Time After Time

[Scorpio]

Mc Donald Triad

The McDonald triad refers to behavioral indicators of later homicidal tendencies that seem to appear with relentless and unvarying regularity.
The three indicators which may, in any individual, may present singurlarly, or in combination with the others are arson,animal cruelty and eneurisis,which is otherwise known as bedwetting. The last of these elements seems obscure but Gary Ridgeway and Anton Chikatillo, among a host of others, were,indeed,chronic bedwetters. I believe animal cruelty was very probable in JtR's case,and,given his noted facility with a blade, it was a habit that may have become a vocation. FBI profilers have stated that violent offenders may seek out some outlet to satisfy there compulsions that does not bring them into conflict with society. Having access to animals in the slaughter trade would fulfill this need temporarily at least.

[Scorpio]

There have been threads on the authorship of the Goulston St message, but,assuming it was the murderer of Eddowes, what was the motivation ?.
The killer was seen, he feared identification and seeked to draw attention to an outside group, assuming the police were knee jerk anti-semites and would enthusiastically concentrate there investigations within the Jewish community with a little prompting?. Perhaps there was no conscious motive at all and the message was a purely pathological outburst of triumph or rage. Note the infamous ' You cant stop me ' and ' F__k you," scrawled on Francine Elverson; Chalk doesnt work well on skin,you understand.

[Scorpio]

Guilt

What are the probabilities of JtR ever confessing to his crimes. Organised killers who have a compulsion, like guilt,to talk about there crimes sometimes allude to the acts by other means. Ted Bundy for example, made his helpfull speculative comments about the killers motivation. I personally believe it is unlikely, since intelligent killers can rationalise and then compartmentalize there crimes,or removing them from immediate consciousness,as Bundy also did.

[Sister Hyde]

I personally believe it is unlikely, since intelligent killers can rationalise and then compartmentalize there crimes,or removing them from immediate consciousness,as Bundy also did.

Yes that is something i've seen every day with psychos, they are actually totally conscient of what they are doing, and they can keep denying being guilty of something even if you grab their heads and force their nose into their own ****, i've even seen people keeping denying for years something they were BUSTED doing (like a kid with his mouth buttered with chocolate and his fingers smeared will keep telling you "i swear i didn't touch the chocolate"), so i believe it's very unlikely that the ripper ever confessed to his murders, or if he did to someone close much later after , it must have been very confusing for the person since they always tend to say "white" one day, and "black" the day after.

[Scorpio]

Crafty Cockney

Serial killers can employ considerable subterfuge to achieve there ends.
How much craft did JtR employ?. Ripper hunters sometimes employed subterfuge themselves with laughable results but perhaps JtR had more criminal versatilty.

[Michael W Richards]

Abby:

"...he knew her and psychologically did not want her to be recognizable to him? What are your ideas on this?"

Reverse the sentences and you are there, Abby - that is exactly what I think. I see no other explanation to the many cuts in the sheet than a covering of the face as he cut. And just like you say, there is no practical explantion to why he did it. The notion that he did it because he did not want to see her face as he destroyed it becomes a very tempting one. And if it holds true, he would reasonably have depersonalized her before he eviscerated her.
...and yes, if it holds true, then this all points to Kellys killer knowing her well beforehand.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

Picture if you will Mary Kelly lying on her bed, on her right side facing the partition wall, perhaps on the right half of the bed. Its unlikely that she wouldnt hear someone entering via the window, or by opening the door, which would block some of the light her muslin curtains were there for, ...the light that shone opposite her door and into the nook with the pump outside her window. So she is lying facing away from a person who will eventually kill her.

The attack happens when she is in that position, the sheet may have been over her shoulders and partially covering her face when he starts....there is really no need to assume the sheet over-the-face was a deliberate placement.

Your summary above could be put into stronger words Fisherman.....the evidence seems to indicate the murder was in the presence of the woman with her consent....so whether it was an old or a very recent friend, it was someone she felt she knew and would not do her harm.

Cheers mate

[Bridewell]

the evidence seems to indicate the murder was in the presence of the woman with her consent....so whether it was an old or a very recent friend, it was someone she felt she knew and would not do her harm.

Hi Michael,

Either that or someone entered the room and was mistaken by Kelly for someone else.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Either that or someone entered the room and was mistaken by Kelly for someone else.

Regards, Bridewell.

In which case she would still have been comfortable with the presence being there, even if she was mistaken as to whom it was. But I dont see a mis-identification on her part myself Bridewell, I see her answering a soft knock at around 3:45 and having just been woken, her hand blocking the light from her eyes, and exclaiming "oh-murder" when she recognizes the face, backlit by the gaslamp on the opposite wall. She leaves the door open for him, pads back into bed, moving to the right side so that her visitor can slip in behind her, spoon-like. No words are needed between the 2 beyond Mary's somewhat annoyed exclamation,.... and, as the evidence reads,... it appears no more sounds were made after that exclamation, with 2 nearby women now listening intently.

