Mary Kelly's men

[Michael W Richards]

I still like the idea that because Eddowes & Kelly were more attractive than the previous victims, it dictated the extent of the facial mutilations they each received. If the Ripper was driven by a violent desire to dehumanize his victims, this could be a plausible explanation. Polly & Annie weren't exactly lookers by any stretch of the imagination, and Stride is ever the grey area, so it could be that the killer didn't have the same stimuli with these victims.

Or not? Who knows?

And I like the idea that Kates nose was symbolically cut to indicate that she figuratively had her nose where it didnt belong. If she intended to name someone as the killer at large, as she apparently claimed, then that person, if guilty of any crimes, would have a motive to do away with her and symbolically cut her as an example of what happens to stool pidgeons.

[c.d.]

So... you disagree with my statement that the killer was known to the victim based on the evidence, then you agree with Abby when he says the same thing? Gotcha. Seems to be a revealing moment for you and your oh-so-often contrary posts to mine cd.

Hello Michael,

I'm afraid that you are jumping the gun here and that your conclusion is wrong. I agree with Abby that Mary knew her killer. I disagree with your assertion that Mary knew her killer AND that their was a significant and intimate relationship between the two of them.

See the difference in those two statements?

c.d.

[John G]

John,

There is only 1 reason to suspect that more than 2 or 3 of the Canonical Group were killed by the same killer, and thats because modern theorists enjoy trying to match the deviant behaviours exhibitted within those 5 murders with known and identified serial killers and their morphing of their own MO to evade capture, and because contemporary investigators guessed that these 5 were linked by killer....doing so obviously without ANY of the modern day serial killer profiling data. Simply put...it was their guess.

In actuality there is no evidence that the killer of Polly and Annie changed either the motive or the methods, there is only that assumption based on theories that the killer must have changed. Just like assuming the same killer stabbed, then suddenly moved to cutting throats and mutilating abdomens within a month. Baseless...relying on an end game premise to be accurate.

Michael,

Well, Polly's killer could certainly be said to have changed his motive and method if it's assumed that he also killed Annie, i.e. he started removing organs. In fact, based upon your approach, you might as well say that out of Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly it is Nicholls who is the odd one out, i.e. no organs targeted. In fact, the two victims most closely linked by motive are Chapman and Eddowes, i.e. the uterus was targeted both times.

I think a far more straightforward approach is therefore called for. The simple fact is that, as I noted earlier, killers who mutilate, but do not rape, their victims are incredibly rare. The chances of there being two or more such unconnected individuals, operating over a few short months and within the same small geographical area, is so astronomically unlikely as to be hardly worth considering.

You refer to modern profiling techniques. Well, they were applied to the Whitechapel murders by Keppel et al, 2005, and all of the C5 plus Tabram were linked by signature characteristics.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

I'm afraid that you are jumping the gun here and that your conclusion is wrong. I agree with Abby that Mary knew her killer. I disagree with your assertion that Mary knew her killer AND that their was a significant and intimate relationship between the two of them.

See the difference in those two statements?

c.d.

I said the surroundings were intimate, the setting was intimate, and never said that they knew each other in a "significant" way. Although thats my belief.

Im content to explore the question from the standpoint that they knew each other, just how well they knew each other can be deduced from some additional factors.

The main point is that this was not a pick up by a stranger, from the street, of a street whore who was soliciting at the time. Thats essentially the baseline MO for Polly and Annie.

So...serial killer proponents can creatively discuss why he changed what he did, how he did it, why he changed MO, and why he changed Victimology....(which are questions that do not have answers in hard evidence), while I continue to pursue answers that address the differentials in hard evidence format.

She was half the age of priors, she was indoors, she was undressed, and she almost certainly knew the killer. And a complete uterus lay under her head.

[c.d.]

And I like the idea that Kates nose was symbolically cut to indicate that she figuratively had her nose where it didnt belong. If she intended to name someone as the killer at large, as she apparently claimed, then that person, if guilty of any crimes, would have a motive to do away with her and symbolically cut her as an example of what happens to stool pidgeons.

This assumes that the Ripper somehow had become aware that she intended to name the killer.

What symbolism do we attach to the kidney? If you say none, then it seems people pick and choose what they consider to be symbolic.

