The Ripper's MO....

[Malcolm X]

Hi again all,


One thing is certain though if some variation of that scenario occurred....Mary knew her killer well.

Best regards all.

yes Mike i agree, if it's what you say or similar, then she definitely knew her killer....as for access via the window being easy....it definitely was, because Joe Barnett said so.

nobody else noticed this, well that's life isn't it (shrug)

[Ben]

I would agree with the contentions that a break in, if while Mary was asleep in bed, is less likely. For one, the latch method although easy to comprehend for us was not clearly that way for the officers in the courtyard

Hi Mike - There was no "method" to comprehend. If Kelly left her spring-locked door on the latch, as she appears to have done by 11:45pm at the earliest, all the killer had to do to gain entry was push the door open. Once inside, he could easily have flicked the door off the latch, thus locking it from the outside.

Regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

A small point of clarification regarding to term "break-in", Smez.

I don't believe anything was actually "broken" or forced. I believe, instead, that the killer may have gained entry by pushing open a latched door. It was undoudtedly latched at 11:45pm, and it may well have remained so thereafter on account of Kelly's inebriation. There's certainly nothing "risky" about that when set against his earlier outdoor crimes, which are far more risky by virtue of their location. Obviously, I rule out the idea that he tried every door until one opened. Far more likely, he conducted some prior surveillance first, as other killers - notably Dennis Rader, Ted Bundy, and Robert Napper - have done, and sought the opportune moment to enter.

The flickering fire and the lamp facing room #13 would have illuminated the room to an extent.

Best regards,
Ben

Howdy Ben,

On the above parts I made bold, starting with the second one.....although Abberline said there were traces of a large fire in the grate that melted the kettle spout solder....the only evidence that we have was that the ash was warm to the touch after 1:30pm, and that a hat and some fabric had been set on the fire.

The fabric apparently was not consumed by the fire. We dont know when the spout was melted from the kettle.
And the last witness in the court that night at 3am said nothing about a glow of light from Marys room cast upon the whitewashed 2 storey wall opposite her windows. That wall sounds like a perfect way to measure light emitting to me. The lamp was opposite her front door, and since her windows were in the alcove around a corner, not much help. It would illuminate someone at the door if answered from inside though.

The truth is we have no evidence there was any substantial light in that room other than perhaps a low fire and the light from a half a candle. And that light was out before 1:30am by witness accounts. Any any light it may have cast would be logically minimal based on the lack of light recorded seen from the room until at least 3am. Although Abberline suggested that the fire was large that early morning....I fear he has as much supporting evidence as his supposed claim that Hutchinson was honest, and if he did say it, that Chapman was Jack. The ash may well have been cumulative fire residue over days or even weeks, depending on Marys grate cleaning habits.

On that first point.....if Blotchy was let out, you have a reason for her to unlatch the spring lock behind him. She was sober enough to remember song lyrics, and spirited enough to sing off an on for over an hour....surely that equates to her being awake enough to lock her door.

Elizabeth may have been slightly potted as well for all we know, and she barricaded her door from the inside before retiring. There was after all a man killing lone women like them at large. Locked inside their rooms they likely felt some sense of safety....since he grabs his victims off the street when they are soliciting in early morning hours.

All the best Ben.

[Ben]

That wall sounds like a perfect way to measure light emitting to me

Not really, Mike.

A room can still be "dark" without being pitch black, and the remains of a fire would have ensured that the darkness wasn't completely impenetrable. It would certainly have been sufficient to navigate round objects etc. I realise that lamp wasn't outside the window itself, but it would still have contributed towards penetrating the gloom. You're right, of course, to highlight the contemporary observation that the ashes were still warm the following afternoon.

Either way, the lack of light is certainly no more of a problem for the intruder premise than it is for the "client" or "visitor" scenarios.

On that first point.....if Blotchy was let out, you have a reason for her to unlatch the spring lock behind him.

I'm afraid we don't.

If she was intoxicated, as the evidence suggests she was, she could easily have neglected the lock the door behind her. That would amount to a fairly textbook example of intoxicated behaviour, and an extremely plausible one in this case, besides which we have no evidence that she "let" Blotchy out. He could have done that of his own accord.