Here is what I feel may have happened.....Mary is sleeping off a binge drink it would seem, and she falls back into a sleep before the partner joins her. When he does, its to force a knife across her throat, and then pull it back across, from behind her as she lay on her side. She wakes immediately, blood spraying the partition wall, then reflexively she rolls on her back as he now slashes at her face, straddling her, the sheet caught up in the roll onto her back and the attack on her face. Her arms receive some defensive wounds as a result. Her struggle adds to the speed of her blood loss from the throat cuts, she loses consciousness, her fight ends.

He gets off her, moves her to the middle of the bed, spreads her legs, and takes off his top coat and rolls up his sleeves. Looking around the room for something he finds some objects to toss into the fireplace, to either destroy them as evidence or in spite. Perhaps for some brief light. Being left handed he works from the left side of the bed, occasionally turning slightly to place viscera on the night table behind him, or under her head, or between her legs.

Once he finishes he places her left arm across her body and adjusts her face to meet anyone that comes into that room..or looks through the window. He sets the spring latch to "off" which allows the door to lock behind him as he puts back on his topcoat and leaves, his dark trousers and shirt stained with blood beneath it.

I believe the focus shown by this killer on mutilation of the corpse reveals to us a desire the make an identification of the body difficult if not impossible, and to mirror earlier Ripper crimes as a way of suggesting an association to the killer.

That to me addresses method and motive for the mutilations...but as to why the murder needed to happen and by whom was it committed...the only important questions...Im still stumped.

Cheers Bridewell

[Bridewell]

I see her answering a soft knock at around 3:45 and having just been woken, her hand blocking the light from her eyes, and exclaiming "oh-murder" when she recognizes the face, backlit by the gaslamp on the opposite wall.

Hi Michael,

You think a cry of "Oh Murder"was a greeting to a familiar face rather than a later recognition that she was in the process of being assassinated? Or are you suggesting it as a less likely, but possible, alternative?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

You think a cry of "Oh Murder"was a greeting to a familiar face rather than a later recognition that she was in the process of being assassinated? Or are you suggesting it as a less likely, but possible, alternative?

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

I think that the cry of "oh-murder" was likely Mary,... no-one else came forward to claim that call...I think the cry of "oh-murder" in this case as in most cases across Britain at the time reflected annoyance, ..like perhaps for being wakened at nearly 4am,.. ("oh-murder, Ive broken my shoelace",... "oh-murder, Im late",).....the phrase at that time was nearly interchangeable with "bloody-hell", or "damnation" that is used today. Yes, "murder" was cried out across the East End from time to time,...the amount of times it actually referred to a murder however isnt a given.

I believe whomever arrived near 4am was known to Mary, had been in the room before, and was acceptable company to even a sleepy half dressed Mary.

That means she knew the man.

Cheers BW

[Wickerman]

I believe whomever arrived near 4am was known to Mary, had been in the room before, and was acceptable company to even a sleepy half dressed Mary.

That means she knew the man.

Cheers BW

But why have him "arrive" near 4:00 am?

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

But why have him "arrive" near 4:00 am?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

Because in the scenario I suggested Jon, Mary answers the door. Elizabeth Prater said the cry of "oh-murder" was faint, "as if from the court". Sarah Lewis said it was "as if at her door". Using those 2 ear witnesses and the fact that no witnesses see Mary leave the courtyard after 11:45pm on Thursday, my conclusion is that the voice was Marys and she was casting it into the courtyard from her open door. Its why Elizabeth and Sarah heard it at different volumes. I believe either the soft knock on the door or window to wake Mary is what wakes Diddles, who in turn walks across Elizabeth's face, waking her.

The fact that neither witness hears another sound before they drift off back to sleep seems to indicate that the cry did not signal the commencement of any physically aggressive behavior in room 13. It also indicates that if she did let someone in that someone they did not need to introduce themselves or make small polite chatter. Nor, apparently, did Mary feel the need to re-dress herself. Indicating someone known well to her.

What if this "Joe" that she was fond of and who also "ill-used" her was someone involved with terrorism? What if he discovered, (maybe by using Blotchy Face first to pry her with alcohol and see what she might talk about when inebriated), when Blotchy leaves Mary asleep on her bed and comes to tell him what he's learned, that Mary talks too much about dangerous people and "Joe's" criminal business when drunk?

Is there any indication by the acts performed in that room that the victim and killer knew each other,...I would say yes. Is there any indication that the killer ultimately revealed that connection when he took Marys heart? Perhaps, yes.

I think its possible to see the killer as conflicted in that room, angry..yes...but there seems to be some reverence for the body, particularly the way it is posed before he left. He didnt even leave the left arm hanging down...he placed it back over her empty midsection.

Cheers Jon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Because in the scenario I suggested Jon, Mary answers the door. Elizabeth Prater said the cry of "oh-murder" was faint, "as if from the court". Sarah Lewis said it was "as if at her door". Using those 2 ear witnesses and the fact that no witnesses see Mary leave the courtyard after 11:45pm on Thursday, my conclusion is that the voice was Marys and she was casting it into the courtyard from her open door.

