Front or Rear attack?

[Fiver]

The position of Chapman's body in the yard left basically no room for a man to have attacked her from behind.

[Wickerman]

The position of Chapman's body in the yard left basically no room for a man to have attacked her from behind.

I can't visualize why you think that. Her feet were along way from the house, if she faced the fence while being attacked from behind, it only takes a turn of her body to lay her down, as opposed to laying her across the yard. He would be more exposed, so laying her beside the fence keeps him more sheltered. Especially from the only witness he was aware of, the man over the fence (Cadoche) who was walking from the house to the toilet.

[Michael W Richards]

There was only 1 Canonical murder where the physical evidence and environment suggested the victim was attacked from behind. She was on her right side, facing a wall, when her throat was slit. There was no room to approach from the far side of the bed. So he likely lay down behind her, as her position on the right hand side of the bed facing the wall would allow for, and almost certainly left handed, reached around from above to get the knife under her chin before she woke.

2 elements that are not visibly obvious in any of the other murders.

[The Rookie Detective]

If you read Llewellyn's testimony:

"On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers."

Like this?



Which suits the left hand in this position:



Also, we might recall her tongue, Llewellyn said:

Five of the teeth are missing, and there is a slight laceration of the tongue.

Laceration of the tongue is interesting because it suggests two things.

People don't normally bite their tongue unless it is protruding between the teeth, however momentarily.
That may indicate strangulation.

If the tongue was trapped between her teeth, and the killer pressed down hard on her face, as above, then her teeth can lacerate the tongue.
Interestingly, Tom Wescott wondered why Nichols nose looks like it was broken. The left hand (as above) also covers the nose.

Now, I'm not saying there are not other solutions to these little details, obviously there can be.

I think you're spot on with this.

Once he has his victim on the ground he is kneeling at their right side, between her head and right shoulder. He then pushes down, perhaps pinning her shoulder with his right knee. He covers her mouth and nose exactly as per the diagram above and completes suffocating her with his left hand. By covering her airways he doesn't need to continue/commence strangling her throat. Once his victim is close to passing out he draws a knife and cuts the left side of the neck and draws it around the throat towards him in a hooking motion and is able to get a deep vertical cut due to the leverage he has from his body position.

This would have taken no more than 30 seconds.

How he gets them to the ground is difficult to determine


RD

[Wickerman]

There was only 1 Canonical murder where the physical evidence and environment suggested the victim was attacked from behind. She was on her right side, facing a wall, when her throat was slit. There was no room to approach from the far side of the bed. So he likely lay down behind her, as her position on the right hand side of the bed facing the wall would allow for, and almost certainly left handed, reached around from above to get the knife under her chin before she woke.

2 elements that are not visibly obvious in any of the other murders.

It's possible yes, but Kelly's murder could have been accomplished by a right-handed man.

Assuming the common way of conducting the sex act was again by anal penetration, she could have been face down, and him on top behind her. Certainly her head was close to the side of the bed, and the bed against the partition.He would pull her head up by the hair and run the knife around her throat. Most of the blood spray would go into the mattress and against the partition.

[Wickerman]

I think you're spot on with this.

Once he has his victim on the ground he is kneeling at their right side, between her head and right shoulder. He then pushes down, perhaps pinning her shoulder with his right knee. He covers her mouth and nose exactly as per the diagram above and completes suffocating her with his left hand. By covering her airways he doesn't need to continue/commence strangling her throat. Once his victim is close to passing out he draws a knife and cuts the left side of the neck and draws it around the throat towards him in a hooking motion and is able to get a deep vertical cut due to the leverage he has from his body position.

This would have taken no more than 30 seconds.

How he gets them to the ground is difficult to determine


RD

Thankyou RD, yes, I agree.

[The Rookie Detective]

It's possible yes, but Kelly's murder could have been accomplished by a right-handed man.

Assuming the common way of conducting the sex act was again by anal penetration, she could have been face down, and him on top behind her. Certainly her head was close to the side of the bed, and the bed against the partition.He would pull her head up by the hair and run the knife around her throat. Most of the blood spray would go into the mattress and against the partition.

Once again I agree with your assessment Jon

I envisaged her having been facing the partition wall or possibly holding the bed frame, with her killer behind her. She may have anticipated sex but instead he uses her facing the wall as the time to pull out his knife. He is right handed, holding his knife in his right hand and grabbing her head and/or hair with his left hand.

I also believe that at the moment he pulled her head back, she saw and felt the knife on her throat. He may have said something to her and she then cried out "murder!" in realisation that he was the Ripper. He then cuts her throat and pushes her head down into the mattress to stop her from calling out again and to suffocate her as she bled out through the mattress. Once she was dead and her blood pressure had stopped, he then turned her over and placed her on her back to begin mutilating her.

I have always believed that the witnesses who heard the cry of "murder" did indeed hear her just a second or two before her throat was cut. I believe that the time this occurred is her correct time of death.


RD

[Michael W Richards]

It's possible yes, but Kelly's murder could have been accomplished by a right-handed man.

