Prove it

[smezenen]

Point taken on a stranger owning a room in her own name, but then she wouldnt be an "Unfortunate" would she? And it seems to me that the Unfortunates were his chosen flock.....

If Jack and Mary are strangers to each other then at first meeting jack would not know Marry had a room and may assume that she is an "Unfortunate". Wouldn't that logic place her within the flock, just younger than the rest of the Hens.

[perrymason]

If Jack and Mary are strangers to each other then at first meeting jack would not know Marry had a room and may assume that she is an "Unfortunate". that simple logic places her within the flock just younger than the rest of the Hens.

Hi Smezenen,

If Jack killed Mary and she was a stranger to him, then it appears his first time meeting her was in her room that night. So your comments suggest he tried a door at random and went in....if he didnt know who lived there.

I think that is arguable based solely on the location.....Millers Court was a cramped small courtyard with a 20 foot tunnel leading into it and out of it....with no known street whoring going on in that courtyard. So why is "Jack" looking for Unfortunates in their room....which is impossible by definition alone, Unfortunates dont have rooms....or in small courtyard with sleeping residents?

When Jack picks up a middle aged woman soliciting outdoors after midnight, there is every possibility they are strangers. When a killer goes to a room, enters where a young woman is in her bed undressed and attacks her with a knife while she is on her side facing away from him....we dont likely have strangers.

Cheers smezenen.

[smezenen]

If Jack killed Mary and she was a stranger to him, then it appears his first time meeting her was in her room that night. So your comments suggest he tried a door at random and went in....if he didnt know who lived there.

I dont see where my post implies jack was trying door knobs, it was meant to imply he meet Kelly the same way he meet the rest.....outside. sorry if I mislead anyone by my comment. Stranger or old friend debate aside I firmly believe Mary meet her killer outdoors and she invited him in to her room.

[Sam Flynn]

When a killer goes to a room, enters where a young woman is in her bed undressed and attacks her with a knife while she is on her side facing away from him....we dont likely have strangers.

Instead, underlined, we have a whole lot of speculation which the unsuspecting reader might mistake for fact.

Caveat lector

[Tom_Wescott]

I guess we disagree about the potential importance of Marys age and circumstances as relates to the priors....and I with your comment that the "overwhelming likelihood" is that Liz Strides and Kate Eddowes murders are related.

Im assuming you meant related by their killer.

Your assumption would be correct, although I don't believe I mentioned Eddowes in my post. And I certainly have a lot more than my own opinion going for me in my arguments, thank you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Hi again,

It seems that you misread my comments Tom....I wasnt referring to your opinion, but those of the people who first created the Canon. My remarks concerned the evidence that was used to formulate these murder-matches,.....or more precisely the lack of any, and that they dont hold water any more than they did 120 years ago. No evidence is no evidence...and Unsolved doesnt mean Solved....just because a solely opinion based "Canon" is created.

And to address Sam and smezenen together, Im only using the formal review of the known evidence.... as you know in the Inquest testimony the ONLY person seen with Mary her last night is Blotchy Face, and although Mrs Maxwell says she saw Mary later that morning, it was and is believed that she was mistaken.

Mary is found in her room and her bed undressed, and she had been attacked while lying on her right side at the upper right of the bed. She was attacked with a knife as evidenced by the defense wounds, only Liz Strides killer used a knife before completely subduing her.

Ergo, your remarks smezenen using that Inquest foundation, must lead to him finding Mary by chance. She didnt meet anyone while out that night....that we know of...other than Blotchy and her killer....perhaps one and the same. If she isnt seen out, or heard out, or leaves evidence in her room of something that she could only have obtained after 11:45pm on the 8th.... then theres no evidence she went out, and therefore no evidence she met anyone after 11:45am, other than the man that kills her. Which logically leaves us with him finding her indoors.

I know people like to think Maxwell was right....and Mary did go out whoring after 1:30am, maybe Hutchinson was right too....and she must have met her killer when out at night...just like the others. When in fact the evidence that exists supports none of those conclusions...and only illustrates the deviations from known existing patterns and preferences, and highlights the fact that she wasnt in the same situation or category as any of her predecessors. And Maxwell is told she is giving conflicting evidence with everyone elses, and Hutchinson is discredited almost by the time the ink has dried on his statement.

Many would like to assume all that anyway....and I think we all remember Felix Ungers "breakdown" of that word.

I dont think I should take heat for reminding people that we do have official records, but no official link of any murder to another, and no record of Mary being anywhere but in her room from 11:45pm on.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

to address Sam and smezenen together, Im only using the formal review of the known evidence...

With respect, Mike, you're projecting your own views onto that evidence. The evidence itself does NOT state that Mary's killer entered her room alone, found her asleep and killed her whilst she was facing away from him. That's your interpretation of the evidence, to which you're entitled of course, but it should not be presented as if it were fact. There are alternative scenarios which have equal, if not greater, claims to plausibility.

