Mary Jane Violence

[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 buyilding´s 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? Wasn´t it something with Annie Chapman...?

[Michael W Richards]

Whoa, that´s 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.

[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 that´s 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.

[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]

"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".

[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.

[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.

[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 can´t 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 what´s that about "even" me?

[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.

[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.

[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? Wasn´t 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

[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.

[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.

[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 let´s 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, I´d say. That holds true throughout - the paper around the icecream is wasted because it has played out it´s role as a protector, a shirt is thrown away because it is no longer modern and so it has also played out it´s 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. Let´s 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.

[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.