Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Sam Flynn]

What this tells us is that the organ harvesting in Chapman and Eddowes wasn't what he wanted all along and was experimental in itself.

Quite, although "improvising" might be closer to the mark. Also, it's worth noting that it's fairly easy to open an abdomen and cut out a couple of abdominal organs, which cannot be said of the heart.

[Trevor Marriott]

Quite, although "improvising" might be closer to the mark. Also, it's worth noting that it's fairly easy to open an abdomen and cut out a couple of abdominal organs, which cannot be said of the heart.

Sam

It may not have been be easy even if you have the medical skill and expertise to do so quickly, given the condition of the body, after the abdomen had been ripped open and mutilated, and the fact that the abdomen would be blood filled, the organs would be wet and hard to grip.We know how long it took Dr Browns expert to just remove a uterus

If these organs were removed at the scene by someone with anatomical knowledge, then that persons skill and expertise had to be on a par with Dr Browns expert to be able to do all that he is supposed to have done in the time available to him. So how many others would have had that type of skill in 1888 to be able to do all of that in almost total darkness?

On another medical point, if organ harvesting was a motive. It should be noted that there is no need to remove the intestines to remove a uterus.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

On another medical point, if organ harvesting was a motive. It should be noted that there is no need to remove the intestines to remove a uterus.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor, If he did remove the uterus [I do respect that you think otherwise Trevor], but if he did does this not indicate that he wasn't an expert or he would know this. Also, I seem to remember someone pointing out that Kate had her kidney removed from the front rather than the back which apparently is a lot easier.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Trevor, If he did remove the uterus [I do respect that you think otherwise Trevor], but if he did does this not indicate that he wasn't an expert or he would know this.

Agreed.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor, If he did remove the uterus [I do respect that you think otherwise Trevor], but if he did does this not indicate that he wasn't an expert or he would know this. Also, I seem to remember someone pointing out that Kate had her kidney removed from the front rather than the back which apparently is a lot easier.

Hi Darryl

What is a common denominator in all the murders? It is that all the victims had their abdomens mutilated, some more than others.

What isnt a common denominator is that all the victims having had their abdomens ripped open had organs removed at the crime scenes..

Another common denominator is that only two victims were found to have organs missing at the post mortems, and that those two victims were the only two left for 12 hours at two different mortuaries and in the case of Chapman left outside the mortuary on a handcart for some time.

There is one significant dissimilarity between the murder of Eddowes and Chapman which in my opinion shows that the organs from both were not removed by the same person.

If you remove Kelly from the equation on the basis that no organs were taken from her. then it makes the theory that the killer removed the organs even weaker,and shows that in those 12 hour windows anything could have happened to those bodies, and if the organs were removed by bona fide medical professional at the mortuaries then that would explain the anatomical knowledge as seen and described by the doctors when they carried out the post mortems

If the killer wasn't an expert then I would suggest he would not have had enough time to remove a uterus and a kidney based on the time it took Dr Browns expert.

It is suggested that the killer had at least 5 mins to do all that he is supposed to have done.My latest research shows that he may not have even have had as long as 5 mins in any event.

From what I am led to believe removing the kidney from the back is procedure adopted in more modern times, and necessitates the patient being on their side

In Victorian times there was no medical need to remove a kidney from a live donor. So how many person outside the medical profession would have that type of knowledge and expertise to do that in 1888

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

What JtR wanted was the defeminization of his victims by mutilation and amputation with a knife. It has long been recognized that the destruction of MJK, was a total wipeout of her female characteristics and therefore had no need to take away anything else which he hadn't already taken away from her.

JtR showed two signs of medical knowledge in a modern analysis. The first was the kidney had been cut at the renal artery. The second is that MJKs heart was disconnected through her ribs rather than under her ribs. That's where it ends.

Bond got it right when he did a meta-analysis of all the Ripper murders. The medical knowledge vs no-medical knowledge is a very small column against a much bigger column of no-medical knowledge.

Meaning JtR learned as he went along. Which is evident from the escalation and experimentation he did.

