Assumption buster #2 Mary Jane Kelly

[MsWeatherwax]

If he were put away or frightened off the streets after the Mitre Square atrocity (or even as some have surmised made seriously ill and weakened by an infection contracted in perpetrating that murder) then Mckenzie's death might fit in quite well.

And then there is Coles?

Phil H

Thank you for the warm welcome, Phil!

The bolded part of your post...I've never heard this before. Why might people think he contracted an infection?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Phil

As this thread is about questioning/challenging assumptions, I would simply ask whether we can be sure that it was "Jack" who killed MJK?

To my mind, based on Chapman`s and Eddowes injuries, there is little doubt that Kelly was killed by the murderer of Chapman and Eddowes.

But regarding McKenzie, I agree with you, and Dr Bond, that she could be attributed to the Ripper. I tend to think that the difference in wounds on McKenzie could be down to the fact that the Doctors didn`t see evidence of the 6-8 long bladed knife that was used on Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly (and possibly the weapon that went into Tabram`s heart). So, the Ripper used a shorter knife and had to deal with the problem of McKenzie`s tight fitting clothing around her abdomen, which I think why the abdomen was not opened.

[lynn cates]

no obstacle

Hello Jon.

"So, the Ripper used a shorter knife and had to deal with the problem of McKenzie`s tight fitting clothing around her abdomen, which I think he abdomen was not opened."

Very well. But why not cut through as with Kate?

Cheers.
LC

[Harry Poland]

A very warm welcome to these boards, MsWeatherwax. I hope you enjoy participating in the discussions.

As this thread is about questioning/challenging assumptions, I would simply ask whether we can be sure that it was "Jack" who killed MJK?

There are other possibilities - some of which might fit the circumstances better.

did he definitely stop? Could he stop, for that matter?

I would argue quite strongly that Mckenzie might be attributed to "Jack" especially if he did not murder MJK.

Mckenzie's murder fits the pattern of Nichols and Chapman (even Eddowes) quite well - especially if one takes into account the possibility that he was interrupted and/or in a weakened state. If he were put away or frightened off the streets after the Mitre Square atrocity (or even as some have surmised made seriously ill and weakened by an infection contracted in perpetrating that murder) then Mckenzie's death might fit in quite well.

And then there is Coles?

Phil H

Damn good point Phil. If and it's a big if we take MJK out of the equation then the other murders do seem to better fit the pattern.

So what of MJK? An attempt to disguise a botched abortion maybe?

[Phil H]

MsWeatherwax

The point about an "infection" (on which I have no view) is that in cutting open and disembowelling Kate Eddowes, the killer might have had a cut, or cut himself. Given the faecal matter around, he might then have become ill.

In that situation, the apron fragment he took becomes a rag to staunch his own bleeding. The resulting illness then puts him off the streets, at least for a while, explaining the gap after eddowes' murder.

I leave you to make up your own mind.

Jon

To my mind, based on Chapman`s and Eddowes injuries, there is little doubt that Kelly was killed by the murderer of Chapman and Eddowes.

Then you are entitled to your view. I would not necessarily rule it out, but I am open to other possibilities. these days I tend to favour a "domestic" solution to the MJK killing over it being "Jack's" work. I see passion, personal feeling and revenge in what was done to Kelly and that i do not see in any of the other murders.

Phil H

[MsWeatherwax]

I've come across the 'botched abortion' theory before, but it seems like a very extreme solution to me. Likewise, the theories about it being someone else with the facial mutilations being performed to obscure the true identity. To me, whoever performed the atrocity on Mary Kelly was not a 'normal' person - it would take a very cold heart and a deeply sick mind to do that to another human being for any other reason than satisfying some kind of perversion, either mental or sexual.

I just find it very hard to believe that someone could accidentally kill someone in the act of performing an abortion, then decide that the next logical step would be to horrifically mutilate them. That being said, I've never been in danger of penal servitude for killing someone in the act of an illegal abortion.

I do accept that someone not directly in 'the know' about the type of mutilations that were carried out on the previous victims could have wildly over-estimated the damage that was done to them due to the Chinese Whispers factor. An elderley neighbour of mine basically scalped herself on the edge of a telephone table after she fell down her stairs. Two days later I was stopped by someone in town who had been told she'd been decapitated! It's plausible to me that someone trying to mimick the Ripper based on local gossip could have, theoretically, believed the mutilations to the victims were far worse than reported. What I find hard to believe is that someone would actually go through with it.

EDIT: Thank you Phil, that's very interesting...it's definitely a possibility. Like pretty much everything in this case, though, there's no way to positively know is there? What a shame so much of the physical evidence is gone...even if there was no DNA to be had, it would be interesting to know what blood type/s were on that apron.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

"So, the Ripper used a shorter knife and had to deal with the problem of McKenzie`s tight fitting clothing around her abdomen, which I think he abdomen was not opened."

Very well. But why not cut through as with Kate?