This reminds me of the religious people that see God's handiwork in natural disasters. God is sending a clear message they say. God punished the sinful city of New Orleans for its wicked ways with hurricane Katrina. When you point out that the French Quarter (sin central) was largely spared they respond well ok not all natural disasters are are a message from God. Just some.

Could it be that Jack simply felt like cutting off her nose? Why does it have to be more complicated than that?

c.d.

[Pierre]

Why does Mary Kelly's murderer MUST have killed all of the others? We've just commented that her killer seemed to have a personal connection or relationship with her, based on how violently he mutilated her corpse.

I know the police at the time thought she was one of the White-chapel killer's victims, but some believed the same of Liz Stride, too. Why? What did they know that we don't?

OK, so if you think it was another murderer who killed Kelly, then we can forget about the others in this case. But what are the reasons to do so?

The extensive mutilations on Kelly can be explained by the fact that the killer was indoors. That is a better explanation than the idea of another killer, since there are similarities between the mutilations on Kelly and the others.

If someone postulates another killer, or more than another one, you get at totally different theory and can forget about a "Jack the Ripper".

Then one should also be so kind as to explain the choice of such presumptions.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

This assumes that the Ripper somehow had become aware that she intended to name the killer.

What symbolism do we attach to the kidney? If you say none, then it seems people pick and choose what they consider to be symbolic.

This reminds me of the religious people that see God's handiwork in natural disasters. God is sending a clear message they say. God punished the sinful city of New Orleans for its wicked ways with hurricane Katrina. When you point out that the French Quarter (sin central) was largely spared they respond well ok not all natural disasters are are a message from God. Just some.

Could it be that Jack simply felt like cutting off her nose? Why does it have to be more complicated than that?

c.d.

Or could it be even simpler.

That when a knife is slashing around n the semi dark by a maniac in a rage anything could get cut.

[c.d.]

"So...serial killer proponents can creatively discuss why he changed what he did, how he did it, why he changed MO, and why he changed Victimology....(which are questions that do not have answers in hard evidence), while I continue to pursue answers that address the differentials in hard evidence format."

Well, keep us posted on the outcome of those pursuits.

c.d.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;371873]

Hi Pierre
I see you have finally learned how to use the quote function.

I haven´t finally learned it, I just didn´t bother before, but might as well.

[c.d.]

Or could it be even simpler.

That when a knife is slashing around n the semi dark by a maniac in a rage anything could get cut.

Hello GUT,

Ah a breath of fresh air and common sense from someone who doesn't see symbolism lurking in every corner.

c.d.

[Pierre]

"Based on the comment I highlighted above, which I agree with, it would seem to indicate that she was not like the previous victims in that there seems to be some personal connection between killer and victim. "

Hello Michael,

What do you base that on?

c.d.

I am asking the same question.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;371915]Quite a few factors actually cd.....there are

no indications of forced entry or entry gained without consent, which means she allowed the killer to enter her room...

Hi,

Just because you see no indications of entry without consent that does not mean there was consent. There is no source that indicates that Kelly "allowed the killer to enter her room".

If you actually believe there is, please point out that source to us.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

The simple fact is that, as I noted earlier, killers who mutilate, but do not rape, their victims are incredibly rare. The chances of there being two or more such unconnected individuals, operating over a few short months and within the same small geographical area, is so astronomically unlikely as to be hardly worth considering.

I agree.

You refer to modern profiling techniques. Well, they were applied to the Whitechapel murders by Keppel et al, 2005, and all of the C5 plus Tabram were linked by signature characteristics.

Correct.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Or could it be even simpler.

That when a knife is slashing around n the semi dark by a maniac in a rage anything could get cut.

And accidentally cut out a uterus or a kidney...

Pierre

[Errata]

Or could it be even simpler.

That when a knife is slashing around n the semi dark by a maniac in a rage anything could get cut.

Is he flailing about like an octopus at a rave? Noses are hard to cut off. The same consistency as a stalk of bamboo, which is hard to accidentally sever with a wild gesture. Not that it has some grander meaning in the cosmic scheme of things, but barring an industrial accident, and probably lots of alcohol, one does not accidentally cut off a nose.