[Sam Flynn]

If these organs were removed at the scene by someone with anatomical knowledge, then that persons skill and expertise had to be on a par with Dr Browns expert to be able to do all that he is supposed to have done in the time available to him.

Experts are concerned with doing things properly. What happened to Mary Kelly was a hatchet-job, as is self-evident from the crime scene photographs.

[Michael W Richards]

With all due respect to the specific mutilation-related actions taken by the killer, isn't it more revealing how and why he chose women in the first place. After all, even though I disagree with the position that there was no skill shown in any of the Canonical killings, anyone with a sharp knife can cause severe wounds. The wounds and specific extractions are significant, but for me not as significant as the circumstances.

As cd acknowledged, some people feel there is sufficient evidence in the Kelly case to exclude her from a list that includes 4 previously murdered women. Despite the fact that there were mutilations and an extraction. Because anyone with a sharp knife and time could have killed and dissected Mary. There is however no focused attack on the abdomen, and the only organ taken twice before is left behind. The evident circumstances dictate that we accept she was at home in bed when attacked, and that intimacy is lacking in any prior or subsequent potential Ripper murder.

Not to divert the discussion, Ill just add that for circumstantial reasons and evidence of mutilations, or lack thereof, Liz Stride can also be set aside from that list. Which would get us where? Well, it would establish that anyone can commit heinous acts with a knife, but also that understanding the reasons for killing in the first place are critical when determining if you are looking at one or more killers.

Mary, or the woman found in her bed, was punished. That's all that's clear to me anyway.

[Trevor Marriott]

Experts are concerned with doing things properly. What happened to Mary Kelly was a hatchet-job, as is self-evident from the crime scene photographs.

Sam
I totally agree with you, and that is why Mary Kellys murder is different from the rest of the murders in many ways.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

The ripper is connected to his victims mainly by the way he cuts their throats while they are lying prostrate after a quick frontal blitz attack. He does not cut their throats while they are standing. There is no blood down their front.

That is one strong reason why Stride is included.

[Trevor Marriott]

The ripper is connected to his victims mainly by the way he cuts their throats while they are lying prostrate after a quick frontal blitz attack. He does not cut their throats while they are standing. There is no blood down their front.

That is one strong reason why Stride is included.

Cutting the throat was an accepted way of killing in Victorian times and does not on its own connect all the victims to one killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

There is however no focused attack on the abdomen

I don't think that's quite the case, given that the abdomen was laid completely open and its entire contents removed.

and the only organ taken twice before is left behind.

It's not easy to remove a heart under time constraints in a public place.

Mary, or the woman found in her bed, was punished. That's all that's clear to me anyway.

If that's true of Mary Kelly, then Eddowes was punished to a certain extent also.

[Abby Normal]

Because it seems unlikely (although not impossible) that she would go out to solicit late at night when it was cold and rainy.

Someone trying to enter through the broken window risked waking her up and having her scream.

I think she let someone in. I don't think (given her supposed fear of the Ripper) that she would have let a stranger in.

I believe that her killer had killed before and that Barnett or any other ex lover was not capable of doing what was done to her.

If she was in need of rent money and the person at the door identified himself as the man from the pub who bought her drinks I think she would have let him in especially if she thought he had any sort of money since she could no longer depend on Barnett.

I think the man she let into her room was Jack.

c.d.

And could this man still be hutch?

[Batman]

Cutting the throat was an accepted way of killing in Victorian times and does not on its own connect all the victims to one killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's not what I said.

I said...

The ripper is connected to his victims mainly by the way he cuts their throats while they are lying prostrate after a quick frontal blitz attack.

Why ignore they are prostrate?

[Trevor Marriott]

That's not what I said.

I said...

The ripper is connected to his victims mainly by the way he cuts their throats while they are lying prostrate after a quick frontal blitz attack.

Why ignore they are prostrate?

There is no specific evidence to show that they were all lying prostrate when their throats were cut. nor is there any evidence to show they were all strangled before their throats were cut.

Again misinterpretation of the facts by researchers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk