Mary Jane Violence

[Lipsky]

From what I gather, Rust Cohle is a fictional character, but since I have not had the joy/poor luck to watch any of the material involving him, I must leave your question unanswered. I am sorry if that nags you in any way, but you are of course always welcome to ask your question in another manner so that I can answer it. He who dares, wins.

It doesn't nag me. Take the time to watch some of "the material involving him" -- then maybe you'll find my comment was maybe less negative than what you perceived.

"He who dares, wins" -- true for the Ripper as well, right? His audacity served him well.

[Fisherman]

I hope you donīt mind me answering you, Gareth. I noticed that on the other site, you lament how I make too many posts.

I just checked this matter more carefully. What Gareth said on the other site was that I make more posts in an hour than he does in a week. It turns out that he makes two posts when I make three, so I can only conclude that Gareths weeks are one and a half hour long. Small wonder then that he does not find the time for a reality check every now and then.

Now, back to the REAL discussion.

[Fisherman]

Fisher, is your attempt to sound like Rust Cohle deliberate?

From what I gather, Rust Cohle is a fictional character, but since I have not had the joy/poor luck to watch any of the material involving him, I must leave your question unanswered. I am sorry if that nags you in any way, but you are of course always welcome to ask your question in another manner so that I can answer it. He who dares, wins.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,
"The partition was so thin I could have heard Kelly walk about in the room. I went to bed at half-past one and barricaded the door with two tables. I fell asleep directly and slept soundly."
Elizabeth Prayers inquest testimony.

Interesting quote. You would think that had they spoken about the Ripper and Mary vocalized her fears and if Prater responded well I always barricade my door that Mary would have done the same.

c.d.

[Lipsky]

In your world, perhaps. But that is a world in which the fewest cohabitate with you. That is not to say that you must be wrong, although I certainly believe you are. There can be no rational reason to discard the evidence pointing to a shared identity, only cramped efforts to explain them away. Which is what I am seeing here.

Fisher, is your attempt to sound like Rust Cohle deliberate?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,
"The partition was so thin I could have heard Kelly walk about in the room. I went to bed at half-past one and barricaded the door with two tables. I fell asleep directly and slept soundly."
Elizabeth Prayers inquest testimony.

Thanks, Al - that's from the Daily Telegraph transcript I referred to earlier. It's clear from that article that this part of Prater's testimony relates to when she was at or on the stairs, which were next to the partition. This is evident from her also mentioning being able to see light escaping from the partition at precisely the same point in her testimony.

Her official inquest statement also preserves the same sequence of events as recounted in the Telegraph transcript: "On the stairs I could [have seen] a glimmer through the partition if there had been a light in the deceased's room. I did not take particular notice - I could have heard her moving if she had moved. I went in about 1:30 [and] put two tables against the door. I went to sleep at once."

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Prater. Damn you autocorrect!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Sam,
"The partition was so thin I could have heard Kelly walk about in the room. I went to bed at half-past one and barricaded the door with two tables. I fell asleep directly and slept soundly."
Elizabeth Prayers inquest testimony.

[Fisherman]

Well, lets make that even worse then...I believe within the Canonical Group alone there are most likely 3 killers, and that 1 man made the Torsos...so that's 4 killers. The presumption I speak of Fisherman is that people killed differently, some dramatically so..(Liz Stride/Mary Kelly for example)... in a period of over a year are most probably the result of 1 killer. You say I presume too much when I suggest they were done by more than one man, when, obviously, that's the more probable truth.

The evidence... such as it is... in no way, shape, or form creates a "clear and unequivocal" single killer premise, it more factually, supports the opposite conclusion.

In your world, perhaps. But that is a world in which the fewest cohabitate with you. That is not to say that you must be wrong, although I certainly believe you are. There can be no rational reason to discard the evidence pointing to a shared identity, only cramped efforts to explain them away. Which is what I am seeing here.

[Sam Flynn]

Well Sam, she did hear a cry "as if from the court"

She also qualified her statement by saying that she often heard such cries "from the back of the lodging-house, where the windows look into Miller's Court". Well, Kelly's room's windows looked into the Court, and Kelly's room was at the back of the house, so it would have been quite natural for someone living at the front of the house to perceive that the sound emerged from somewhere in the direction of the Court, and to describe it in similar terms.

If Prater's room actually overlooked the Court (i.e. it was above Kelly's), then she'd have said "I often hear such cries in the Court, outside my window"; in other words, Prater would not have referred to the back of the lodging house if she also lived at the back of the lodging-house.

But she didn't, of course. She lived at the first floor front room (Daily Telegraph 10th Nov), above the shed (Daily Telegraph, 13th Nov), from which vantage-point a mere tap on Kelly's window or door was extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for Prater or her cat to hear... especially from behind a shut (and barricaded) door.

she did say herself that she heard when Mary moved about in her room ..before the night in question

Can you point me to those sources? I don't doubt what you say, it's just that I can't find them using the Casebook press reports search function.

and she was woken by Diddles at the same time as Sarah Lewis heard the call.

