How did he do it?

[Nemo]

On the subject of the "Oh, murder!" cry, post 65 on the following thread, courtesy of Howard Brown, under "Birmingham confession" relates a drunken woman shouting "Murder!" when she thought herself pursued by the Ripper...

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=136665&posted=1#post136665

[Nemo]

On the subject of how he did it...

The facial bruises, if done by a hand-grip, can only be done by grabbing the face from the front (or possibly the rear) with the right hand, or, as illustrated in the sketch, with the left hand while the victim is on the ground - ie thumb on right part of face, fingers to the left

I'm not sure whether Stride being pulled from the rear and having a throat-cut as the initial wound affects the way we think of the Ripper's MO in general

Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and indeed, Tabram could all have been in the "rape position" when attacked, probably choked/strangled from the front

The Ripper did not necessarily attack suddenly and begin with the throat-cut, though a "blitz-attack" from the rear with a choke hold is the most likely scenario IMO if the victims were actually silent when attacked, though this is by no means proven

[curious]

On the subject of how he did it...

The facial bruises, if done by a hand-grip, can only be done by grabbing the face from the front (or possibly the rear) with the right hand, or, as illustrated in the sketch, with the left hand while the victim is on the ground - ie thumb on right part of face, fingers to the left

I'm not sure whether Stride being pulled from the rear and having a throat-cut as the initial wound affects the way we think of the Ripper's MO in general

Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and indeed, Tabram could all have been in the "rape position" when attacked, probably choked/strangled from the front

Well, I assume we can surmise that the attacks began while the victims were on their feet. I cannot imagine a scenario where they willingly laid down on the ground for him (Kelly excluded). I have no clue if the cutting began while they were on their feet but my inclination is no.

Hello, Barnaby,
I've wondered if we can "surmise that the attacks began while the victims were on their feet," and that perhaps at least the first victims might not already have been lying down.

There was a considerable lapse of time between the times they were last seen (or at least that the authorities knew about) and their bodies were discovered:

Martha Tabrum 11:45 p.m. to 4:50 a.m.

Polly Nichols 2:30 to 3:40-45 a.m. has over an hour that it appears it took her to walk a 10-minute distance

Annie Chapman goes unseen from around 1:35 to 6 a.m. -- She was not feeling well, so where was she?

There was recently a thread in which the possibility of Mary Jane Kelly having been asleep was discussed extensively.

I have begun to suspect that Martha Tabram and Annie Chapman and perhaps even Polly Nichols had gone somewhere sheltered to sleep.

Polly was so drunk, perhaps she passed out.

So, then what? Could they have been suffocated while sleeping? Certainly, that could explain the lack of any noise.

Now, I can't make this fit for Annie Chapman -- she was gone a long time, and I do think (at this time) that she went inside the hallway of a building she knew and went to sleep -- but from there, I can't see her sleeping outside on an unseasonably cold night when apparently people did use the hallway to sleep in sometimes . . .

So, were they all attacked while standing? Any thoughts.

[Wickerman]

Hello, Barnaby,
I've wondered if we can "surmise that the attacks began while the victims were on their feet," and that perhaps at least the first victims might not already have been lying down.

Hi Curious.
By 'attacks', do you mean with the knife, or by strangulation?

I know these women were rough but there has never been any suggestion that they intentionally laid down for sex or anything else.
Therefore, with those bodies which betray signs of strangulation the logical assumption has been they were on their feet in the initial attack, that being 'by strangulation'.
Only when they slumped to the ground did he pull out the knife.

I'm not sure how you arrived at this question because the medical evidence has been available for decades. In most cases there is no question that they were already laid down when their throats were cut, Stride may be the only exception in the C5 group.
Even in her case she was likely pulled to the ground but not unconscious when he slashed her throat.

There was recently a thread in which the possibility of Mary Jane Kelly having been asleep was discussed extensively.

It's always possible that Kelly fell asleep with her killer, but it's not practical that someone breaks in to her room and killed her while she slept.

So, then what? Could they have been suffocated while sleeping? Certainly, that could explain the lack of any noise.

It explains the lack of noise regardless whether they were on their feet or not.
But, where their bodies were found were not locations anyone would pick to fall asleep. So, your suggestion automatically implies the bodies had to have been killed elsewhere then moved & dumped. Yet, once again the medical evidence has suggested otherwise, that they were killed where found.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

Wickerman

It's always possible that Kelly fell asleep with her killer, but it's not practical that someone breaks in to her room and killed her while she slept.

