Ideas to explain the ferocity of MJK's murder

[Ausgirl]

See, you say that, Ausgirl, but it's quite remarkable how many violent customers were inhabiting that neck of the woods around this time. Off the top of my head there were men like Grainger, Cutbush, & Bury who committed knife attacks on women, and in Bury's case a Ripper-esque murder. The Thames Torso Killer would be the most notorious, and how can we be sure that was the work of one individual? Then you've got all the non-canonical victims to factor in.

Well, sure - I mean, look at the coastal region of California/Washington and the incredible number of killers clustered along that particular thin stretch of road. There's probably dozens of them there, right now. Killers can and do share locations. But what narrows the field for a particular set of murders is exactly what made the police in 1888 believe a 'Ripper' was at large -- the high unlikelihood of a killer sharing five or six traits with any other killer, in a small area, during the same period.

But yep, there was others about. Which is why I'm on the fence about Liz Stride being a Ripper victim, only a little more inclined to think Martha Tabram was, and unsure about people like Annie Millwood.

[Harry D]

And MJK had enough 'hallmarks' of previous murders for it to seem obvious we're looking at the same guy. Because.. intestines, organ removal.. really, how many killers of that ilk do people think were rampaging around that portion of the East End?

See, you say that, Ausgirl, but it's quite remarkable how many violent customers were inhabiting that neck of the woods around this time. Off the top of my head there were men like Grainger, Cutbush, & Bury who committed knife attacks on women, and in Bury's case a Ripper-esque murder. The Thames Torso Killer would be the most notorious, and how can we be sure that was the work of one individual? Then you've got all the non-canonical victims to factor in.

[Ausgirl]

It's also not very useful, IMO, to argue that lack of precise linear progression in terms of wound savagery is indicative of separate killers.

In fact, this very argument has set back investigations into serial murders, in our own era.

Personally, I think at the moment Emma Smith was attacked by a vicious gang of youths, exactly as she said she was.

I think a reasonable assumption is that there was indeed a gang of violent youths, perhaps attacking other women in the area as well. Perhaps not, maybe they were just tourists. Someone recently raised the idea that perhaps the two are not mutually exclusive - JtR is part of a couple of vicious gang attacks, his mates don't really get into it as he does.. so he branches out on his own.

What I do think for sure is that the chances are extremely slim on there being TWO killers in that little tiny area, in that short period of time, who strangle - and- use a knife, leave their victims posed legs open, cut or maim the throat extensively and kill in high-traffic areas.

And MJK had enough 'hallmarks' of previous murders for it to seem obvious we're looking at the same guy. Because.. intestines, organ removal.. really, how many killers of that ilk do people think were rampaging around that portion of the East End?

[c.d.]

If a killer has no problem ripping open the abdomen of a victim, why in the world would a face somehow be off limits or carry extra significance? There is only so much flesh on a human body.

c.d.

[Ausgirl]

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

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.

Sorry -- but no-one has seen serial killers "in every day life", in any era. In our particular era, there's .. Ed Gein. Not that I think he's a lot like the ripper. But he did carve dead bodies, and killed to acquire them.

Peter Dupas, Kemper, Bundy, Derek Percy, all postmorten mutilators. But Gein is the one who killed just to make them dead. And therefore, useful to him.


In real life, serial killers do not follow any kind of serial killer recipe. We can talk about them as a group, they *generally* do this or that thing, but there is always, always, the one guy or several to prove you utterly wrong. Within the rare group 'serial killer' there's a range of subgroups, and people who fit all and none of them.

Variation in MO is NOT uncommon. It really is not. There's a pile of 'em who've done it. Varied victim pool, varied weapons, varied sexual activity ....they do quit killing for decades and start up again, they do rape some victims and not others, and so on and so on.

In real life, I believe it'd be pretty hard for police, or anyone at all, to look at a series of violent and specifically sharp force attacks on group of analogous victims, all in an area the size of a postage stamp, with a generally visible rate of escalation in wound patterns overall, and NOT think "one man did this".

Even in Victorian London, even in Whitechapel.

[Harry D]

Hello Harry.

"IMO, Nichols & Chapman are almost definitely by the same hand."

Good. The parallel cuts seem to clinch this.

"With Eddowes, I just can't make my mind up. The nature of the mutilations were notably less clean and precise than Chapman's . . . "

Indeed. Nice piece of detective work. And, in conjunction with the many anomalies in John's testimony, one's eyebrows should be raised.

Cheers.
LC

Hello, Lynn. How's it going?

Don't you accept that there are possibly internal and external factors to explain the discrepancy in skill between Chapman & Eddowes other than a different killer?

[Penhalion]

The whole 'Not Really MJK' is quickly becoming one of my pet peeves. There's no reason to doubt it was her, people who knew her well identified her body and she was found in the room she was known to occupy. If it WASN'T MJK, then who was it? A woman WAS butchered in that room. Both of the women she was known to share the room with were alive and well after the murder. Are people postulating that she lent her room to a third hitherto unknown woman while MJK went.....where on a raw November night? And that no one noticed that this other woman was missing?

The 'Not MJK' thing is all well and good for fiction but it doesn't play very well in real life.

[lynn cates]

detective work

Hello Harry.

"IMO, Nichols & Chapman are almost definitely by the same hand."

Good. The parallel cuts seem to clinch this.

"With Eddowes, I just can't make my mind up. The nature of the mutilations were notably less clean and precise than Chapman's . . . "

Indeed. Nice piece of detective work. And, in conjunction with the many anomalies in John's testimony, one's eyebrows should be raised.

Cheers.
LC

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Oh, my! That would make a magnificent novel!

"From Hell", the movie, makes it a plot twist. It's not MJK, but nobody know but Abberline.

[J6123]

Had Eddowes or Chapman had a private room, and taken the Ripper to it, we might have seen something very similar to Miller's Court. I'm quite happy with the explanation for Kelly's destruction being that the location was a bit more secure and he had more time.

[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?

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.