If you think excessive singing is indicative of sobriety, you may want to be disabused of that perception by knocking back a few. We don't know how closely she remembered the words.

Elizabeth may have been slightly potted as well for all we know, and she barricaded her door from the inside before retiring.

But there's no evidence that Kelly did any such thing.

Best regards,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

fires burn out pretty quick, because they certainly do at our hotel..they'll be blazing away at 11pm but stone dead by 4am...

a fire only kicks out loads of light if it's ablaze, but if it's merely glowing and hasn't been stoked up for some time, her room will be very dark; because tending fires is part on a night porter's job......ash always feels warm to the touch....it's soft like cotton wool, it dosn't conduct heat away from your hand, and on a cold morning this'll fool you into thinking that the fire is still alight or only just died down.

JTR burned her clothes to generate additional light so he could mutilate her, but not seen outside, due to the very late hour and no witnesses around.....maybe!

[Christine]

I think she brought him back to her room. Besides the various reasons others in have so excellently laid out in this thread why breaking in would be tricky, it appears that Jack and all of his other victims went to a remote spot together, probably because he offered them money for sex, possibly because of some other ruse. We know she was soliciting that night, and he could have approached her the same way he approached the other victims, and when she told him she had use of a room, he made the decision to attack her in a room.

If it was dark in the room, then she may have made the fire herself.

I'm far from sure of any of this, however, but if I were Jack, why would I break in when she would let me in for 6d., which I would get back anyhow?

[Ben]

Hi Christine,

Besides the various reasons others in have so excellently laid out in this thread why breaking in would be tricky

But with respect to the others, nobody really has explained why breaking in would be tricky. There's simply nothing tricky (or risky) about pushing a door open.

I'm far from sure of any of this, however, but if I were Jack, why would I break in when she would let me in for 6d., which I would get back anyhow?

He may have decided that dispatching a victim as she slept is preferable to killing a victim who was up and about. The latter necessitates not only a false pretence of the part of the killer, it also increases the risk of her fighting back and alterting whoever might be in earshot. We don't know that he approached all of his earlier victims under the guise of a client, and if he was capable of altering the type of venue, he was certainly capable of altering the pre-crime approach.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Ben, I think youre making Mary Kelly out to be as drunk at 1:30am as she was at 11:45pm,... without more alcohol that we are aware of, that doesnt makes sense. She has entertained someone for at least 1 1/2 hours in her room, and most of that time she is singing. It would be reasonable to assume fatigue, or her running out of steam for the night when she stops singing...not that she passed out while Blotchy was still in the room. We have precedent for her fears of the Ripper news before that night, we know that she has only been truly alone in the room for a few nights, and we know that at some point either she lets Blotchy out or he lets himself out. Neither option prohibits her making sure the lock was engaged by ensuring that the latch was off.

We know Mary didnt barricade her room like Elizabeth, just that a single woman living alone in her room on the second floor inside the same house felt scared enough to do that. To suggest one that is on ground floor, who cannot lock her room normally due to a lost key, who has only just besome a single tenant that week...and with a hole in the windowsthat does allow people to reach in and set the latch on, unlocking her door....would take a moment to secure her room isnt much of a reach.

On the light issue Ben, the point I was making is that there is no proof that on that night a large fire was going on at any time throughout the evening and early morning. Just that there were a build up of ashes, the ashes were warm at 1:30pm....as low smoldering fires would also leave....and that a kettle near it had its spout melted off at some point in its history. The fact any fabric survived at all would support that smaller fire if any conjecture. It would all be crusty ash if the fire was large and hot.