Why not?

If Kelly fell asleep with her killer it follows that her killer had the self-control to wait until she did so - for what reason? He could obviously have just killed her once he and she were alone in her room together - so why didn't he?

A killer entering when she was asleep would not have required the self-control to wait.

Alternatively, she may have let him in because she knew him.

[curious]

Hi Curious.
By 'attacks', do you mean with the knife, or by strangulation?


I meant they were strangled first. Lying asleep, they were already down and vunerable. Very easy for someone to straddle and overcome -- without there ever being any noise. One of the marks of "Jack" has been that he strikes silently . . . there's been a lot of discussion about how he could kill women so silently. This is one possibility -- for certain ones, not for all of the victims.

I know these women were rough but there has never been any suggestion that they intentionally laid down for sex or anything else.

I'm suggesting (and only suggesting and considering the possibility) that they laid down to SLEEP.


Therefore, with those bodies which betray signs of strangulation the logical assumption has been they were on their feet in the initial attack, that being 'by strangulation'.

Logical assumption means just that -- it's a guess. And people all the time have different "logicals." But Tabram, Nichols and Chapman were out of sight for awhile. Where were they? (I do realize they could have been with Johns, but then they would have had money to have rented a bed . . . ) Where were they during that missing time?




Only when they slumped to the ground did he pull out the knife.

-- if they were sleeping (and I've seen homeless people sleep in some strange looking places), they were already on the ground. No slumping required.

I'm not sure how you arrived at this question because the medical evidence has been available for decades. In most cases there is no question that they were already laid down when their throats were cut,

exactly, that's what I said. They had laid down to sleep and so were very easily overcome

Stride may be the only exception in the C5 group.
Even in her case she was likely pulled to the ground but not unconscious when he slashed her throat.

I don't believe I mentioned Stride in my considerations


But, where their bodies were found were not locations anyone would pick to fall asleep.

Really? Didn't someone in George's Yard go up the steps past someone he thought was "sleeping" on the landing? Later it was considered that likely that person had walked past a dead body. But maybe not. If he believed the person was sleeping there, perhaps he thought that because it was a common occurrence.

In addition, some of the dissertations or copy here on Casebook indicate that people often used 29 Hanbury for sleeping. The the front door opened on a latch and all sorts of people were in and out, including prostitutes with punters.


So, your suggestion automatically implies the bodies had to have been killed elsewhere then moved & dumped.



No, I don't know how you arrived at that. They were killed where they lay. Polly was apparently so drunk, she could have passed out anywhere. Martha could have been sleeping on the landing, and I believe Annie perhaps went to a place she believed was safe to sleep in.


Yet, once again the medical evidence has suggested otherwise, that they were killed where found.

I believe that too. Which is why I stated in my original post that I have a very difficult time figuring out why or if Annie Chapman would try to sleep outside . . . I can't really get there and I state that. So while I am seriously considering the possibility that Annie had gone to a house she knew (she had sold crochet items to Mrs. Richardson there) because she was too sick to work, I can't get her sleeping outside on an unseasonably cold night. But Annie was missing for hours. She was sick and had been to the infirmary, she was seen sitting too sick to really walk and "work," so where was she and what was she doing during those missing hours? I suggest she was sleeping.



Regards, Jon S.

And Jon, I'm not "married" to any of this, I'm just rummaging it around in my head. A dozen or so heads are better than one to see new angles. This case has never been solved and we don't really know how things were done. We have ideas -- sometimes hidebound ideas, carved-in-stone ideas that might be all wrong. Of course, they may be right too, but we can't be sure.

This is just a mental exploration . . . thanks for the reply.

Curious

[Merry_Olde_Mary]

It's always possible that Kelly fell asleep with her killer, but it's not practical that someone breaks in to her room and killed her while she slept.

Jon, I thought I read in one of the dissertation essays about Room 13 (unlucky number, I guess) that its window had been broken for some time prior...and one could reach in from the street and unlatch the door?

If Kelly were asleep, I'd think she might not have heard someone unlatch the door via the window, and enter...especially if she was a drinker like the previous victims. Especially if this was a ground floor apartment on the street, and she was used to sleeping with some ambient noise, anyway.

[Wickerman]

Jon, I thought I read in one of the dissertation essays about Room 13 (unlucky number, I guess) that its window had been broken for some time prior...and one could reach in from the street and unlatch the door?

