but I wonder if a sexually-motivated killer is as "picky" as all that. Maybe it was enough that Mary was younger, had fewer missing teeth, better hygiene or nicer hair.

Also, Mary was said "to have been possessed of considerable personal attractions" according to McNaughten. She might not have been the girl Jack the Ripper would've taken home to meet him mum, but she could nonetheless have had what it took to get him really going that night.

[Harry D]

How about Jack just happened to be having a rotten day?

[lynn cates]

attractiveness

Hello Shinealight. Welcome to the boards.

I wonder about the sexual attractiveness? I suppose it's different strokes for different folks (pace Kosminski). Some might fancy her, some, a drab.

Cheers.
LC

[Azarna]

After all, if Jack the Ripper's violence was in some way curtailed by being carried out outdoors, then why didn't he operate indoors from the beginning? )

Most prostitutes in the area were like the previous victims, women who lived in doss houses and cheap lodging houses. They did not have a private room to bring a client back to.

[shinealight11]

Thanks for the replies everyone. My thoughts regarding #2 do seem a bit far-fetched in the light of your comments.

However, I would respectfully disagree with the view that the privacy of Mary's room in any way explains the ferocity of the attack carried out there. After all, if Jack the Ripper's violence was in some way curtailed by being carried out outdoors, then why didn't he operate indoors from the beginning? Wouldn't the inability to fully "express" himself on the streets -- due to poor lighting and the massive risk of being caught red-handed -- constitute an intolerable restraint to him psychologically?

Rather, I tend to the view that Jack the Ripper derived all sorts of unspeakable pleasure from leaving the bodies in public view. Therefore there is something else going on in Miller's Court that needs to be brought in to explain the colossal escalation in violence we see there. (Can Eddowes' injuries really be compared to Kelly's? I don't think so.)

I think I'll stop posting and really dig into these boards now so I don't annoy anyone by being preumptuous :-)

[Disco Stu]

Hi shinealight11,

Nice to see new posts and new angles. I did spot a few pitfalls though

1. Speculation on appearance can be a blind alley. We just don't know what the victims looked like in their final hours. Tying libido and aggression together's not a bad idea though.

2. A blood trail leading away from the scene would surely have been noticed, and the evidence suggests the victim was initially attacked and bled out while lying in bed, facing the wall. That's not an ideal position for mortally wounding an unexpected attacker. If the victim did somehow cause serious harm you've then got a quandary: if the killer stuck around to do the mutilation, they'd be bleeding, leaving a blood trail that wasn't found and out of place blood at the scene which wasn't noted by Bond or Phillips. Or they rushed the mutilation, which seems unlikely given the evidence we have, and fled urgently.

[Errata]

I doubt that you would find someone who went to the hospital for a knife wound after getting stabbed. First of all, hospitals were the last resort, and secondly a killer would probably not want to answer a bunch of questions as to how he got stabbed. At best I think you'd get a guy in for sepsis about a week after the murder.

[Harry D]

The attack on Eddowes displayed a hitherto ferocity that wasn't as evident in the previous murders. If you subscribe to the belief that the murders were escalating in violence, coupled with the MJK murder occurring indoors, then there was nothing exceptional about the victim per se other than the murder scene.

[Hunter]

Good pseudonym, Shinealight. Welcome.

One suggestion. Make sure you shine that light around every place you can before presuming very much. Folks seem to dig themselves a hole they can't get out of when they do otherwise. I'm sure the comments you get will verify that.

[shinealight11]

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.