Mary Jane Violence

[Fisherman]

It may well be the killer was interrupted in Berner Street which explains Liz Strides absence of any mutilation..."it may well be that the killer limited his facial cutting"...it may well be that Marys killer snuck into her room without waking her or making any appreciable noise at all...these are used to explain why there are differences in the murders. The facts are that what happened happened, and barring any evidence that any attack was abbreviated or he intended to do anything else at the scene, that all you got. I have always enjoyed sparring with you here, but I have to be honest when I say that your pursuits of late presumes far too much to be taken as a real possibility. He kills indoors, outdoors, with one slice or with a whole bunch, he cuts off arms, legs and heads, then he doesn't. Then he does. He stabs dozens of times, then he hardly stabs at all. He kills working women, and then women at home in their own bed and room. He has skill with a knife and an understanding of internal structures, then he doesn't.

That contrary list can go on for quite a while if you let it Fisherman. All of these are not a single killers remnants.

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.

[Fisherman]

There was an opinion at the time that she was in essence in a fetal position, knees drawn in to chest somewhat, oriented to the right side of the bed, facing that wall when she is attacked. Waiting for the spoon.

Okay. The problem is that it does not fit with the evidence.

The arterial spray on the wall suggests she was close to it and facing it when she is cut.

No, not really. If she wqas facing the wall, the spray would either go right into the bed or up in the air. If she was on her back, though...

We hear no evidence Mary had someone in her room that she loudly objected to, and the "oh murder" call was not followed by any sounds that Elizabeth could hear upstairs.

None of the Ripper victims was able to call out to an extent that drew interest, it would seem. The killer may have come as she slept, or he could have been let in by Mary herself. Begars canīt be choosers, and prostitutes must make do with the punters who ask for their services.

Things she said she could hear.

Things Nichols had said, Chapman had said, Stride had said and Eddowes had said should have been overheard by many people. But none of them said anything to arouse suspicion. Why would Kelly be different?

The windows were found latched. It appears the spring lock was set to lock behind whomever is leaving.

And?

The scene painted by these facts could be one that has Mary answering a tap on the door or window..heard by Diddles...she answers the door and moans "oh-murder" because she wasnt expecting anyone and she is sleeping off a bender.. and she is facing a lamp that is directly opposite her door. She was likely shielding her eyes when she moaned it. She lets him in, keeps the spring latch on lock, and slips back into bed quietly, orienting herself to the right side.

Yes, that "could be" the explanation. Then again, it seems the other four canonical victims fell prey to a stranger, quite possibly a killer posing as a punter. Why would Kelly differ? It was the same killer as in Hanbury Street, the cut away abdominal lid ensures that.

I would think even you might admit that fits well with the knowns here.

Fits? Yes. Fits well? No, not really. And whatīs that about "even" me?

[Sam Flynn]

I see why you included that quote Sam, but wonder why you didn't also use the statement by Prater that said "I could hear when Mary moved about in her room".

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.

[Michael W Richards]

""She lived in No. 13 room, and mine is No. 20, which is almost over hers". People have presumed about the exact juxtaposition of Praters room to Marys forever...yet Prater herself in many quotes says she could hear when Mary moved about in her room, when furniture was moved, etc.... That speaks to how effectively sounds carried upstairs while indoors, open windows can explain how she heard what she did " as if from the court". Bearing that in mind, its proof that the murder was not beginning with the "oh-murder" call, Prater was now awake and listened for sounds, from inside the house, sounds that never came.

[Michael W Richards]

"I live at 20 Room, in Miller's-court, above the shed. Deceased occupied a room below. I left the room on the Thursday at five p.m., and returned to it at about one a.m. on Friday morning. I stood at the corner until about twenty minutes past one. No one spoke to me. McCarthy's shop was open, and I called in, and then went to my room. I should have seen a glimmer of light in going up the stairs if there had been a light in deceased's room, but I noticed none. The partition was so thin I could have heard Kelly walk about in the room." (Daily Telegraph, 13th November 1888)

Two things to note. One, Elizabeth Prater lived at the front of the building, not directly over Mary's room, as has long been erroneously believed. Two, Prater's statement about hearing movement in Kelly's room (and seeing any light therefrom) is specifically related to her being on the stairs, when she would have been in close proximity to the thin partition that separated Kelly's room from the stairwell.

Once in her room on the first floor front, there is little likelihood that Prater or her cat could have heard a mere tap on Kelly's door or window.

I see why you included that quote Sam, but wonder why you didn't also use the statement by Prater that said "I could hear when Mary moved about in her room".

