Chapman and Kelly's Left Arms

[Patrick S]

I was debating the Chapman and Kelly murders with friend recently. My friend was arguing in favor of the theory that Champman was killed by JtR and Kelly was killed by someone who knew her (Barnett, perhaps) due to the extensive mutilation and of her corpse. His feeling being that the mutilation implied rage. My feeling has always been that extent of the mulitilation was due the fact that the killer had the privacy and the time to indulge himself. It's an interesting argument, certainly. In going back and reading Begg, I came across a mention in the Chapman case. Her left arm was "folded over her left breat". Kelly's left arm is photographed in precisely the same pose. Could this have been part of JtR's signature? Interested in your thoughts.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Patrick

I have wondered whether Chapman`s left hand was in that position (although not an unsual postion for it be found) because the killer had removed her rings and let her hand drop there.
I`m sure it would have been mentioned if Kelly had shown signs of wearing rings on her left hand. But, the gashes to her arm could be the reason the hand is in that postion.

Personally, I don`t think this is a signature. Just the way they fell after the killer had done his thing.

[Errata]

Well it's tough to say because of a lack of space. Chapman was killed in very tight quarters. Between the steps and the fence. It's entirely possible that her arm could not lie at her side because there was no room. It's entirely possible Kelly was posed, but we can't really say that Chapman was, because there wasn't anywhere else for her arm to go.

[lynn cates]

positus interruptus

Hello Patrick. Good question.

"Could this have been part of JtR's signature?"

If so, should not ALL the ladies have the same? Of course, some might suppose that he was interrupted whilst posing the others. heh-heh.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Jon. Quite.

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

Hello Patrick. Good question.

"Could this have been part of JtR's signature?"

If so, should not ALL the ladies have the same? Of course, some might suppose that he was interrupted whilst posing the others. heh-heh.

Cheers.
LC

As with all things, it's debatable. Perhaps he thought Chapman looked so wonderful with her arm draped just so that he decided to do the same with Kelly. Or Chapman simply fell that way. Or he reached across the body and removed the rings. All sound as plausible as the other. Your comment brought a question to mind, though: Is Kelly the only victim to be photographed at the scene, as she was found? I cannot recall seeing anything other than mortuary photos for Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes. Were photos taken that simply did not survive? Along with that, were there mortuary photos taken for Kelly?

[Michael W Richards]

Not only was Marys left arm deliberately placed back over her empty midsection, her right leg is at an unusual angle, and her head is positioned so that anyone entering the room would have immediately seen the wreckage that was left of her face. Her right arm is almost severed from the body. Partially stripped left thigh, fully stripped right thigh.

If you add to those tidbits that organs were placed between her legs, and under her head, including a breast and the previously coveted uterus....then you have some evidence to work with to solve this strange murder and tableau. First off, although many disagree with my assertion here, its almost certain that Marys killer used the knife with his left hand, and as he excised first the abdominal cavity he would pivot and place the materials out of his way, on the night table....or under her head. A very awkward thing to do if the man was right handed....which in the case of at least the first 2 Canonicals,..it appears Jack the Ripper was.

The murder shows us that many actions that were performed on Marys corpse had nothing to do with excising organs, had nothing to do with completely severing limbs from Torso, and had nothing at all to do with acquiring a Uterus. It shows us that Marys killer was likely left handed...contrary to some earlier unsolved murder evidence, and that her killer chose to secure the door with the spring latch when leaving....prohibiting immediate access to the body and creating the illusion of a locked room murder. It also shows us that Mary must have allowed the person who killed her access to that room...no-one but her, McCarthy and Barnett knew of the broken pane access method, and even if the killer did, he has to get from that window to Mary without waking her. And the latch would have to be released to lock once it had been secured to open the door.

Im just tossing a few points out to back up my contention that there are many elements of this murder that do not suggest a stranger to Mary, nor a right handed man intent on acquiring organs.

Cheers

[Jon Guy]

Mike

The items under Kelly`s head may just be there because they were put on the pillow whilst Kelly was still in the corner of the bed, and then she was pulled over to the middle and the objects ended up under head

[MayBea]

...
The murder shows us that many actions that were performed on Marys corpse had nothing to do with excising organs, had nothing to do with completely severing limbs from Torso, and had nothing at all to do with acquiring a Uterus. ... just tossing a few points out to back up my contention that there are many elements of this murder that do not suggest a stranger to Mary....