Hi Mary.
Someone could reach in from the yard (court), someone who knew how to unlock the door. So far as we know only Kelly & Barnett knew this, not even McCarthy was aware and it was his property.

When I said "not practical", I didn't mean "not possible".

How long would someone outside have to wait in the court without being seen by all the residents passing in and out?
Failing that approach, how many times would this intruder need to come & go to check whether she is even asleep yet? Is she even in, or if she is, is she entertaining somebody?
Assuming all this is bypassed, the room is dark, he needs to reach into darkness on the assumption he can locate the door latch and trip the mechanism without making a sound, also without being seen by others who live in the court.
Assuming the mechanism trips silently, will the door open silently?, does it squeek or creek like an old battered door can do?
So he enters, the floorboards do not creek, he closes the door and the locking mechanism automatically latches - silently?

There's simply too many "ifs" to accept this as a serious proposition. Certainly it is not impossible, but why go to such extreme lengths when any number of streetwalkers are available across Whitechapel?

There's nothing wrong with considering it, but I think the idea needs to be thought through in real terms. This was not a modern apartment with silent door hinges and carpeted floor.

Sorry if I unsettled the waters, I just think there's too many problems with this idea.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;178349]Hi Mary.

Someone could reach in from the yard (court), someone who knew how to unlock the door. So far as we know only Kelly & Barnett knew this, not even McCarthy was aware and it was his property.

"so far as we know" is the operative phrase. We don't know that McCarthy wasn't aware that the door could be opened like this ; We only know that the police, after waiting for bloodhounds that never arrived, broke the door down -but we don't know why. There was a suggestion on another thread that the police would have had to have reached in over mounds of bloody flesh as the table was close to the window and the space tight. The photographer moved the table to get everything in the pictures of the crime scene.

How long would someone outside have to wait in the court without being seen by all the residents passing in and out?

If the person was waiting on a rainy night in the early hours of the morning, there wouldn't have been that many people passing in and out of the court.
Maybe the murderer was seen by at least one of them, anyhow ?

Failing that approach, how many times would this intruder need to come & go to check whether she is even asleep yet? Is she even in, or if she is, is she entertaining somebody?

If the murderer had seen Mary go home alone, or had seen her client leave, and waited a bit -given the hour and the rainy night- he might have been aware that she had gone to bed and was on her own in the room.

Assuming all this is bypassed, the room is dark, he needs to reach into darkness on the assumption he can locate the door latch and trip the mechanism without making a sound, also without being seen by others who live in the court.

Tricky. But whoever Jack was, he was used to operating in the dark, and the lure of having a warm and private room to take his time in, may have been tempting enough for him to take the risk.

Assuming the mechanism trips silently, will the door open silently?, does it squeek or creek like an old battered door can do?
So he enters, the floorboards do not creek, he closes the door and the locking mechanism automatically latches - silently?

Maybe he wasn't as silent as all that -if the cry of 'murder !' came from Mary. Since we know that the killer could kill women quickly before they could cry out, there is the possibility that Mary awoke before Jack reached the bed. She was very drunk, so there is also the possibiity that she was very heavily asleep before being attacked.

There's simply too many "ifs" to accept this as a serious proposition. Certainly it is not impossible, but why go to such extreme lengths when any number of streetwalkers are available across Whitechapel?

Because it was a rainy night and this one had her own room and was alone -a 'bird in the hand' etc
Jack may have felt increasingly frustrated by killing on the street -he didn't have the time to really explore the 'mutilation' and it was uncomfortable.

[Sally]

Assumption of silence?

Maybe he wasn't as silent as all that -if the cry of 'murder !' came from Mary. Since we know that the killer could kill women quickly before they could cry out, there is the possibility that Mary awoke before Jack reached the bed. She was very drunk, so there is also the possibiity that she was very heavily asleep before being attacked.

I don't think the killer would have needed to be silent if he had entered Kelly's room when she was asleep - not just because she may have been in a drunken stupor; but because a degree of noise would have been quite normal.

Apart from the late-night comings and goings of the residents in Millers Court; there would have been night time trips to the privy.

If somebody had opened Kelly's door and entered her room, sure he'd have probably made some noise doing it; but most likely, nobody would have noticed a noise that was not out of the ordinary.

[Ben]

I'm with Sally and Rubes here.