[Sam Flynn]

We hear no evidence Mary had someone in her room that she loudly objected to, and the "oh murder" call was not followed by any sounds that Elizabeth could hear upstairs. Things she said she could hear [...] The scene painted by these facts could be one that has Mary answering a tap on the door or window..heard by Diddles

"I live at 20 Room, in Miller's-court, above the shed. Deceased occupied a room below. I left the room on the Thursday at five p.m., and returned to it at about one a.m. on Friday morning. I stood at the corner until about twenty minutes past one. No one spoke to me. McCarthy's shop was open, and I called in, and then went to my room. I should have seen a glimmer of light in going up the stairs if there had been a light in deceased's room, but I noticed none. The partition was so thin I could have heard Kelly walk about in the room." (Daily Telegraph, 13th November 1888)

Two things to note. One, Elizabeth Prater lived at the front of the building, not directly over Mary's room, as has long been erroneously believed. Two, Prater's statement about hearing movement in Kelly's room (and seeing any light therefrom) is specifically related to her being on the stairs, when she would have been in close proximity to the thin partition that separated Kelly's room from the stairwell.

Once in her room on the first floor front, there is little likelihood that Prater or her cat could have heard a mere tap on Kelly's door or window.

[Michael W Richards]

Very few things are incomprehensible to me; one of them is how people claim that the two series are very different. But thatīs another matter.

Eddowes and Kelly were both evisceration victims.

They both had organs taken out.

The organs taken out were of both a sexual and a non-sexual character.

The both had their their abdomens cut all the way from breastplate to groin.

They both engaged in prostitution.

You say that one of them had "a few cuts" wheras the other had "slashing back and forth" to the face. Eddowes was a victim who was killed under severe time pressure, and it may well be that the killer limited his facial cutting either to flee the scene or so as to allow for other cutting too (if the facial cuts came first). Kelly would not have imposed that kind of problem on the killer, and it therefore becomes logical that whereas Eddowes had only kidney and uterus cut out, Kelly had all the organs of the abdomen removed. Instread of going looking for another killer, we may simple accept the difference as a diffence in volume.

It may well be the killer was interrupted in Berner Street which explains Liz Strides absence of any mutilation..."it may well be that the killer limited his facial cutting"...it may well be that Marys killer snuck into her room without waking her or making any appreciable noise at all...these are used to explain why there are differences in the murders. The facts are that what happened happened, and barring any evidence that any attack was abbreviated or he intended to do anything else at the scene, that all you got. I have always enjoyed sparring with you here, but I have to be honest when I say that your pursuits of late presumes far too much to be taken as a real possibility. He kills indoors, outdoors, with one slice or with a whole bunch, he cuts off arms, legs and heads, then he doesn't. Then he does. He stabs dozens of times, then he hardly stabs at all. He kills working women, and then women at home in their own bed and room. He has skill with a knife and an understanding of internal structures, then he doesn't.

That contrary list can go on for quite a while if you let it Fisherman. All of these are not a single killers remnants.

[Michael W Richards]

Whoa, thatīs a whole lot of guesswork there. It seems the sheet from the right hand side of the bed was used to cover the face as the killer cut. That alone speaks for a position in the midst of the bed and on her back, not on her side facing the partition wall. But I would not go as far as to say that I know how she lay - and nor should you do so, least of all in conflict with the evidence...

There was an opinion at the time that she was in essence in a fetal position, knees drawn in to chest somewhat, oriented to the right side of the bed, facing that wall when she is attacked. Waiting for the spoon. The arterial spray on the wall suggests she was close to it and facing it when she is cut. We hear no evidence Mary had someone in her room that she loudly objected to, and the "oh murder" call was not followed by any sounds that Elizabeth could hear upstairs. Things she said she could hear. The windows were found latched. It appears the spring lock was set to lock behind whomever is leaving.

The scene painted by these facts could be one that has Mary answering a tap on the door or window..heard by Diddles...she answers the door and moans "oh-murder" because she wasnt expecting anyone and she is sleeping off a bender.. and she is facing a lamp that is directly opposite her door. She was likely shielding her eyes when she moaned it. She lets him in, keeps the spring latch on lock, and slips back into bed quietly, orienting herself to the right side.

I would think even you might admit that fits well with the knowns here.

[Fisherman]

I said Pinchin. I meant Whitehall was a dump. Mea Culpa.

No probs. And yes, the Whitehall victim is the one victim where we cannot establish that there was unecessary cutting if the killer simply wanted to dispose of the body.

But! There are other problems:

-Hebbert was certain that the Whitehall victim belonged to the series - the cutting technique was the same as in the other cases, and he saw no reason not to link the cases.

