overkill

[FrankO]

...Id be inclined to say that curiosity is one of the predominant features of the Kelly murder,...

It's funny that you mention this Michael, because the last 5 years or so I've been thinking that, besides anger, curiosity for the female body may have driven the Ripper to do what he did to his victims.

All the best, Mike,
Frank

And to Sam and Frank.....Id be inclined to say that curiosity is one of the predominant features of the Kelly murder,... I see the only evidence that any anger was present in her face wounds. I dont see anger in and of itself in any legitimate Canonical Death, and I see only anger in Marthas.

You may be right in whether anger played a part in Kates wounds, but I am inclined to see those wounds differently than you...I think she was being "marked". Mary was being erased.

Best regards

Hi Michael,

Just curious, but are you sure that's what some think? Given the fact that MJK’s complete abdomen seems to have been emptied of organs, that’s a very odd view indeed.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I think its in the verbiage then, because I would describe what happens to Mary as emptying her, not opening her. He doesnt even take an abdominal organ yet her empties that cavity....he peels flesh from bone,....he does some weird things in there but I dont think that saying Marys killer opened her body in the way that was seen done in the case of Polly and Annie is correct.

All the best Frank

[Pinkerton]

It's possible she was silenced by a blow to the head just before she reached the landing. Let's posit the possibility that she was leading her punter up the stairs to that nice dark area. He clubs her across the head just as she gets there, and grabs her to make sure she doesn't fall with a thump. (He must have been strong to be able to do this!) He lays her out and commences to stab. She is unconscious at first and then dead. And let's not forget the 'effusion of blood' in the cranial area.

No noise whatsoever from this scenario. And, like other Ripper kills, the victim is silenced immediately and dead very very quickly thereafter. It's after they are gone that he really gets down to work.

Chava, I have been tempted to also propose the "blow on the head" theory to explain the fact that no one seemed to hear anything during the murders (with the possible exception of MJK). The only problem with the theory is that there is no evidence to support this. There were no large contusions found on the skull. Not to mention the fact that if you hit someone on the head hard enough to knock them unconscious they are most likely going to BLEED like crazy from the wound. And I don't believe ANY of the victims were ever found to be bleeding from the head.

Therefore there seems to only be two explanations for the fact that no one heard anything--either they are LYING (don't want to get involved, are too scarred, etc.) or the perpetrator used another method to silence the victims. We can rule out ether or chloroform (there was never any trace of this found). It seems that the only alternatives are drugging, or strangulation/choking. The former seems unlikely (would take time to kick in and no traces of drugs were found on the victims), and the latter seems to be the only realistic possibility at this point. That is unless you believe the physicians of the day which seemed to believe that you could cut someone's throat so quickly and suddenly as to prevent them from crying out. I find this scenario unlikely, unless Jack was some kind of a "ninja" that is...

[Sam Flynn]

If you mean here that Tabram's killer wasn't able to control his anger, due to whatever Tabram said or did, whereas with the evisceration murders the killer was controlling it to a reasonable extent, then I'd agree, Gareth.

Snap!

But I'm quite confident that anger did play a part in those murders as well.

Agreed, but I see it operating at a wholly different level.

PS: I'm listening to a rather lovely Mahler performance by the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra right now. It's good to be corresponding with a Dutchman at the same time

[FrankO]

If that ain't focused on the abdomen, I don't know what is.

Completely agree with you there!

[FrankO]

If you mean here that Tabram's killer wasn't able to control his anger, due to whatever Tabram said or did, whereas with the evisceration murders the killer was controlling it to a reasonable extent, then I'd agree, Gareth. But I'm quite confident that anger did play a part in those murders as well.

[Sam Flynn]

I agree we can't actually know, but I'd say it's a reasonable assumption that anger had something to do with what he was doing to those women.

I think the difficulty lies in what one assumes about what was at the forefront of his mind at the time, Frank. I can understand sublimated anger playing a part in some murders, but that's not quite the same as the sort of conscious anger, such as that which might have been in the mind of Tabram's killer as he punch-punch-punched the blade into her body.