[Tom_Wescott]

only Liz Strides killer used a knife before completely subduing her.

She seemed to have been adequately subdued to the investigators, whom you apparently regard as mouthbreathing chest-slappers. There was no sign of a struggle, no screams or arguments heard, no blood on her clothing, and she didn't even drop the cachous in her hand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[smezenen]

Ergo, your remarks smezenen using that Inquest foundation, must lead to him finding Mary by chance. She didnt meet anyone while out that night....that we know of...other than Blotchy and her killer....perhaps one and the same. If she isnt seen out, or heard out, or leaves evidence in her room of something that she could only have obtained after 11:45pm on the 8th.... then theres no evidence she went out, and therefore no evidence she met anyone after 11:45am, other than the man that kills her. Which logically leaves us with him finding her indoors.

Michael,
I see absolutely nothing in the inquest testimony that suggests Jack entered Mary's room uninvited.
I also see nothing in my statement "If Jack and Mary are strangers to each other then at first meeting jack would not know Marry had a room and may assume that she is an "Unfortunate". Wouldn't that logic place her within the flock, just younger than the rest of the Hens." that would lead anyone to believe I suggested Jack was trying doorknobs at random or entered Mary's room uninvited. In fact the underlined part about Jack not knowing Mary had a room would obviously suggest that I believe they are not in her room when they meet. I do believe you are right about Mary's killer attacking her with his knife before choking or otherwise making her unconscious but I see nothing in that fact to dismiss her a ripper victim.
Killers can and do change their MO all the time. So why would jack be different? The fact that Stride's throat is cut before she is on the ground and Mary is attacked with the knife first suggests that Jack like other killers was capable of and did change his MO.

[perrymason]

Rather than continue to defend myself against multiple attackers Ill just finish with this and let you all tell whatever tales you fancy on the thread from here on.

If we use the Inquest data....which is about the only solid submission of hard evidence we get on these murders.....

Sam....There is no testimony given at the Inquest that was believed that has Mary ever out of her room again after 11:45pm, Thursday night. There is solid evidence that suggests the attack began with Mary on the bed, on her right side, facing the "partition wall". In the attire she is found in. There is no evidence that was submitted that says anyone saw any light or heard any noise again from Marys room specifically after 1:30am....including the "oh-murder", heard emanating from the court. There are witnesses that pass Marys door a few times between 1:30am and 3:00am, when Mary Ann Cox retires for the night. There is no evidence submitted at Inquest that Mary was seen with anyone other than Blotchy Face at 11:45pm. There is no witness of suspect evidence brought forward after the Inquest that was believed longer than 72 hours.

Theres no accepted evidence she left her room after 11:45am, no evidence of any other man seen with her other than Blotchy, no evidence that any light was on in that room between 1:30am and 3:00am, or after, and no evidence that she was heard uttering anything after she stopped singing, for the rest of that evening.

That leaves us with Blotchy Face as the primary suspect based on time and proximity. Sarah Lewis's Wideawake Hat is a person of suspicion....and we have no reason but a discredited witnesses remarks to suggest that Wideawake is George Hutchinson. Since we have 2 men near the scene and the victim....maybe that contributed to the Pardon for Accomplices being issued from a departing Warrens desk Saturday afternoon....since only one is known to have been with the deceased that night.

The above includes no justification for any suggestions that she left and picked up a client, but it does justify speculation that she was in a sleeping position, undressed, facing the wall, and on her bed when she is first attacked.

Tom,....The medical authority that examined Elizabeth Stride suggested that she may have been grabbed from behind while standing, and pulled off balance backwards, twisted to face the wall and slit "while falling". That is not subdued first, that is attacked with a knife in one hand. It appears that in the case of Polly, Annie and Kate, a knife was not used at all until they were lying down unable to resist....meaning semi or fully unconscious. And for the record... complete omission of evidence, as in the case of Israel Schwartz, does not corroborate written notations regarding his believability.

smezenen, .....all I can say is see the above....Mary didnt meet her killer outside her room that night unless he was Blotchy Face.....and Blotchy face knew he had been seen clearly by a witness entering Marys room.

Ive never disputed that killers can change MO or even signatures....who knows what some nuts will do....Ive olny suggested that there is no evidential link of the murder of Mary Kelly with that of Polly Nichols. Or of Liz Stride with Annie Chapman, or of Kate with Polly. Kate and Mary are the only possible links by evidence, and its mostly for the fact she uses versions of Marys name twice in her last 24 hrs. Ordinarily not a big issue....but it may well be when the next victim, and the final one, is actually a Mary Jane Kelly.