-Why dump the body in the New Scotland Yard buyildingīs basement, a recess very hard to find, involving a need to scale a fence before you could dump the torso? Also, there was not a hope in hell that it would go unnoticed there. Also, a buried section was found. Also, an arm was dumped in the Thames and found floating there.

With the same killer, why would we predispose that he eviscerated away in the other cases and cut because he liked it - and then suddenly simply dumped a body along the "normal" dismemberment thinking? Is it not by far and away more likely that she was more of the same?

The uterus and other parts were missing from the abdomen, although it could not be established how she had lost these parts. Personally, I can think of a very logical explanation...

All things considered, we seem now to agree that the rest of the victims all was something out of the ordinary when it comes to dismemberment killings?


but even beyond that but my father told me that men like Uncle Saul open up the abdomens so they don’t gas up and float. So what do I know about the way you dump a body. I thought you just used cement blocks.

Open up the abdomens? Yes, perhaps gangsters do that. But taking out the heart, the lungs and the uterus does not impact buoyancy, does it? And keep in mind that this killer had nigh on two decades to learn that body parts floated down the river the way he did it, WILL float and wash up on the shores of the river. Just about every part did, and I can only think that this was a chosen strategy. He could have weighed the parts down, but he never did. He WANTED them to be found, and what better way to make sure that they were given proper attention is there, than to float them through the epicenter of the Victorian capital, past Whitehall, past the houses of parliament, past all the governmental buildings and institutions that lined central London?

Though with more than 500 bodies coming out of the Thames in one year, you could make an argument that a better disposal was due for a trial.

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...?

[Fisherman]

Thank you everyone!
Regarding the Torso Killer, I see quite a few similarities with Jack, but somehow I keep thinking that they were not one and the same. Perhaps the Ripper was fascinated with the Torso Man's "work" and wanted to emulate him.

Okay. Then you have top ask yourself how many cases we have in the history of crime where somebody emulated an eviscerators work. Once you come up with an answer to that one, the next question becomes: Who emulated who? The torso killer was first to take out a heart and to cut from ribs to pubes (1887), something the Ripper did a year later (1888). Then again, the Ripper was first to take away the abdominal wall in sections (1888), something the Torso killer did the next year (1889).

The problem with a copycat scenario is that it will always be much less likely than the suggestion of a single killer. Once we have the same kind of odd damage inflicted in two cases, then our best guess will always be that it was the same perpetrator. It is only when there is evidence to the contrary that we need to drop that idea. And there is no such evidence at all, since a killer is perfectly able to dismember in some cases while not doing so in others - the practice is not a common one but it exists in numerous cases, and the evidence compels us to accept that this was what heppened here.

Whichever way we try to solve this enigma, we will end up with a strange scenario. There is no easy and smooth solution. A killer who sometimes dismembers and sometimes not is an odd matter (although not unheard of), but then again, two killers who do the same odd things to their victims is even more so.

[Fisherman]

hey fish
didn't one of the 70s torsos have a breast removed? (like Kelly)

The 1873 body was cut up in very many pieces, and one of them entailed a breast - but with the underlying torso attached, so to speak. Itīs not the same as Kelly, who had her breasts removed from her torso by circular cuts.

[Errata]

hi errata
alot of bodies coming out of the river yes, but torsos/ body parts coming out very rare. actually, torsos found anywhere in or around london, including the river extremely rare.

I believe it, but I also believe there is a ratio of torsos they found vs torsos they didn’t, and while I don’t think it’s high, I think it’s probably higher than I would expect it to be. Rivers are funny creatures.

[Abby Normal]

I said Pinchin. I meant Whitehall was a dump. Mea Culpa.
very rare.
but even beyond that but my father told me that men like Uncle Saul open up the abdomens so they don’t gas up and float. So what do I know about the way you dump a body. I thought you just used cement blocks.

Though with more than 500 bodies coming out of the Thames in one year, you could make an argument that a better disposal was due for a trial.

hi errata
alot of bodies coming out of the river yes, but torsos/ body parts coming out very rare. actually, torsos found anywhere in or around london, including the river extremely rare.

[Errata]

I said Pinchin. I meant Whitehall was a dump. Mea Culpa.

but even beyond that but my father told me that men like Uncle Saul open up the abdomens so they don’t gas up and float. So what do I know about the way you dump a body. I thought you just used cement blocks.

Though with more than 500 bodies coming out of the Thames in one year, you could make an argument that a better disposal was due for a trial.

[Errata]

hey fish
didn't one of the 70s torsos have a breast removed? (like Kelly)

1873 I think