Was Bond right about the cut linen?

[Sam Flynn]

Then he probably straddles the body, and sitting on top of her he pulls the sheet over her face, tightening it with his right hand and cutting away with his left.

Again - why would the killer do that? What purpose does the sheet serve in all this?

[Fisherman]

Sam asks:

"Again - why would the killer do that? What purpose does the sheet serve in all this?"

Sam, you are a practical no-nonsense guy, and I´m well aware of that. All in all, it is a good approach, I believe - hte best, actually. Then again, it will not readily allow for the touch of drama that must have been there to some degree. There were yearnings and convictions inside the Ripper that may have led him to do things that were not only practically called for, just like there are such convictions inside us all. In hte case of serial killers, it is such things that may lead to staging of victims and such - things that make us ask "What purpose did it serve?" just like you are doing now.
The answer is, of course that the practicality of it all is that it satisfies the convixtions and yearnings within the killer.

And why am I saying this? I am saying it because I don´t think that the solution to the covering of her face lies in any practicality but the one that it saved Joe Fleming the sight of Kellys face being destroyed. I believe he was obsessed with Kelly, and that he nursed a hope to live with her, just as I believe that he did not set out as the Ripper with any intent to kill her.
If you care to have it all in more detail, it´s in the latest issue of Ripperologist, Sam. And if you need me to elaborate on any further point, I will happily do so.

The best!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Ker-Plunk and Buckaroo

And why am I saying this? I am saying it because I don´t think that the solution to the covering of her face lies in any practicality but the one that it saved Joe Fleming the sight of Kellys face being destroyed.

Presumably he kept his head averted from the mess he'd made after the blanket was removed, Fish? I just don't see Jack - or whoever did that to Mary - being that squeamish, frankly, considering the utter carnage he inflicted upon her body elsewhere. I read your Ripperologist article, and thought it excellent - an interesting contribution to a very interesting edition of the magazine all round. It's just that I don't think you need to justify Bond's loopy conjecture in order to make your case, and subtracting this one point from your argument doesn't diminish it in any way. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'll elucidate...

Popular Ripper theories strike me as conforming to two basic models, what I like to call "Ker-Plunk" and "Buckaroo":

Ker-Plunk was a popular game in the 70s, where a marble was suspended on top of a cylinder spiked through with sticks. Each player took turns to remove a stick from under the marble, and you lost the game if you removed the crucial stick that held the marble aloft. "Ker-Plunk" Ripper theories are those whereby it only takes one minor mistake to be discovered for the whole edifice to come crashing down.

Buckaroo, another 70s game, involved loading more and more baggage onto a plastic donkey; the losing player was the one who put just that little extra piece onto the donkey's back, causing it to "buck" and jettison its load. "Buckaroo" Ripper theorists are those that heap on as much speculation or psychobabble as they can, in the mistaken belief that they're strengthening their case by doing so. It's a tactic of diminishing returns however and, to me at least, the arguments become less believable as a result.

Now, your argument as set out in Ripperologist clearly isn't of the "Ker-Plunk" type, but be careful of turning it into "Buckaroo"!

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the advice, Sam - and for your nice words on my article. But I am moving with my own convictions here, and I would not let go of the covered face for a minute.

If you need to show that the Ripper was not squeamish, I think that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes will prove that point excellently. But not Kelly - I actually believe that he WAS squeamish in that case if you take my meaning. I believe that he was just as horrified by what he did to her as he was satisfied by what he did to the others. If you will excuse me a touch of sentiment, I think that the blood was mixed with tears in Miller´s Court. And I think that offers a reasonable explanation to why the killings seized after Mary - it burnt up his inner fuses, and the drive was gone.
He stayed on the loose for a number of years after it, but he did not resort to ripping again, it would seem. The drive was gone, if it was Fleming, we know that much. And there would have been a reason, Sam!

I have played "Ker-Plunk", Sam, just as I have played "Buckaroo". But I much preferred the game where you drop a handful of wooden sticks in a pile, only thereafter to remove them without making any other stick move than the one you are trying to pick from the pile. Sometimes it seems impossible to do, but the only way you can gain points in it, is to do the tough sticks too, not just the ones that seem easy and obvious. "Plocke-pinn" - that´s what we call it here in Sweden.

The best, Sam, and once again thanks for your kind words. I truly appreciate them.
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
For many years It has been believed the Whitechapel Murderer, only ceased his killing spree, because he was dead, or in some kind of instituation.
It has also been said that killers of this nature simply do not stop, they cannot.
I would agree to a point, however if there was a motive behind these murders, and not simply a case of a sadistic, sexual ,serial lunatic, then that general opinion would not necessary be correct.
I am of two opinions .
a] The person who killed Mary Kelly was also JTR, and he was known to her intimately, he therefore would be either Barnett, Fleming, the mysterious Lawrence, or even someone she had wronged[ like the man McCarthy was alleged to have sent packing from the court].
b] Her Killer was the man Mrs Maxwell [alleged] saw talking to Kelly at 845am on the morning of her death.
I am with the handful of Casebook members that share the view that events at Millers court show a destinct domestic trait.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

But I much preferred the game where you drop a handful of wooden sticks in a pile... "Plocke-pinn" - that´s what we call it here in Sweden.

