How did he do it?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

So Ben, what is the difference between her "waking up" alone but to face an intruder in the room, and "waking up" to the assault from her client lying by her side?

The latter is distinctly less plausible, because it involves the killer spending considerably more time in Kelly's company before committing the crime, with all the potential unnecessary risk that this would have entailed. In the vast majority of serial murders that involve an indoor attack, the killers simply broke in. It has become a sort of accepted factoid that Kelly habitually took clients home, but it's noteworthy that Mary Ann Cox went out onto the streets and serviced her clients there. Perhaps she wanted to keep her little sanctuary from being sullied, or even more likely, she knew that she'd earn more money by getting through more clients on the streets, as opposed to taking each grubby bugger home to mess the sheets up? Certainly, the "overnight customer" idea doesn't ring true. He'd have to pay one heck of a lot to compensate for the money she would have earned servicing several clients on an average night.

Yes, I do suggest that Kelly may have forgotten to flick the switch to activate the spring-lock before retiring for the night, either through habit or inebriation, and two important pieces of evidence suggests this was the case. The first comes from Mary Cox followed Kelly home at 11:45pm, but made no reference to any fiddling about with hands through windows. It is quite clear, therefore, that the door was left on the latch at that time, and it's perfectly possible that she never remedied this. The other is Chief Inspector Moore, who publicly bemoaned the habit of East Enders failing to lock their doors. The killer had only to push the door open. He would have determined that Kelly was alone through discreet surveillance from a vantage point - a tactic employed by such other serialists as Robert Napper, Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader.

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

Me Too

Hello Jon. Don't think Sadler was "Jack"; do think he did Coles.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Me too. Charges dropped is not the same as acquitted. Sadler had been robbed once, if not twice & seems to have thought Frances was involved. What would a man, known to be violent, do in such circumstances>

Regards, Bridewell

[Wickerman]

....I agree entirely with the suggestion that she "woke up, saw the murderer", ..

So Ben, what is the difference between her "waking up" alone but to face an intruder in the room, and "waking up" to the assault from her client lying by her side?

The problem with the intruder hypothesis is the noise he would make opening the door, either reaching through the window to activate the spring-lock, or, using a key.
In both cases the old door must surely creak on opening, and how could he be certain the victim was alone?
You don't suggest she falls asleep with the door unlocked?, not with the Ripper roaming about.

but there's little reason, in my view, to think that the murder had spent any considerable time in her room before that.

Well that is what was offered wasn't it?, being "comfortable" I mean.
Why would you suggest there is no reason to believe she was not following her chosen life as a prostitute. An overnight guest pays more.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Curious,

I tend to agree with Mike here. She may well have been moving about the bed, and just happened to be slightly nearer the partition at the time of the attack. It's not as though she had plentiful options on a relatively small bed. I agree entirely with the suggestion that she "woke up, saw the murderer", but there's little reason, in my view, to think that the murder had spent any considerable time in her room before that.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

The doctor also seemed to think that the body had been moved - if you sleep alone, you do tend to sprawl out over the whole bed.

No, you tend to move around the bed, but you sleep in one position for a time and then move into another, but those tend to be somewhat fetal. It depends upon the individual, so this is neither here nor there.

Mike

[curious4]

Sorry for the late reply, Phil and Hunter. I agree with both your points entirely. It does seem more than likely that Arnold was behind the "Police Notice" outlined in Tom's post. (And happy new year to you too, Phil!)

Hi all,

From a criminological perspective, i.e. after taking into account the behaviour of other serial killers, the argument for dismissing Tabram as a likely ripper victim is essentially nullified. It's fine to have a personal hunch that it doesn't "feel" the same, but in terms of murderous diversity, the differences in injuries between Tabram and Nichols are absurdly minimal in comparison to the vast majority of serial killers.



Not necessarily, Curious4.

If she was sleeping on her right shoulder, the likelihood is that she would be nearer to the partition anyway. Phillips based his conclusion on the quantity of blood on the partition and on the floor below, but if the throat cut commenced on the right-hand side, one would expect the blood-flow to be concentrated in that direction, regardless of her position on the bed when the attack commenced. Alternatively, she may have cowered closer to the partition as soon as she became aware of the man's intentions. Plenty of plausible explanations, in other words, that don't involve a killer who spent several non-murderous hours in Kelly's company (Blotchy or anyone else) before deciding to strike.