These are all valid points, Michael. People who want to continue to believe Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim may now have to accept a "Maybrick" scenario in that case.

If Jack knew Mary, that changes everything. In a Maybrick scenario, she represented someone special, how about his wife and that's why he didn't want to rip out her uterus, which also represents his wife's which gave birth to his children....The murder is linked to Chapman which explains the similar left arm pose.

[pinkmoon]

I was debating the Chapman and Kelly murders with friend recently. My friend was arguing in favor of the theory that Champman was killed by JtR and Kelly was killed by someone who knew her (Barnett, perhaps) due to the extensive mutilation and of her corpse. His feeling being that the mutilation implied rage. My feeling has always been that extent of the mulitilation was due the fact that the killer had the privacy and the time to indulge himself. It's an interesting argument, certainly. In going back and reading Begg, I came across a mention in the Chapman case. Her left arm was "folded over her left breat". Kelly's left arm is photographed in precisely the same pose. Could this have been part of JtR's signature? Interested in your thoughts.

Hi Patrick,yes by choosing Kelly and slaughtering her inside our killer had enough time to indulge all his whims no doubt about that.If Kelly was a victim of jtr then I think this was his riskiest murder yet.By killing Kelly in her room our killer had no means of escape except from the front door his victim been a prostitute would have had random callers at all hours could our killer have had a lookout?Mr Hutchinson possibly?

[lynn cates]

only one

Hello Patrick. Thanks.

"Is Kelly the only victim to be photographed at the scene, as she was found?"

Yes, so far as we know.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

I am with those who believe that Mary knew her killer but I don't understand why some people believe that to be the key to determining who her killer might have been. Even if we can be absolutely certain that she did know him the question becomes knew him in what way? Family member? Lover? Long time friend? Landlord? Someone she met earlier that day? They all fall into that category. I think the whole knew him thing explains why she might have let him in late at night but when you attach an incredible amount of significance to that fact then you start seeing everything that took place as being symbolic and extremely significant.That is a road I don't care to start down because the next logical question, HOW did she know him, remains unanswered.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I am with those who believe that Mary knew her killer but I don't understand why some people believe that to be the key to determining who her killer might have been. Even if we can be absolutely certain that she did know him the question becomes knew him in what way? Family member? Lover? Long time friend? Landlord? Someone she met earlier that day? They all fall into that category. I think the whole knew him thing explains why she might have let him in late at night but when you attach an incredible amount of significance to that fact then you start seeing everything that took place as being symbolic and extremely significant.That is a road I don't care to start down because the next logical question, HOW did she know him, remains unanswered.

c.d.

Hi cd,

There is something that gives us at least a possible clue to the nature of Marys possible relationship with her killer...the fact that she is nearly naked in her own bed when he attacks her. And she is facing the wall, turning her back to the guest, when she is attacked. That would rule out casual acquaintances, and bring to the forefront someone in her personal life. Since we know that she was seeing someone else while living with Barnett, a love triangle could have been a factor here.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I am not sure I get your point. Are you saying that this was a prelude to a romantic coupling as opposed to an act of prostitution?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

I am not sure I get your point. Are you saying that this was a prelude to a romantic coupling as opposed to an act of prostitution?

c.d.

What Im saying is that there is no evidence that Mary ever took a client to that room, and in fact since Barnett left at the end of October and Maria was still there until the 3rd, there would have been very few days when she could have brought "clients" in. It is therefore probable that she wasnt entertaining a client....and in fact we know from Mary Ann Cox that she spent the majority of the time in her lit room with Blotchy.. singing to him.

There is a contentious witness statement that suggests she took someone into her room around 2:30....but that evidence requires that a staggering drunk Mary let Blotchy out before 1:30am and then went out to solicit. Without any need for money that night. And without being seen by Mrs Prater when she came in the passage, nor Mary Ann Cox, who was out on the street.

I suggest to you that we have a good idea that Mary wouldnt earn money unless she was needing food or drink...since her arrears had been built up over a period of weeks and she evidently didnt feel compelled to address that debt. Plus she could barely speak when Mary Ann saw her....why would we assume she suddenly becomes responsible?

Just like her previous accommodations...where she was evicted for not paying rent.

Cheers