[Sam Flynn]

Given the fact that MJK’s complete abdomen seems to have been emptied of organs...

... indeed, her complete abdomen seems to have been emptied of abdomen - the killer left precious little of the abdominal wall intact, consistent with Bond's stating that "three large flaps of flesh... from the costal arch down to the pubes" had been removed. If that ain't focused on the abdomen, I don't know what is.

[FrankO]

Leaving aside whether the killer(s) were "angry" or not at the time - we can't possibly know -...

Hi Gareth,

I agree we can't actually know, but I'd say it's a reasonable assumption that anger had something to do with what he was doing to those women. I'm sure he didn't do it because he was so fond of them.

Best,
Frank

[FrankO]

..."Up" is what some think the killer really wanted when given a room.

Hi Michael,

Just curious, but are you sure that's what some think? Given the fact that MJK’s complete abdomen seems to have been emptied of organs, that’s a very odd view indeed.

Cheers,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

Im not sure you got the gist of my post Sam....the cuts on Kates face are not clearly done in anger

I disagree, Mike. Leaving aside whether the killer(s) were "angry" or not at the time - we can't possibly know - it's evident that the wounds on Eddowes' face were inflicted with some considerable force. They were deep, and the killer punctured bone. Indeed, they were cuts, not stabs, but they were vicious cuts just the same. I'm reminded of a jealous child scraping a biro over the photograph of an elder sibling; or Beethoven angrily scratching out his dedication to Napoleon on the manuscript of the Eroica symphony.

Sigh... there you go again, Mike!

I struggle how anyone can say that "real deliberate ripping open" didn't feature in Mary Kelly's murder; nor, indeed, how anyone can overlook the fact that Catherine Eddowes' facial wounds wasn't another example of "overkill with cuts".

The key thing to note in this context is that none of the evisceration murders committed in East London during 1888 were "overkill with stabs" - in fact, stabs are conspicuous by their absence in practically every case. That's more than can be said of Tabram.

Im not sure you got the gist of my post Sam....the cuts on Kates face are not clearly done in anger, stabbing a woman 39 times to death was....and Mary is cut up, not just cut open. One is self entertainment, the other is locating objectives.

"Open" accessed what the killer of Polly and Annie wanted, "Up" is what some think the killer really wanted when given a room.

And as for Martha goes, it would seem we agree. Marthas killer didnt exhibit any wants or desires aside from venting and killing....Jacks victims did.

So exactly where did "I go" Sam?

[Sam Flynn]

Martha Tabram is frenzied overkill with stabs, by the evidence, possibly by 2 separate individuals with one only stabbing once.....Mary Kelly is deliberate overkill with cuts...but the murders in between contain some real deliberate ripping open.....and thats a Jack signature.

Sigh... there you go again, Mike!

I struggle how anyone can say that "real deliberate ripping open" didn't feature in Mary Kelly's murder; nor, indeed, how anyone can overlook the fact that Catherine Eddowes' facial wounds wasn't another example of "overkill with cuts".

The key thing to note in this context is that none of the evisceration murders committed in East London during 1888 were "overkill with stabs" - in fact, stabs are conspicuous by their absence in practically every case. That's more than can be said of Tabram.

I dont see how anyone could look at the death of Martha Tabram and not see clear and specific evidence there was anger in the killers actions.

Other than Marys face wounds, what specific injuries on any Canonical are overtly physically angry ones?

One hand could smother her mouth or choke her while he made some stabs, she would be weakening with each successive one and not likely require silencing at some point, perhaps after the throat stabs.

But the single most relevant piece of data that relates to her killer is 2 weapons. Whatever your preference, dagger or bayonet...both were quite likely being carried or worn by men that night, legally....there was at least one large wound caused by other than a "pen knife".

Martha Tabram is frenzied overkill with stabs, by the evidence, possibly by 2 separate individuals with one only stabbing once.....Mary Kelly is deliberate overkill with cuts...but the murders in between contain some real deliberate ripping open.....and thats a Jack signature.

Jacks forte isnt just killing at all.

Best regards all.