Hi Michael.
So, you interpret the cry of "Oh, murder" coming from Mary as she opens the door, presumably she sees someone presenting a threatening gesture towards her as the door opens?
Ok, that would explain why the witnesses heard a cry at different volumes.
Then you say..

The fact that neither witness hears another sound before they drift off back to sleep seems to indicate that the cry did not signal the commencement of any physically aggressive behavior in room 13.

This I don't understand, Mary cried out "oh, murder" at the door but still let him in and there was no noisy exchange between them no pushing, no struggle, no fighting, banging or anything to suggest aggressive behaviour?

It also indicates that if she did let someone in that someone they did not need to introduce themselves or make small polite chatter. Nor, apparently, did Mary feel the need to re-dress herself. Indicating someone known well to her.

Then what precipitated her crying out "oh, murder"?

Is there any indication by the acts performed in that room that the victim and killer knew each other,...I would say yes. Is there any indication that the killer ultimately revealed that connection when he took Marys heart? Perhaps, yes.

That has always been an anomaly of her murder, whether the slashing of the face and removal of the heart suggested a spurned lover.


The exclamation of "oh, murder" could fit several scenario's. She would only need to be near her broken window at the time to have the same effect as if she was standing at her door.
We know Cox claimed to not have fallen asleep, yet also not have heard the cry of "murder", one of them claims is wrong.
Likewise, there could have been other noises that Prater never heard because she fell back asleep sooner than she thought.

I'm inclined to see Mary going out again after Blotchy, but I'm not convinced Astrachan killed her.

Sarah Lewis arrived 30 minutes ahead of Mrs Kennedy, Lewis did see Hutchinson watching a couple (Kelly & Astrachan) pass up the court. Hutch walked up the court to stand outside Kelly's window, then returned to Dorset St. to take up his long vigil on the opposite side of the street. Leaving Dorset St. about 3:00am, but, the time he left is not given in the police statement.

Mrs Kennedy claimed to have seen Kelly outside the Britannia at 3:00 am, but Hutchinson said he left the corner of Millers Court at 3:00 am.
The press article might have intended 'the corner of Dorset St.', rather than the corner of Millers Court. Rarely would anyone refer to a passage entrance as "the corner" of anywhere.

A couple of minutes either way between the times given by Hutchinson and those given by Kennedy could account for Hutchinson just leaving as Kelly & Astrachan emerged from the court.
Astrachan goes on his way and Kelly walks up to Commercial St. and takes up a position near another couple, the same couple seen by Sarah Lewis 30 minutes earlier.

The last witness to see Mary Kelly alive was not George Hutchinson, but Mrs Kennedy, who said she left Kelly in the company, or, in the vicinity of, a man and woman standing outside the Britannia.

Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before.

Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday.


Tentatively, I suspect this 'Britannia man' was her next and final client, at about 3:00-3:15 am, Friday morning.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Surely Jon, Michael is contending that the cry of "Oh Murder" is the slightly overloud drunken exclamation of a woman admitting an unexpected visitor at 4am..."Oh Murder", in this case, being the common exclamation of surprise - a bit like "Oh Jesus", rather than a statement of homicidal fact.

All the best

Dave

[joelhall]

My thoughts:

Kelly said 'oh murder', which is of course a less coarse way of saying 'oh s***' around here and London (at least was when I was a kid, nowadays people don't care quite so much). Given the way the witnesses said it sounded, it no doubt happened just after she opened the door to... well someone she didn't like obviously. Who that was we won't know, but 'murder' is said in times of anger, not fear. Anyway I digress.

Given that this was something they often heard, there's no reason to suspect the witnesses were really 'listening intently'. They probably didn't give it a second thought at the time.

Now the sheet over the face. Well, if this was the same killer as that of Eddowes and Nichols, then she would have had her throat cut lying on ther left side, i.e. facing away from the wall, as our Jacky boy was a right-handed bloke who slashed neck from the right hand side of the victim. Doing this from their left hand side would have meant either switching which hand grabbed and which cut, or crossing his arms over. Seems a little OTT to me. Of course if she was facing the wall, then rolling her on her back could have meant the sheet came over her face, but then how would the killer slash it up which the sheet over it? Obviously it could have been used to muffle screams or suffocate, but again it would have to be moved so.....

Where does this leave us? Which only one possible conclusion looking at the state of the body.

Mary answers the door, recognises some bloke who she cannot stand (unlikely to be Barnett in my opinion, but that's only a gut feeling) and lets Mr. Stabby in, willingly gets into bed (no crashing about heard), gets strangled or smothered there (or of course is grabbed from behind while standing until she passes out and gets laid on the bed). Needless to say she would be in this position so Stabby has room to move around which he wouldn't if she had her feet at the head end of the bed. He moves over her, does the neck thing, starts attacking her face, but probably not in a vicious rage as nobody heard anything, then moves back over her taking the sheet with him. Or maybe he just didn't like the look of the face and all the blood coming from it onto his chinos? Sadly we don't have the CCTV to check this out.

Anyway, the killer leaves, locks the door, and vanishes before anyone sees him.