If you want to consider that her killer arrived at her door unassisted and alone and that Mary was inside sleeping or semi-so, thats all well and good....thats based on the the believed evidence available. If you want to consider he enters the room without help as well, you have these issues;

1. How does he enter? Is the latch on or off when he arrives?
2. How likely is it that he would discover the opportunity to use the latch method with closed curtains, a dark room, and it being in pitch black night/morning light?
3. Why doesnt Mary stir when this happens?
4. Do her floor boards creak...would he make noise moving from the door to the bed?
5. What woman exclaims "oh-murder" at 3:45am as "from the court" if not Mary...while awake?
6. If it was Marys voice, how come the attack doesnt seem to commence at that moment...if he is a stranger in her room?
7. Why would he attack her with a knife?
8. Why are there no sounds of struggle heard by anyone?
9. Where is Blotchy Face?
10. Whats Jack the Ripper doing entering small courtyards and entering strange womens rooms?

Heres some probable answers for those....

1. We know she has been alone only a few days in the room and that she feared the Ripper stories, we also know she has been inside the room for over an hour and a half before the lights and song end, allowing for her to be sober enough to make sure her door was secure before sleeping.
2. IMHO....unlikely.
3. She didnt come home and pass out, if anything she entertained then did so, or bedded Blotchy. If she bedded Blotchy, and he is the killer, there was no break in. Someone in the room could get at her while she slept, but not as probable he could break in without noise.
4. EP stated she heard when Mary moved about in her room...so Id say, the floorboards creaked.
5. No-one in that court that night came forward to claim to be that voice....the only woman in that court who could not make any claims is the one that is murdered...so the math adds up to Mary.
6. There is no reasonable explanation for a stranger breaking in and not immediately seeking to control the womans sounds or resistance. Which means this could have only happened if all the court was asleep at that time,...and since we know that Mary likely wasnt asleep at 3:45am, and 2 women heard the voice at that time, the attack is not when the voice is heard.
7. Why indeed? Jack subdues his victims without a knife first.
8. As stated, that could only be due to sleeping ear witnesses, so it would have to be sometime after the cry at 3:45am, which leaves you explaining why she was awake at that time.
9. For all we know Blotchy Face was in that room when Mary was killed and left before she is found by Bowyer, or she let him out. He is not there when another killer arrives... if thats the case.
10. Thats the 64 thousand dollar question....why does he change every aspect of his initial search and contact with a victim...he found them where soliciting was going on by homeless women before that night....why would women in their own homes sleeping fit logically here?

The probable answers dont suggest he let himself in, they suggest she was the woman that exclaimed at 3:45am...that the attack didnt start at that moment,...that she was unable to get a scream out before or while he is upon her, and that she had probably been sleeping from 1:30am until he arrives.

If its Mary at 3:45am....he didnt break in, or he knew her and broke in and she woke....cause the murder doesnt start immediately. It would appear that it did start while she was in bed on her right side.

The cumulative data suggests that Mary was the voice at 3:45am, and was therefore alive and awake at that time. If she was sleeping prior, and alone, why would she wake and exclaim so loud that EP and Sarah could hear it without a provocation for it....like an unwanted, unannounced and sleep disturbing friend? Since that doesnt start the attack...and its likely it was Mary...and she likely woke and spoke in reaction to stimulus....if the cry at 3:45am isnt her killer arriving and breaking in, then its after she has gone back to sleep....yet we dont have a second account of her waking to some audible stimulus.

The break in idea doesnt fit the knowns....her answering her door disappointedly while half awake and letting a man in she knows at 3:45am does.

My best regards... sparring partner.

[Christine]

Hi Ben.

If the door were on the latch, yes, he could get in easily. If the door were not on the latch, then he might have been able to open it through the window, but in order to figure this out he would have to have done a fair amount of obviously suspicious poking about. And all this assumes that he knew MJK was alone in the room in the first place, so more suspicious poking about. Granted, it's quite possible, but I would describe it as tricky, at best.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Ben, I think youre making Mary Kelly out to be as drunk at 1:30am as she was at 11:45pm,... without more alcohol that we are aware of, that doesnt makes sense

It would if we consider that her blotchy-faced companion had a "quart can of ale" in his hand at 11:45pm. If the logical inference from that is that she consumed more alcohol when she was already visibly intoxicated, there's a very good case for her being equally sloshed, if not sloshed into a slumber, by 1:30am. She could easily have fallen asleep when Blotchy was still in the room. I wouldn't read a great deal into her alleged ripper-fears. There's no compelling reason to think that she was any more fearful than the average prostitute, perhaps less so when we consider that she was walking about with a male companion in an intoxicated condition late at night. It wouldn't prohibit the possibility that she locked the door, but at the same time, we shouldn't assume she did either. Remember that Chief Inspector Moore specifically bemoaned the East Enders' habit of failing to lock their own doors.

and with a hole in the windowsthat does allow people to reach in and set the latch on, unlocking her door....would take a moment to secure her room isnt much of a reach

That's precisely the problem.

She couldn't secure her room because the smashed window effectively made it easy for any potential intruder to gain entry. Sticking a bit of furniture in the way would hardly have surmounded that issue, and there's no evidence that she used any piece of furniture for intruder-deterring purposes. Mary Cox occupied a ground floor room (I believe), and there's no indication that she "barricaded" her door.

the point I was making is that there is no proof that on that night a large fire was going on at any time throughout the evening and early morning

Oh, I agree.

I've never bought into the "large fire" scenario either. However, there must have been some sort of fire in the great for the ashes to have been warm the next day, and it was likely to have been sufficient to illuminate the stygian blackness of her room.

1. How does he enter? Is the latch on or off when he arrives?

Both are plausible, but neither would militate against the "intruder" scenario.

2. How likely is it that he would discover the opportunity to use the latch method with closed curtains, a dark room, and it being in pitch black night/morning light?

Not very. He'd need to have some familiarity with the victim - "nodding" acquaintances at the very least - in that scenario. If the door wasn't latched, all of that ceases to be a problem.

3. Why doesnt Mary stir when this happens?

Because surreptitiously entering a dwelling was very unlikely to make enough noise to stir someone from an intoxicated slumber.

4. Do her floor boards creak...would he make noise moving from the door to the bed?

No evidence either way, I'm afraid. It was a ground floor room, so arguably not.

5. What woman exclaims "oh-murder" at 3:45am as "from the court" if not Mary...while awake?

Not sure what you mean. I've no doubt that the cry did come from Mary, and I've no doubt that she was awake by that stage.

6. If it was Marys voice, how come the attack doesnt seem to commence at that moment...if he is a stranger in her room?

Well, I'd argue that the attack DOES "seem to commence at that moment".

7. Why would he attack her with a knife?

Because that's how he likes to kill and mutilate people.

8. Why are there no sounds of struggle heard by anyone?

Because there wasn't much of a struggle.

9. Where is Blotchy Face?

Either doing the killing himself, or out of the room and away from the scene by then.

10. Whats Jack the Ripper doing entering small courtyards and entering strange womens rooms?

Killing and mutilating the occupant(s).

As for your "probable answers", I'm afraid my quibbles are as follows:

We know she has been alone only a few days in the room and that she feared the Ripper stories, we also know she has been inside the room for over an hour and a half before the lights and song end, allowing for her to be sober enough to make sure her door was secure before sleeping

It also allows her to drink more alcohol, and become more drunk and tired, this decreasing the likelihood of her remembering to lock the door.

If she bedded Blotchy, and he is the killer, there was no break in.

Not necessarily. He could have left and returned once he'd surveyed the scene and determined when the coast was likely to be clear (the physical similarities between the Blotchy and Wideawake suspects are worth noting in this context). Again, I don't think it's remotely likely that any "break-in" attempt would generate much, if any, noise.

4. EP stated she heard when Mary moved about in her room...so Id say, the floorboards creaked.

Unless they belonged to the not-particularly-surreptitious footsteps of Kelly on a hard surface.

There is no reasonable explanation for a stranger breaking in and not immediately seeking to control the womans sounds or resistance.

Unless she wasn't making any "immediate" sounds or efforts to resist.

why would women in their own homes sleeping fit logically here?

The same way that it did for Ted Bundy, whose last murders were indoor ones in which his entry involved a break-in, in contrast to his earlier crimes.

The probable answers dont suggest he let himself in

Ah, but I don't think your answers are the "probable" ones. I think if you substituted "probable" for "possible", we'd be on less shaky territory here.

If she was sleeping prior, and alone, why would she wake and exclaim so loud that EP and Sarah could hear it without a provocation for it

Because she was startled from her sleep too late to avoid the reality that an intruder was about to brutally dispatch her with a knife.

The break in idea doesnt fit the knowns....her answering her door disappointedly while half awake and letting a man in she knows at 3:45am does.

I'd have to disagree most profoundly with that, Mike.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Christine,

Susipcious pre-crime "poking about" is precisely what I'd expect from a serial killer intent on targetting a victim in an indoor location. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that there is only a minority of cases where serial killers don't engage in suspicious poking about prior to killing victims in their homes. It would be far more tricky if his dispensed altogether with the type of pre-crime surveillance that characterize most indoor attacks from serial killers.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

the bigest problem we are having on 2 threads is people dont understand the differnce between signature and MO

Do these terms represent immutable, well-defined entities in the physical world? If not, then are they truly worth arguing about?

The REAL biggest problem we are having on the two threads is the tendency for completely speculative discussion (e.g. what the victims might have been doing, whether a knife-wound was indicative of "signature" or "MO") to take over threads about a very specific, and well-documented, subject like the wounds.

It was in an effort to keep the speculative and the specific apart that I started this thread. I thought I was doing y'all a service in doing so.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Malcolm x,
My friend 'one of the silliest posts i ever read; do give over ,
You obviously by coming to that conclusion reject Maxwell addressing Kelly as pure bunkum, which i do not.
You reject any sighting by maxwell , involving kelly and the market porter, which i do not.
Jack the Ripper was a fearless killer, as he showed in hanbury street, the streets were full at daybreak, and he committed that murder at great risk to himself, likewise Mitre square.
The fact is someone killed Mjk in that room , regardless of the hour, and made good their escape, also we do not know the actual habits of the court residents on any particular day.
Also i should point out , at the time of that murder , locals believed it was committed shortly before discovery, now why was that?
And finally as to repeated posts., yes you are right, but everyone on casebook is guilty of that.
Regards Richard.

[perrymason]

It can be easy to stop and address certain issues that relate to the completion of a thought Sam, but sorry for the sidetracking.

If the Rippers MO consisted of picking up working street whores after midnight, getting alone with them in secluded places, physically subduing them fully, then using a knife to cut their throats to cause death.....then what is an acceptable inclusion that does not have those characteristics? When are deaths that do not appear to have that Ripper MO still possible Ripper attacks?

When its suggested that motis operandi can change its not surprising, its documented that some do change the MO...but what then is the criteria for the inclusion if not within the pattern of the murders preceding it? How can anyone know when we are dealing with a random unrelated death, or a non-traditional Ripper MO?

Just by the historical timing or general locations, and how does that marry with the knowledge that at least 2 serial killers were at large? Torso's dont grow naturally. Is it that they were knife attacks? Or that they were known to work the streets but may not have been doing so that night?

For me the slope is slippery enough trying to feel certain about Kate Eddowes inclusion let alone Marys.

For me the only deaths we can be fairly sure were Ripper kills were the ones that followed the exact same MO each time. Maybe he did others too...maybe he didnt.

Best regards Gareth

[Sam Flynn]

If the Rippers MO consisted of picking up working street whores after midnight, getting alone with them in secluded places, physically subduing them fully, then using a knife to cut their throats to cause death.....then what is an acceptable inclusion that does not have those characteristics? When are deaths that do not appear to have that Ripper MO still possible Ripper attacks?

I see two problems there, Mike, which is why I'm keen that we keep a degree of separation between the two subjects (call them "MO" or "signature" if you like). The issues are these:

1. As I've hinted, we can only ever speculate on how the Ripper went about his business;

2. The ways in which he might have "ensnared" his victims, the types of victims, the sorts of locations (etc) aren't unique to Jack the Ripper.

So, in discussing what I've called (rightly or wrongly) "MO", we're only speculating about things which are ultimately neither definite nor distinctive. In terms of deciding between whom he may or may not have killed, therefore, one has to conclude that puzzling over his "MO" isn't a particularly useful instrument.