Only 1 indoor murder?

When you nonsensically distort what people are saying then you might have a problem with understanding Mike....

1. It was suggested by medical experts during Inquests that Polly and Annie were killed by the same man with some anatomical knowledge and skill, someone who did not kill Martha, and the reason for the kills were to obtain the intact organ taken from only the second victim. They suggested a likely interruption in the first case....which if he was after the uterus, makes sense. There would be actual physical signs of incomplete acts, unlike in the murder of C3. They also offered a story that was related by the same organ. Your problem isnt understanding what Im saying Mike.
2. I said nothing of the sort ever, here or elsewhere, purely spiteful and I said there was no record that Mary ever did.
3. Killers who kill in the outdoors consecutively with almost identical attack sequences, severe throat cuts and abdominal mutilations may well be performing preferentially. It when the "series" stuff starts that the killer seems to lose focus and objectives.....rather than the more obvious answer that the same man didnt commit those acts.
4.Mary Kelly could have been a prior victims daughter, all were middle aged, like all were killed outdoors, before her. Hardly an insignificant feature.
5. Some did and some may think they can.
6. Structural failure due to melted supports within the structure due to the high temperature burning jet fuel spillage within the structure via an elevator shaft and stairwells.

When you are being sarcastic I have no issue, when you are intentionally distorting my statements I do....for future reference.

Cheers

[The Good Michael]

...there were ample opportunities for him to have conducted his business indoors from the beginning...the obvious choice for a poor local man to mutilate corpses would be in abandoned buildings. If thats what he actually wanted all along....which people who include Kelly stand by.

You know this how? Kelly is included by some because it is logical to look at similar murders and come to a conclusion that one man may have done them. If you think outdoors vs indoors is the deciding factor for why a person murders, you must know more than anyone else about the man's mind. Every place of murder was different than the last, and a room in which to kill is hardly different from a yard when you come right down to it. You keep making these absolutely ludicrous arguments while putting together a story that paints a picture of Kelly as some sort of innocent waif who took in prostitutes because she was kind-hearted and not because they were business associates. How do you know any of this? A rhetorical question obviously. Let me just see if I have your scenario correct:

1. Someone was out rounding up parts to sell to people who lacked computer components.
2. Prostitutes never take clients to their homes.
3. Killers who kill outside are diametrically opposed to killing inside, or on a boat, or in the space shuttle.
4. Mary Kelly was young, so she couldn't have been killed by the Ripper.
5. Men never walked on the moon.
6. 9/11 was planned by Bush and his cronies, and only the Canadians know about it.

Is that everything? Someone help me.

Mike

It was said in at least the press of the time that 29 Hanbury did have prostitutes occasionally in the backyard, that George Yard was also a spot they went, that Mitre Square was also a spot, and that Dutfields Yard very often had both men and women in the yard after 1am on meeting nights, Saturday nights....making that a less likely spot for trade plying.

I get your point Victor, we cant be sure that the killer would decide to move indoors after 4 kills outdoors...but we can weigh what we do know about the situation.....ONLY outdoor kills until Mary comprising 80% of his attributed victims, Mary by the evidence most probably did not pick him up and lead him indoors, it had been 5 weeks without a crime....the longest "quiet time", and as a result the least expected kill....which impacts the need or requirement to move indoors based on pursuers,...there were ample opportunities for him to have conducted his business indoors from the beginning, starting with bolt holes, his own private place, abandoned buildings which there were a lot of,.... sewers, rail tunnels, abandoned and unused properties like the stable in the back of Dutfields Yard,....what limits his choices if anything is likely economics,... money for bolt holes, private rooms.....in which case the obvious choice for a poor local man to mutilate corpses would be in abandoned buildings. If thats what he actually wanted all along....which people who include Kelly stand by.

TorsoMakinMan found a private spot. So could have "Jack". Yet of 4 consecutive murders attributed to him before Mary Jane, all were outdoors.

Best regards all

[The Good Michael]

It would be a bit odd for women who lived in Miller’s Court to service clients outside in the court. Furthermore, although I think the backyard in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square probably were frequently used by prostitutes and their tricks, I don’t believe I ever actually read it anywhere.

Being in Korea, I can tell you that prostitutes are absolutely everywhere. I have no idea what the street names are upon which they ply their trade, but I know the areas by sight. In fact, no one really knows the names of the streets except, perhaps the landlords. Theses area are not blatantly obvious to a tourist, but they usually are surrounded by garish hotels that charge by the hour (and day). I repeat, the areas are familiar to anyone who has lived here, but the street names and house names aren't. Nothing is written about these areas as they are embarrassing to the government, though they account for 4.1% of the national income. Miller's Court doesn't appear to me to have been any less sleazy if not sleazier.

Cheers,

Mike

[Victor]

Ive responded inside your post after highlighting your comments.....

Hi Mike,

Please take a look at this thread http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1303 it's quite hard to read your posts like this (but not quite as bad as Fisherman) and I can't easily quote you to reply. The quote "speach bubble" icon is quite easy to use once you get the hang of it.

How does Mary lead him into the courtyard when by the existing evidence that the authorities backed suggests she was indoors at the time? Picking up working girls is a key component of any Ripper kill.....but so is while they were working.

I accept your point, but equally some of the witness testimony must be wrong, possibly Maxwell? So Mary could have gone out after she stopped singing. Did she blow out the candle to sleep or leave?

Im saying that there is no reason to suggest that the killer of those prior women would move indoors.

But there's nothing to say he wouldn't, an enclosed yard like Hanbury suggests Jack would let himself be led along a narrow enclosed passage.

Everything that was done to Mary Jane had been printed in the papers before her murder, excluding a few bizarre singular "Ripper" cuts.

I can either say likewise for the torso of Kate as in Dan Norder's dissertation http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-heartless.html or what about the stripped thigh, or missing heart - Mary was a big step up.

Who had been opened like Polly was before her, or like Annie was?

He's got to start somewhere, by definition the first of anything is unique until the second happens.

There are so many differences in the murder of Mary Jane to the murders of Polly and Annie it would take more time than I have to list them all, suffice to say that there are strong indicators that suggest Mary Jane was picked up and murdered differently than some previous Canonicals.....note her defense wounds for one.....Polly and Annies killer had both hands busy to subdue them quietly, Marys killer slashed at her with a knife while she could resist.

The defensive wounds are different, but it's the first time he's indoors with a bed, so does one account for the other? Maybe.

I note you mention Mary was picked up too...are you doubting yourself?

There's loads of support for your beliefs so youve no fear of me suggesting some that conflict with yours....unless of course that you are not 100% convinced of your conclusions....which would I hope be the case.

I want to learn more. I have no conclusions, just a lot of reasonable suppositions, one of which is that Jack probably killed Polly, Annie, Liz, Kate and Mary, and maybe others like Martha.

KR,
Vic.

Hey Victor,

Ive responded inside your post after highlighting your comments.....

Hi Mike,

There's no evidence for this at all, just because these 3 were outdoors it doesn't follow that the intention was for them to be outdoors. Using that logic you can say that the murder sites in Buck's Row and Berner Street were both by gates, so Jack intended to kill by a gate because Jack had been shut in a gate as a child. I think it's that ridiculous. I think the victims led Jack to the sites, and that 13 Miller's Court is where Mary led Blochty, so it's where she'd lead Jack.

The idea that he would need to kill near gates is ridiculous, I agree. If he picked up street whores who plied their trade outdoors, what do you think he would expect in terms of his attack venue? I believe its foolish to look at these murders as random violent acts within that neighborhood at that particular time. How does Mary lead him into the courtyard when by the existing evidence that the authorities backed suggests she was indoors at the time? Picking up working girls is a key component of any Ripper kill.....but so is while they were working.

.... I do not think you can use the fact that Mary was killed indoors as a valid reason to say she was not killed by the same man that had already killed Polly, Annie and Kate (and maybe Liz and Martha)

Im not saying that Victor, Im saying that there is no reason to suggest that the killer of those prior women would move indoors. Thats only a given IF you accept Kelly as a Ripper victim.


Mary was killed by having her throat slit nearly decapitating her, her stomach was split into 3 flaps, some of her internal organs were extracted, she was "ripped", she was known to prostitue herself, enough similarities to connect her to other murders committed in the previous 4 months, with the minor difference of being indoors.

Everything that was done to Mary Jane had been printed in the papers before her murder, excluding a few bizarre singular "Ripper" cuts. Who had been opened like Polly was before her, or like Annie was? There are so many differences in the murder of Mary Jane to the murders of Polly and Annie it would take more time than I have to list them all, suffice to say that there are strong indicators that suggest Mary Jane was picked up and murdered differently than some previous Canonicals.....note her defense wounds for one.....Polly and Annies killer had both hands busy to subdue them quietly, Marys killer slashed at her with a knife while she could resist.

And there's similarities with the known murders of Peter Sutcliffe, most of his were outdoors, one was in the victim's residence.

I dont see the reasons that many do to compare these events with the events of identified, interviewed and documented serial killers in the 20th century.

KR,
Vic.

There's loads of support for your beliefs so youve no fear of me suggesting some that conflict with yours....unless of course that you are not 100% convinced of your conclusions....which would I hope be the case.

Cheers Victor

[Victor]

I believe the venues were intentionally public, at least in the cases of Polly, Annie and Kate.

Hi Mike,

There's no evidence for this at all, just because these 3 were outdoors it doesn't follow that the intention was for them to be outdoors. Using that logic you can say that the murder sites in Buck's Row and Berner Street were both by gates, so Jack intended to kill by a gate because Jack had been shut in a gate as a child. I think it's that ridiculous. I think the victims led Jack to the sites, and that 13 Miller's Court is where Mary led Blochty, so it's where she'd lead Jack.

But that's it, I do not think you can use the fact that Mary was killed indoors as a valid reason to say she was not killed by the same man that had already killed Polly, Annie and Kate (and maybe Liz and Martha)

As I said earlier, the most compelling reason to assume that Jack the Ripper wanted to kill indoors is that he killed Mary Kelly. Which is effectively putting the cart before the horse in terms of investigating murders.

No. Mary was killed by having her throat slit nearly decapitating her, her stomach was split into 3 flaps, some of her internal organs were extracted, she was "ripped", she was known to prostitute herself, enough similarities to connect her to other murders committed in the previous 3 months, with the minor difference of being indoors.

And there's similarities with the known murders of Peter Sutcliffe, most of his were outdoors, one was in the victim's residence.

KR,
Vic.

Blotchy, Caroline and Hutchy aside......my original response to this question, based on the context being why only 1 of 5 victims indoors, I dont believe there is a single shred of physical or circumstantial evidence that suggests the killer wanted to or would, move indoors.

I believe the venues were intentionally public, at least in the cases of Polly, Annie and Kate. I believe that the killer who began picking up Unfortunates outdoors fully expected to attack them when they went somewhere outdoors to complete their business. If the context of the question is to allude to other indoor murders that he might be guilty of, then Im unaware of any myself that might fit the displayed intentions of the earliest attributed kills.

As I said earlier, the most compelling reason to assume that Jack the Ripper wanted to kill indoors is that he killed Mary Kelly. Which is effectively putting the cart before the horse in terms of investigating murders.

If we knew he killed Mary Kelly....that might be a good argument. As it is, its a speculative as a Canonical Group.

Best regards all.

[FrankO]

I read your comments and so you understand the context, Mrs Prater offered a story that is not corroberated by anyone, so its hearsay at this point in terms of evidence.

Hi Michael,

If you're saying that Prater's remark isn't corroborated by another newspaper or an official report or statement and that therefore we shouldn't take it as fact, then I agree, but hearsay it is not.

As for Blotchy, I don't think we'll be agreeing on the subject any time soon. But I don't think it's very important as, like I said in my previous post, I think the Ripper didn't care much, if at all, about what MJK would offer him as long as he knew he'd get her alone in her room.

All the best Michael,
Frank

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The truth is we will 'never know' about the alleged Blotchy man, and the soon to be deseased MJK.
We have to assume that Mary wished some service of this man, was it Sex, was it just company, I find it hard to accept that she would escort a complete stranger back to room 13, at the height of the Ripper murders, especially if she did have a dream that she was being' Murdered'.
I find it also hard to accept that Hutchinson told a almighty 'Fib'. and that being the case have to dismiss 'Blotchy as a suspect, and concentrate on 'Astracan' who I believe also has to be dismissed, 'he was hardly 'dressed 'for a bloodbath, also Mary was seen over six hours later, by a witness who was sworn in on oath at the inquest.
The whole episode takes some 'Taking in' . but when in doubt, one has to go for the last witness. ie Maxwell, who described a man last seen with the victim.
Under oath 'Market porter'
Richard.

Hi Frank,

I read your comments and so you understand the context, Mrs Prater offered a story that is not corroberated by anyone, so its hearsay at this point in terms of evidence. Mary Ann Cox who we know was soliciting that night doesnt even mention that she would have been bringing clients in with her had she had some that we know of.

Im not painting Blotchy anyway Frank....Im saying that the prostitution they were engaging in, (women acquiring clients on the street) ...doesnt include over an hour of song anywhere that the sex may take place, indoors or in a backyard....and that we have no record of anyone other than Blotchy Man being in the room with Mary that we cant say for sure that she knew as a friend or lover, and that when the singing is noted as having ceased the lights in Marys room were off within 15 minutes.....a more characteristic time frame for an entire sexual congress for cash episode....compared with one in Marys case that might have had some 60 plus consecutive minutes of singing within the hour and a half that light was on in the room.

I must admit that it seems to me based on the evidence that Blotchy was not coming to the room to get "serviced" by Mary....but she might berepaying a man who bought her drinks and walked her home with a song and some conversation. She may have been getting lonely on I think evening number 5 truly alone in that room.

All the best Frank

[FrankO]

Seems to me the above is hearsay about Mary Janes occupation, ...

Why would that be hearsay? Prater was in a perfect position to know firsthand.

She had only been alone in the room for less than a week and suddenly she transforms the place into a mini-brothel?

Not a mini-brothel - nobody has been claiming she transformed her place into a mini-brothel. Are you saying here that it's impossible or improbable for her to have brought back punters to her room because she had only been alone in the room for less than a week?

Its far from certain that Blotchy was anything more than a companion she entertained with song....while so drunk she had trouble even saying goodnight to Mary Ann.

I agree it's not certain, but that doesn't change the fact that she did take a strange man back to her room. I think the Ripper didn't care much, if at all, about what she'd offer him as long as he knew he'd get her alone in her room.

The best,
Frank

[FrankO]

I dont know what Blocthy felt might happen when he got to her room, but if he was paying her for sex, he got ripped off it seems.

Again Michael, there’s was every opportunity to service Mr. BF. Just because she was singing and we don’t know what went on in that room besides the singing, doesn’t mean she couldn’t have serviced him or that it’s for some reason unlikely. Maybe he paid her for having sex with her while she sang. Rent was due in the morning, she was in arrears as it was, so there would be reason enough for her to get some money, out in the streets or in her own room.

... and in fact we have her lovers statement that he didnt like her working the streets.

Firstly, I don’t think we do have that statement. What Barnett deposed at the inquest is that he left her because MJK allowed a prostitutes to sleep in their room. In his police statement he said he left her in consequence of “her resorting to prostitution”. Secondly, I think ‘working the streets’ was just a general phrase used for saying that a woman prostituted herself, without it necessarily meaning that it always took place on the streets. Or, the finding of punters may have taken place in the streets, but not necessarily the servicing.

Since she is hammered and singing, I dont see why you would take this as the one time she brings a client in.

Fact remains that she does bring in a unknown guy back to her room. Cox doesn’t seem to have found it strange at all. Furthermore, regardless of the extent you which you wish to downplay it, Prater did say in a newspaper that it was common for the women in Miller’s Court to take men home with them. I don't see why MJK should be excluded from this.

And even if Hutchinson’s story was purely made up, the part of MJK bringing back an apparent unknown trick to her room didn’t raise any eyebrows at all. It seems to have been completely accepted as normal and believable. If his story was true, at least on that point, than there’s another good reason to believe she took back unknown men to her room. If untrue and MJK never took back any men to her room, then it might be regarded as odd that Hutchinson’s story was never questioned on that point at least.

On your point about Millers Court, again, it was not a known spot for whores to deliver services to clients outdoors....Hanbury, Mitre and Bucks Row were.

It would be a bit odd for women who lived in Miller’s Court to service clients outside in the court. Furthermore, although I think the backyard in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square probably were frequently used by prostitutes and their tricks, I don’t believe I ever actually read it anywhere.

And again, there's Prater's quote in the Daily Telegraph of 10 November 1888.

He could have been a stranger before she had a million ales, but he became a close enough acquaintance to sing to in her own room....so maybe they were fast friends.

You seem to be trying to turn him from stranger into friend, so that it fits your view. Not a persuasive approach.

With ample opportunities to have done a Millers Court type crime at any time that whole Fall, or to use an abandoned building.

I would be interested what ample opportunities you speak of here. Furthermore, as to the abandoned buildings, I think that people who couldn’t afford a bed were using those. Another point to ponder is that, if he wanted to use those abandoned buildings, he had to convince his victims to go there with him. Seeing that they were prostitutes, who were used to lead their clients to a spot instead of the other way around, trying to get them to an abandoned building might have made them suspicious of him, might have scared them off.

He had the exact same problem as Torso Man if that was the case....yet he lacked the brain power to figure out that he had to bring the bodies indoors so he could privately mutilate at his discretion?

Maybe Torso man had easy access to some private place where he could do as he pleased, whereas maybe the Ripper didn’t have that luxury. Maybe the Ripper was in such a mental state that his need was far more important to him than this problem? Maybe the Ripper had thought about getting women in such a private indoors place, but just wasn’t charming or socially skilled enough to lure his victims to that place. Things don't have to be as black-and-white as you seem to be thinking.

The best Michael,
Frank

"It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased. ... Kelly was, she admitted, one of her own class, and she made no secret of her way of gaining a livelihood."
Elizabeth Prater in the Daily Telegraph of 10 November 1888

Seems to me the above is hearsay about Mary Janes occupation, its not a declaration that Mary specifically was ever seen bringing a "client" home. She had only been alone in the room for less than a week and suddenly she transforms the place into a mini-brothel?

Its far from certain that Blotchy was anything more than a companion she entertained with song....while so drunk she had trouble even saying goodnight to Mary Ann.

So now shes a staggering drunk singing street whore who makes her living indoors......

All the best

[FrankO]

Unless Mary was performing oral sex, then she doesn't necessarily have to miss a note.

Good point, Vic.

Best,
Frank