Best regards,
Ben

Hello Ben,

Well, yes, you do have a point, but I do think that she woke up, saw the murderer and pulled up the sheet over her face (not a logical thing to do, I know, but there is a newspaper report of a vicar? who lost it and shot at his maid and she did just that when faced with her employer and a gun). And there is the "you will be comfortable, my dear" - if he had been going to her room for a quickie, I donīt think he would have been concerned about his comfort.

The doctor also seemed to think that the body had been moved - if you sleep alone, you do tend to sprawl out over the whole bed.

Do take your point tho,
C4

[FrankO]

near the partition could mean that she moved across the bed to get away from her killer, rather than someone being beside her, whatever the case, she was definitely awake and trying to hide from him... evidence points to this

Hi Malcolm,

The fact that there were no defense wounds on her feet, legs or hands, other than the 2 to her right hand, coupled with the fact that no noise was heard, make it quite unlikely to me that MJK was aware of what was going to happen for much longer than just a couple of seconds. I think she only had time to raise her right hand in defense and then it was over. That's what I think the evidence points to. If she would have had more time, I at least would have expected more defense wounds.

All the best,
Frank

[Malcolm X]

Sorry for the late reply, Phil and Hunter. I agree with both your points entirely. It does seem more than likely that Arnold was behind the "Police Notice" outlined in Tom's post. (And happy new year to you too, Phil!)

Hi all,

From a criminological perspective, i.e. after taking into account the behaviour of other serial killers, the argument for dismissing Tabram as a likely ripper victim is essentially nullified. It's fine to have a personal hunch that it doesn't "feel" the same, but in terms of murderous diversity, the differences in injuries between Tabram and Nichols are absurdly minimal in comparison to the vast majority of serial killers.



Not necessarily, Curious4.

If she was sleeping on her right shoulder, the likelihood is that she would be nearer to the partition anyway. Phillips based his conclusion on the quantity of blood on the partition and on the floor below, but if the throat cut commenced on the right-hand side, one would expect the blood-flow to be concentrated in that direction, regardless of her position on the bed when the attack commenced. Alternatively, she may have cowered closer to the partition as soon as she became aware of the man's intentions. Plenty of plausible explanations, in other words, that don't involve a killer who spent several non-murderous hours in Kelly's company (Blotchy or anyone else) before deciding to strike.

Best regards,
Ben

near the partition could mean that she moved across the bed to get away from her killer, rather than someone being beside her, whatever the case, she was definitely awake and trying to hide from him... evidence points to this

[lynn cates]

Sadler

Hello Jon. Don't think Sadler was "Jack"; do think he did Coles.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Later theorists point to time. Some of the upper echelon of Scotland Yard pointed to the wounds. But, if I recall properly, SY thought that she was by the same hand as the rest and Sadler was pursued as "Jack."

Initially he was yes, until they realised he couldn't have been "Jack".

The killer dead by 1891? You may recall I don't believe in "the" killer. I believe Polly and Annie's killer died in 1910.

Cheers.
LC

Yes I do recall, but what I don't know is which of your "killers" might also have killed Coles. Unless you think she was another "one-off" by Unknown.

One unusual aspect of the wound to Coles was that it appeared the knife had been used twice within the same wound. I think, like what was done to Eddowes. Not that the same person killed both Eddowes & Coles, but that the method was the same.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

date

Hello Jon. Later theorists point to time. Some of the upper echelon of Scotland Yard pointed to the wounds. But, if I recall properly, SY thought that she was by the same hand as the rest and Sadler was pursued as "Jack."

The killer dead by 1891? You may recall I don't believe in "the" killer. I believe Polly and Annie's killer died in 1910.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

My point was that many Ripper students have had no problem with Coles out of the canon.

Is that because of the difference of wound, or the timing being 1891?

If you compare wounds, then Stride is out too. The wounds of Stride & Coles make them like book-ends.

If its timing, then why, do you think the killer was dead by 1891?

Regards, Jon S.

[IchabodCrane]

Well, if you wake up and someone is standing over you with a knife, "murder" would seem to be the appropriate response.

Cheers,
C4

I have to go back watching that John Carpenter movie with Jamie Lee Curtis again... I remember she was screaming her lungs out, but I totally forgot about the 'Oh, murder'!

[lynn cates]

Coles

Hello Red. The evidence was insufficient to convict. Not sure that is a full exoneration.

My point was that many Ripper students have had no problem with Coles out of the canon.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Sadler

Hello David. Well, Sir MLM did--for what that's worth.

I can see both sides of it and, personally, I think he did it.

Sad but true, I have little interest in the case.

Cheers.
LC