What a fabulous language!

[Bailey]

"b] Her Killer was the man Mrs Maxwell [alleged] saw talking to Kelly at 845am on the morning of her death."

Richard - So you would put the time of death at....?

B.

[harry]

The face was gashed in all directions,the nose,cheeks,eyebrows and ears being partially removed.These findings were from the post-mortem.As I see it, the face must have been uncovered to inflict some mutilations to it,so the sheet over the face to hide the features doesn't seem to make sense.Or is it to be assumed that the partial removal of the eyebrows,for example,through the sheet can be put down to extreme luck?

[Sam Flynn]

Very good point, Harry. Given that it appears that the partial removal of Kelly's right eyebrow resulted in a sizeable chunk of flesh being loosened, and bearing in mind that the flesh is quite thin in that area, this would have been nigh-on impossible to achieve without the blade "snagging" in the cloth. In addition, the numerous cuts inflicted on the lips - not to mention the other irregular cuts skating all over her features - suggest very strongly that the blade was moving with comparative freedom. A sheet would not have allowed the knife much leeway to "travel" - if any at all. Even if one were to ignore this, such a devastating assault would have left a great big hole in anything that covered the face.

[caz]

Hi All,

I'm by no means convinced that Mary's face was covered at any point. But it might have helped her killer if the sheet was over her eyes when he struck, so she wouldn't see the knife coming.

I also think an argument could be made for the killer not wanting to see her face as he struck, ie while she was still alive, whether he had ever met her before or not. If he was a young man who was normally attracted to women of his own age (and maybe hadn't set out to kill this specimen, for that very reason), it's possible that she would have reminded him of the kind of women he usually bedded, or even of one particular woman who actually meant something to him. It could have been hard for him to have to look at her living face as he struck. Once she was dead, any such obstacles seem to have melted away and left him liberated to do his worst to date. Dead, Mary meant no more to him than Kate Eddowes, which doesn't suggest 'personal' to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I'm by no means convinced that Mary's face was covered at any point. But it might have helped her killer if the sheet was over her eyes when he struck, so she wouldn't see the knife coming.

Bond seems to suggest that there were a number of cuts to the linen, so they'd have continued long after the initial cut to the throat. So, what we're left with - it seems - are a number of cuts to a dead person's face. I see no practical, or emotional, reason why the killer should have felt compelled to cover her face once he'd inflicted the coup de grâce; especially given that he rendered the features into mincemeat and wrought such utter carnage on the body elsewhere. I sense that anyone who can fillet a person from thigh to thigh, slicing away their genitalia in the process, is hardly going to quail at slashing their features.

[Bailey]

I sense that anyone who can fillet a person from thigh to thigh, slicing away their genitalia in the process, is hardly going to quail at slashing their features.

Thighs and genitals are much less personal than the face, though. You recognise a person by their face - within in a few basic variations, genitals all look pretty much the same and you'd be hard pressed to pick someone you know out of a lineup from them (barring some unique feature I don't care to imagine!). With her face covered and / or slashed up, her genitals, thighs, internal organs, etc, become anonymous.

So maybe, knowing her or not, he kills her, then perhaps for some reason becomes distracted or uncomfortable with her "watching" him. He pulls the sheet over the face and gets to work further down. Then at some stage, maybe he still feels watched, or the frenzy mode kicks in or something, so he slashes at the sheet covered face and eventually decides hell with the sheet and works on the face directly. Just a thought...

Anyhoo, Merry Christmas!

B.

[Fisherman]

Having moved here from the thread "The night she died", I notice, Sam, that you never actually gave your opinion as to whether you believed that Bond had checked the mattress under the sheet for cuts or not. Are you actually and really of the opinion that he may have missed this?
Your original stance was that the sheet Bond was speaking about was somehow gone, and it therefore seems that you were of the meaning that the sheet spoken of was not the one under her? It must have been though, and therefore it must also be accepted that the rough distance between the cuts in the fabric and Kellys face probably corresponded well with Bonds suggestion.
Would you not say, Sam, like I did on the thread I used earlier, that the mistake of not checking the mattress under the sheet for corresponding cuts, would be a very clumsy and ignorant mistake to make for a man of Bonds experience?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I notice that Harry made the point that some of the wounds were of such a character that it would have been hard to make them under a sheet.
But one must of course realize that if the killers reason to cover her face was not to have to look at her features as he cut, then he may well have removed the sheet from her face after his initial onslaught on her face, only to make the more specific cuts afterwards - by that time her features would have been gone, and it would be like cutting in a bowl of mince-meat.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Would you not say, Sam, like I did on the thread I used earlier, that the mistake of not checking the mattress under the sheet for corresponding cuts, would be a very clumsy and ignorant mistake to make for a man of Bonds experience?

Hardly, Fish - given that he was primarily a medical man and not an upholsterer. NOT a glib answer, by the way - all I'm saying is that, as he was a doctor, we should concentrate more on his description of the wounds. Bond's speculative musings on the disposition of the linen while the killer blow was struck have little material (pardon pun) bearing on matters - in fact, as I believe, his observations have proven a tedious distraction ever since.