The "intruder" scenario makes considerable sense, and is not in the least bit unlikely. If people are envisaging him unlatching the door through the window, this assumes that it was "unlatched" at the time. It probably wasn't. Mary Kelly returned to the room at 11:45pm with her Blotchy companion, and at no point did Mrs. Cox observe any fiddling about the window. The inference, therefore, is that the door was left on the latch at that time, and probably remained so when Kelly retired to bed in her undoubtedly booze-befuddled state. All the killer had to do to gain entry was push open the door, do the sordid business, and flick the lock off the latch as he left.

I don't regard this as "extreme lengths" at all, as it afforded the killer the opportunity to operate away from the streets and in comparative privacy. And of course, a sleeping victim is simply easier to subdue than one who is awake.

[Phil H]

The "intruder" scenario makes considerable sense, and is not in the least bit unlikely.

I'm not sure how you can be so certain - we don't even know the precise time MJK was killed. To me the "intruder" scenario is only vaguely realistic, if the murderer was intimate enough with MJK to have her confidence - that is someone like either of the barnett brothers, possibly Fleming, or someone like them - certainly more than a casual caller or a punter.

If people are envisaging him unlatching the door through the window, this assumes that it was "unlatched" at the time.

I think you mean it assumes the door was LATCHED at the time. I would certainly assume it was. - at that time and in that place. I don't see MJK as going to sleep unprotected - even Lizzie Prater pulled furniture across her door!

Mary Kelly returned to the room at 11:45pm with her Blotchy companion, and at no point did Mrs. Cox observe any fiddling about the window. The inference, therefore, is that the door was left on the latch at that time, and probably remained so when Kelly retired to bed in her undoubtedly booze-befuddled state.

All supposition, built on supposition. We know next to nothing of MJK's movements that night - and there is a clear case that she was murderered much later in the morning.

All the killer had to do to gain entry was push open the door, do the sordid business, and flick the lock off the latch as he left.

Which assumes a familiarity with the lock, as I see it. Was there, in fact a "middle position" - I thought it was only open or locked. Was there an "on the latch" position?

On balance, I think that it is much more unlikely that a "passer-by" or casual acquaintance of MJK just let himself in while she was asleep and slaughtered her. I think someone hanging about, checking the door, seeing if anyone else was in etc - not knowing if someone might come back - is far too complex, even given JtR's luck. It doesn't ring true - for me - outside detective fiction.

As the police had trouble with the door, eventually having to break it down, why assume the killer did not have equal trouble? Also might the killer not have had the key?

I think whomever did the deed, knew MJK, her current domestic position (i.e. Barnett had left, so no one was coming back and that no other women were staying with MJK); could knock at the door, be let in, and knew MJK well enough that she would go to sleep in his presence.

I am open to accept the possibility that MJK survived the night, went out next morning (was seen by Maxwell) and then returned hom with her killer - but that she then let him in herself.

Sorry to have to disagree

Phil

[Ben]

“I think someone hanging about, checking the door, seeing if anyone else was in etc - not knowing if someone might come back - is far too complex”

Not really, Phil, no.

It would be just the sort of pre-crime surveillance that many serial killers are known to have adopted, and it is to the end of pulling off an efficient crime that these efforts are usually directed. It also removes the problem of having to "inveigle" the victim under a false guise.

“All supposition, built on supposition”

No.

It’s a logical deduction based on the evidence. It is not “supposition” to observe that Mary Cox mentioned nothing about Kelly or the Blotchy man reaching through a broken window pane. The inference from her evidence is that the door was certainly unlocked when Kelly returned at 11:45pm, and there is no evidence that she locked it at any point thereafter. In light of her intoxicated condition, it seems likely that she didn’t.

“Which assumes a familiarity with the lock”

Not “the” lock. Just spring locks in general, which were very common. “On the latch” means the lock has been disengaged, enabling the door to open and close without the turning of any lock or handle. A flick of a switch would engage the lock, preventing anyone on the outside from gaining entry without a key. I would suggest that the killer did precisely that as soon as he entered the room.

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

I think we'll just have to disagree, Ben.

I think we're too far apart even to try to reconcile our views.

Phil

[Sally]

I'm not sure that a killer who let himself in is necessarily a better premise than another; but I do think its worthy of consideration. I don't think it likely that Kelly was killed the next day, because then I think somebody would have noticed what was happening.

Lord Mayor's Show notwithstanding, there were evidently people about their daily business that day and I think if Kelly's killer had been busy strewing body bits about the room, burning clothing, roasting hearts etc he'd had been in for a sudden drop and a sharp stop.