If I`ve understood the medical reports correctly, Eddowes had the items that were tied around her waist cut through, whereas McKenzie`s dress could be pulled up over her genitals but the clothing she was wearing was tightly fitting, not just around the waist.
I imagine not having the same 6-8 long bladed knife may also have had reduced his cutting options.

[Hunter]

[B]But if "Jack" killed in an opportunistic way - seizing ther moment of being alone with the woman, taling little more time than a routine assignation to do his business, then while high risks remained, he was no more susceptible to interruption surely than if he had been a normal customer. Anyone seeing a couple in the spot would have recognised what they were likely to be about and turned aside/moved on.

It is quite different being seen in the service of one of these women - probably more common than we realize. The locals were used to it and minded their own business. On occasion, a resident might file a complaint with the police if the activity persisted ( I did find reference to one report of this nature). Being caught in the act of murder and/or mutilation in the same environment is a different story, even though the chances of detection were the same.

These were as high risks murders as they get without intentionally seeking to entertain an audience.

[FrankO]

Wouldn't you say that part of this killer's make-up was exhibitionism, the way he left them exposed and prostrate.

Hi Jon,

My view is that he did what he did first and foremost for himself. He clearly had some issue with women, which was apparently best solved for him by mutilating their abdomen. We can fairly safely assume that he was driven by those mutilations, as he risked his life staying some extra time at the crime scene to inflict them.

If it was exhibitionism that drove him, he needn’t have used his knife (to mutilate). Just spreading the legs, exposing the abdomen and inserting some object into her vagina would have done the trick, I believe, and would have taken less time. Likewise, if shocking the public was his thing, he could have done other things, like cutting off parts that were easily accessible, leaving taunting messages on the body.

Like Errata, I do think that leaving his victims where and how he did and the shock it caused among the public was an added bonus.

All the best,
Frank

[Phil H]

It is quite different being seen in the service of one of these women - probably more common than we realize. The locals were used to it and minded their own business.

But unless they deliberately went close, any passer-by would probably not have taken too much notice, or assumed it was what it appeared to be - a woman servicing a man.

Being caught in the act of murder and/or mutilation in the same environment is a different story, even though the chances of detection were the same.

Except for the last few minutes, or seconds, it would have looked as what it appeared to be.

These were as high risks murders as they get without intentionally seeking to entertain an audience.

You may be right, but I am not sure that is the way the killer would have perceived or expressed it.

Phil H

[Hunter]

Well, we can safely deduce that these risks were not a deterrent to perpetrating the deeds.

[Phil H]

Indeed, Hunter - well put.

One could ask, did "Jack" even think about risks - at least in those terms?

I am sure he was cunninmg, took care, avoided doing anything foolish, used his knowledge of Spitalfields - but I don't think he would have intellectualised it (if I can put it that way). I think he acted on impulse and instinct - and they served him well.

Phil H

[Michael W Richards]

It's commonly assumed that MJK was the final victim, although some commentators suggest that other similar killings may be also attributable to JTR.

Taking Tabram as the first murder (controversial), and Kelly as the last, it is suggested that between these killings there is a clear evolution of MO. Based on this it is further suggested that after killing MJK and having time with her body to carry out the mutilations the ripper would no longer be satisfied with mere street killings. Is it not therefore possible that after killing MJK the ripper's MO evolved significantly perhaps by taking his victims home and carrying out both murder and mutilation there.

Who knows, in some forgotten lime pit under some London cellar, there may be many many more victims. Discuss.....................

Hi Harry,

Not only is there a victim in the middle of the Canonical Group that is certainly not representative of any evolution by a single killer, there is clear evidence that in the view of one who saw 4 of 5 victims dead, there is a progressive, marked decrease in the skill and knowledge of the killer recognizable in the wounds on the victims.

Before we start looking at whether a single killer brought victims home after Mary Kelly, perhaps we should be more forthright about what kind of evidence exists that links these crimes to one killer in the first place.

Meaning....we have zero hard evidence that these killings were linked to a killer.

All the best.

[lynn cates]

crossing the line

Hello Phil.

"used his knowledge of Spitalfields"

Not to mention Aldgate.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

My view is that he did what he did first and foremost for himself. He clearly had some issue with women, which was apparently best solved for him by mutilating their abdomen. We can fairly safely assume that he was driven by those mutilations, as he risked his life staying some extra time at the crime scene to inflict them.

Hi Frank.
There's so many aspects to his persona. If mutilations were the driving force, why take time to strangle them as opposed just stab them?, and get on with the important stuff
Do we detect a need for him to see their last breath slip away in his bare hands (or by ligature)?

I wouldn't say exhibitionism drove him, it was more of a parting shot. After he had satisfied himself, he left them prostrate for the first innocent passer-by.

I see three aspects to his personality:
- Strangling (indications only)
- Mutilations (certain)
- Posture. (likely)

Regards, Jon S.