Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[markmorey5]

Strangulation was not likely because noise would be involved during the victims struggle, except partial strangulation in one instance. Also, except for that one instance, none of the victims showed evidence of being strangled. So quite clearly from the autopsy reports we can rule out strangulation.

The killer was right handed and used a relatively long, sharp knife, except in once instance from behind, and with one sudden and unexpected blow severed the victim's vocal cords while pressing down on the victim's head to minimise blood spray. From there exsanguination would have taken about a minute.

If we take the MO as being a sudden and unexpected cut to the throat then waiting for Kelly to undress and go to bed doesn't make sense. More likely the killer broke into her room, either using the lost key or the broken window, and found her in bed drunk. But that's still a big difference from the other murders which were sudden and brutal.

Lynn,
I have shot a few beasts (technical word used in Australia) for home consumption in my time, so watch out for me when I have a 22 in my hands! I also shot rabbits on the farm, so when I write fiction I can write what it's like to aim and squeeze the trigger. I'm writing a novel which has 'Il quattro giornale di Napoli' as a sequence, and the character sniping at German soldiers. I can do that and it comes out right.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Strangulation was not likely because noise would be involved during the victims struggle, except partial strangulation in one instance. Also, except for that one instance, none of the victims showed evidence of being strangled. So quite clearly from the autopsy reports we can rule out strangulation.

Au contraire, most autopsy reports show signs of strangulation.
It was a good way to neutralize the victim completely, bring her to the ground, and when she passes out, cut her throat.

[markmorey5]

Au contraire, most autopsy reports show signs of strangulation.
It was a good way to neutralize the victim completely, bring her to the ground, and when she passes out, cut her throat.

Anzi; I read all of records and only Chapman had any signs of strangulation. Not on any other victim, and no defensive wounds which would be inevitable with strangulation. Strangulation takes time and the victim would try to claw the murderers hands from her throat, but there's no evidence of strangulation, no evidence of a struggle, no noise, nothing at all.

There is a theory that strangulation 'must' have happened, and this comes from the lack of blood except on the ground. So strangulation 'must' have happened because the killer could not wrestle the victim to the ground and cut the victim's throat while the victim was conscious. So the missing link is how the killer cut the standing victims throats without that initial spurt of pressurised blood loss. The answer is what a surgeon told me about hard pressure on the head to minimise the initial blood loss. The initial, pressurised spurt of blood is only for a second so it's possible.

If the victim were on the ground when their throat was cut there would be a spray of blood on the ground (like the spray against the wall at Millers Court), but there is no evidence of blood spray on the ground. After I shot the beasts their throats were cut, and I have seen that blood spray.

[lynn cates]

It's a sign.

Hello Sir John. Actually, only Polly and Annie had signs of strangulation. Both had facial bruising as marks of fingers; one had a protruding tongue, the other, lacerated.

No such signs on the others.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

ruled in

Hello Mark. Thanks. I'll be on my guard. (heh-heh)

Actually, strangulation cannot be ruled out in the first two.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

some

Hello Sir. John. Actually, not MOST; only some.

Cheers.
LC

[Mabuse]

Trying to keep the victim silent and reduce the struggle and blood flow? My money's on chloroform.

If the Ripper was poor, of course, he probably couldn't afford it. It would have been freely available, however, if he had the dosh.

[Wickerman]

....
The tradition of a hatless woman out at night being regarded as a "loose woman" is long established. That doesn't mean 'every' prostitute had to 'fit' the contemporary image.

I know we've discussed the tradition of 'unfortunates' advertising their trade by being hatless after dark.
Here is a contemporary account mentioning the same....

The woman was poorly clad, and was strolling about, as a large number of her class do in the East-end, without hat or bonnet."


Pall Mall Gazette, 10 Nov.

[Wickerman]

Henry Mayhew wrote of the frequenters of the cheap lodging-houses.

Outside he notes, "the streets were alive with sailors, and bonnetless, and capless women".

Down a narrow court some empty costermongers barrows were unattended and turned up. "At the bottom of these lay two young girls huddled together, asleep. Their bare heads told their mode of life..........we passed on, and a few paces further on there sat grouped on a doorstep four women, of the same character as the last two"
London Labour and the London Poor, Mayhew, 1861.

[harry]

This is a photo of Dorset street in Henry Mayhews time?
Doesn't seem to me to be alive with anyone.Plus I have found pleny of photos on the web of empty London streets,taken in Victorian times.

[Wickerman]

Nobody lived in London in Mayhew's time, he was a born liar, everybody knows that.

[Busy Beaver]

Although not quite Autumn, Many Londers, even the poor managed to escape the hot city by going down to Kent and Sussex for the hop and fruit picking season, so the City in poorer areas would seen quite quiet. Unfortunately 1888 saw a not so good hop season.

[Wickerman]

Some of the victim's had, or wore a bonnet even though they were known prostitutes, this has been mentioned before.

Not every establishment looked kindly on these women.
While out on their hunt for custom, they may need to go into a chandlers shop for some grub, or a pub for a gin. This is why they carry a bonnet.
For a woman to be out alone, at night, with no head covering was frowned on. To avoid rejections like, "get out, we don't want your type in here", from any of the customers, or even the owners themselves, it was necessary to carry a bonnet, to lend an appearance of respectability.
There is also the fact it could rain any moment, so carrying a bonnet was necessary for a few reason's.
They would put the bonnet on when the need arose.

[Simon Wood]

What evidence is there that "Mary Kelly" was a victim of Jack the Ripper?

[Wickerman]

Was that concluded in this thread?, I can't remember.