I've no problem with that but, whatever disturbed Diddles, it wasn't a mere knock on Kelly's door or a tap at her window.

[Fisherman]

If the object was dismemberment, why would a killer go to all the trouble to cut them up in what can be described as medical fashion, to then wrap the parts carefully up and then dispose of them ?

That is a great question, Trevor. So letīs try and be logical here and begin from the end: Why do we dispose of things? Because these things have played out the role we got them for, Iīd say. That holds true throughout - the paper around the icecream is wasted because it has played out itīs role as a protector, a shirt is thrown away because it is no longer modern and so it has also played out itīs role, a bicycle is trashed because it has played out the role of taking me from part A to B in a tolerable way.
Alternatively, these things can still play their roles, but they have been substituted with something better and so they are trashed.

How does this apply to the torso killers carefully cut body parts? Well, there are a number of things to take notice of here:

He could of course have decided that the parts had played out their respective roles, and accordingly he trashed them.

In my world, the careful cutting will have had an object. Letīs say that the killer replicated something when doing that cutting. Could it be that once he was done with the replica, he threw the parts away? To me, that makes a lot of sense, because body parts have a best-before date. And so, just like I suggested above, he may have substituted the parts/victim with new parts/a new victim.

However, there is also the fact that throwing the parts in the Thames may have been an actual part of the whole concept. I strongly believe that this was so - just like the Ripper invoked fear by posing his victims, the torso killer invoked fear by seeing to it that the shores along the Thames washed up body parts. If this was so, he was not discarding the parts - he was USING them, and they played a further role.

That would mean that we are looking at two separate grounds for what the killer did:

1. He replicated something with great care and skilled cutting.
2. He afterwards used the material to create fear and respect and headlines and all of those things, the talk of the town, recognition etc.

There is no logic in that is there ?

I believe it is more a question of actually finding the logic, because it will be there.

because what would the motive be for dismembering them, because there has to be one, otherwise he might as well have just murdered them and left their bodies. I can understand perhaps one murder where there is a need to dispose of a body, but not the amount you would have us believe were all the work of the same man.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I believe the killer made the most of his victims in every situation, Trevor, as outlined above.

[Michael W Richards]

The full context of her statement is given by the report I quoted, in which she mentioned being able to hear Kelly in the same breath as being able to see any light coming from the room. Besides, given that Prater undoubtedly lived upstairs at the front of #26, there's no way that she, or her cat, could have heard a tap on Kelly's door/window on the rear ground floor of the property.

Well Sam, she did hear a cry "as if from the court", she did say herself that she heard when Mary moved about in her room ..before the night in question, and she was woken by Diddles at the same time as Sarah Lewis heard the call. What people want to believe is up to them, Ive just used the statements from those who were there.

[Michael W Richards]

Tell me, Michael - why would I accept a statement that I presume too much from a person who himself presumes many a thing that most ripperologists refuse to take on board?

There is MORE presumption in suggesting two killers than there is in accepting just the one when the evidence is as clear and unequivocal as it is in this case. If anything, I am the middle of the road guy. If there had not been a 131 year heritage of misunderstanding the details and people signing up for the wrong side and nailing their colours to the mast, the fewest would have dreamt of contesting what I say.

Well, lets make that even worse then...I believe within the Canonical Group alone there are most likely 3 killers, and that 1 man made the Torsos...so that's 4 killers. The presumption I speak of Fisherman is that people killed differently, some dramatically so..(Liz Stride/Mary Kelly for example)... in a period of over a year are most probably the result of 1 killer. You say I presume too much when I suggest they were done by more than one man, when, obviously, that's the more probable truth.

The evidence... such as it is... in no way, shape, or form creates a "clear and unequivocal" single killer premise, it more factually, supports the opposite conclusion.

[Trevor Marriott]

98 per cent or so of those bodies were not dismembered. Those who were, were normally sloppily and hastily cut up. But the torso victims were very skilfully cut up, with smooth cutting surfaces and straight angles, with cleanly disarticulated joints and carefull wrapped parts.

The torso murders have nothing at all in common with the typical dismemberment murders, and far less so with people knocked over the head and thrown into the Thames. A very useful read is Galloways initial assessment of the Rainham victim, where the good doctor was in awe about the cutting quality. He was certain that the killer was a surgeon or an anatomist at that stage.

Now, where is it we have heard that idea before? Wasnīt it something with Annie Chapman...?

If the object was dismemberment, why would a killer go to all the trouble to cut them up in what can be described as medical fashion, to then wrap the parts carefully up and then dispose of them ? There is no logic in that is there ? because what would the motive be for dismembering them, because there has to be one, otherwise he might as well have just murdered them and left their bodies. I can understand perhaps one murder where there is a need to dispose of a body, but not the amount you would have us believe were all the work of the same man.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

""She lived in No. 13 room, and mine is No. 20, which is almost over hers".

That's from an early (10th Nov) report in The Star. I was quoting her inquest testimony, where she states that her room was "above the shed". This unequivocally places Prater's room directly over the front room of #26, which McCarthy used as a "shed" to store his gear.