The only other evidence that fits any Canonical with another is by using the processes, methods and actions taken with each independent murder, and comparing to see if any suggest or strongly suggest a same killer. Using that barometer... Polly and Annie can be placed under one "cloak" fairly clearly... the medical opinion at those Inquests leaves that question addressed. Both were seen as the same act, with only one to completion thanks to a backyard venue change. It was said that the belief was that the killer killed them to obtain what he took.....not just to cut away. The only remaining Canonical that matches many of those murders characteristics is Kate Eddowes,....and not clearly so.

Mary Kelly is half the age of the priors, indoors, in a room she has in her name, undressed, facing the wall while lying on the bed. Perhaps the sodomites see this as a pre-coitus pose for a client,.....to each their own. The only evidence that is available in her investigation that has anything remotely to due with the prior women is post mortem mutilation. There is no evidence that the mutilation was done for the same reasons Polly and Annies were.

Its never been about what he does.....anyone can use a knife and plenty of men did at that time....its why he did it. In Polly and Annies case we are given a rationale by the very men who examined her. That rationale is incompatible with the acts performed in room 13....not the least of which is the absence of the focus of those 2 priors...which was cutting and taking specifically located organs that belong to women.

To my knowledge, the heart is gender neutral.

Guess thats all I have to say on this area of discussion.....you may disagree with what conclusions I make, I dont care really....but I do care when something is referred to as very possible without any credible support for that in evidence....like Marys unseen departure and soliciting.

Im cancelling notifications for this, so if you want to be insulting you have an open field....go nuts. At least I put done something which can be defended within the "knowns"......and people say I speculate a lot...

Best regards, maybe see you on another thread.

[Tom_Wescott]

Rather than continue to defend myself against multiple attackers...

Hey, no attacking here. I'm just standing on the corner smoking me pipe. Seriously though, Stride may very well have been subdued. I agree that your preferred theory (which I wrote about 3 years ago) is a viable option, but there are others, and most of them have Stride being - as you call it - subdued.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Theres no accepted evidence she left her room after 11:45am, no evidence of any other man seen with her other than Blotchy, no evidence that any light was on in that room between 1:30am and 3:00am, or after, and no evidence that she was heard uttering anything after she stopped singing, for the rest of that evening.

The point is that, if those few witnesses we have happened not to have passed by when they did, would you be arguing that Kelly stayed in after Barnett had left her the previous evening?

As I've said loads of times, Mike, we have to take into account the fact that there were a couple of hours or so that night when nobody was around to notice anything happening. In your terms, that also means that there was nobody around to see "nothing" happening. In other words, your interpretation of the evidence is as valid as mine - but it's not any more valid, despite your passionate advocacy, because the witness evidence is so patchy.

At least the view that I incline towards has in its favour the fact that Kelly was a street-walking prostitute, that she clearly brought men home on occasion, and that she was short of money that night, with the rent due.

[Bob Hinton]

Links

Hello all,

What physical evidence links all 5 of these killings to one killer?

Well there is no physical evidence that links all the killings, quite often there isn't. However if you were to ask what links these killings then it's MO and signature, with one notable exception Stride, which is why I personally do not believe she was a victim of the same killer.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

The only other evidence that fits any Canonical with another is by using the processes, methods and actions taken with each independent murder, and comparing to see if any suggest or strongly suggest a same killer. Using that barometer... Polly and Annie can be placed under one "cloak" fairly clearly... the medical opinion at those Inquests leaves that question addressed. Both were seen as the same act, with only one to completion thanks to a backyard venue change. It was said that the belief was that the killer killed them to obtain what he took.....not just to cut away. The only remaining Canonical that matches many of those murders characteristics is Kate Eddowes,....and not clearly so.

Not that clearly? I'd have thought it was obvious Kate was a Ripper victim; she seems to have been ripped open just as roughly (if not more so) as Polly was, had the same post-mortem organ removal treatment as Annie, and some extra mutilations thrown in as a bit of experimentation or whatever his reasoning for doing that was. Mary's murder and mutilation seems like the natural escalation you'd expect to see after Kate's, especially regarding the magnitude of Mary's throat wound and her face being utterly dismantled. Besides, it's almost ridiculous to think that yet another murderer was in the same distract at the same time, with the same interests, and doing an even 'better' job of it than the "actual" Ripper. I can understand there being a lot of doubt over Liz's death, but Mary's seems almost textbook.

[perrymason]

Well there is no physical evidence that links all the killings, quite often there isn't. However if you were to ask what links these killings then it's MO and signature, with one notable exception Stride, which is why I personally do not believe she was a victim of the same killer.

Best post yet....had to pop back to say that. Thanks Bob. I dont agree that the MO and Sig suggests 4, but nonetheless a practical post.

Cheers Bob