Assuming the common way of conducting the sex act was again by anal penetration, she could have been face down, and him on top behind her. Certainly her head was close to the side of the bed, and the bed against the partition.He would pull her head up by the hair and run the knife around her throat. Most of the blood spray would go into the mattress and against the partition.

Actually Jon I prefer to use the physical evidence on this matter. "The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner. "

Obviously to have her head be in the top right hand part of the bed, she would either have to be lying diagonally across the bed, her feet at the bottom left of the bed....or, and much more logically, she was on her right side, facing the partition wall. The walls arterial spray marking validates the second of those 2 options. When her throat was cut, she was facing that wall. She is also oriented to that right side, which strongly insinuates her company at the time was expected to slide in behind her, spoon style. Whether she, or he, contemplated anal or any kind of sex isnt demonstrated by any of the evidence, but sure, go ahead and imagine anyway. But then again, there is no other record of her entertaining any other man in that room other than Joe before Blotchy. If this is some brand new policy for her that began on that night...to bring strangers to her room for money, then Blotchy is the only one on record. That would be bad luck huh? Just decided to start doing business in your own room and the first client kills you? I doubt that was what we see here though. She sang for over an hour when they arrived. Hardly Street Walker 101 behaviour.

Your counter above seems to have forgotten the spray on the wall, indicating her neck faced that wall when cut. Hence, on her right side, and therefore, there is no right hand access.

Im also curious about this point....people who imagine this was Jack the Ripper acting as a client, then why is he so pissed off at Mary? those facial slashes and cuts, they seem like anger actions. Even Kate, who is the second most butchered woman in the series, has facial cuts but they didnt even sever her nose, and the chevrons were likely cut intentionally. But with Mary, just flailing at her with the knife, the hollowing her out.

Annies eviscerations seem controlled and objective driven, so....did he take Mary completely apart just so he could access her heart? Lots of extra work there.

[c.d.]

Im also curious about this point....people who imagine this was Jack the Ripper acting as a client, then why is he so pissed off at Mary? those facial slashes and cuts, they seem like anger actions.

I don't think it is possible to determine if they were anger actions or not. And even if they indicate anger it might have simply been directed at all women and not Mary in particular.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Im also curious about this point....people who imagine this was Jack the Ripper acting as a client, then why is he so pissed off at Mary? those facial slashes and cuts, they seem like anger actions.

I don't think it is possible to determine if they were anger actions or not. And even if they indicate anger it might have simply been directed at all women and not Mary in particular.

c.d.

Would you characterize cuts the same as slashes? I wouldnt. Do we see defensive wounds on any other Canonical? It is possible to differentiate between what was required to make semi precise cuts in near darkness with the ever present danger of discovery and slashes while the victim fought back. The forehead "flaps" that covered her eyes were not precisely cut, they were the result of slashing. The physician used the word "slashes" to describe some wounds.

"Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste."

"I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."

Those were from Phillips at the Chapman Inquest. Tell me cd,...were Marys injuries made so he could access and take her heart...."The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body?" Were the cuts made on Mary that seem to defy explanation for that reason? Did he partially denude both thighs to get her heart? Slash her face to get it? Did he have to empty Mary to get what he wanted? Did he put her uterus and boob under her head so he could more easily get at her heart? And on that note, how is it that he now isnt interested in taking a uterus? He did that 2 times before.

Mary had many, many injuries that on the surface do not denote any anatomical knowledge or skill with a knife......Phillips on CHapmans killer....."The manner in which they had been done indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge." Does Marys killer demonstrate that ability, or has he just lost that ability somehow? Has he enough uteri for his collection? Or is he Dr Frankenstein, building a new woman by stealing 1 part at a time?

[Wickerman]

Actually Jon I prefer to use the physical evidence on this matter. "The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner. "

Obviously to have her head be in the top right hand part of the bed, she would either have to be lying diagonally across the bed, her feet at the bottom left of the bed...

Yes, I view her in a position something like this.

When her throat was cut, she was facing that wall...

In truth, no.
All the main arteries are on the side of the neck, not the front. So, the side of her head was facing the partition, and if she faced the pillow then it was the left carotid artery that was adjacent to the wall.
The factual account you quoted works for me, what doesn't work is Dr Phillips's interpretation. He is 'assuming' she was on her back when murdered, which is why he mentions the right carotid artery. This is the only reason for him to mention it.
However, there is no factual evidence to suggest she was on her back when murdered, this is 'his' assumption, and most theorists follow along with that, instead of thinking it through for themselves.

...Whether she, or he, contemplated anal or any kind of sex isnt demonstrated by any of the evidence, but sure, go ahead and imagine anyway...

It's hardly stretching the imagination, given the circumstances.

...But then again, there is no other record of her entertaining any other man in that room other than Joe before Blotchy...

Well, if there was - we wouldn't have the mystery that we do.
There were serious objections at the time to Blotchy having been the killer, as there are today.

..If this is some brand new policy for her that began on that night...to bring strangers to her room for money, then Blotchy is the only one on record..

If you had read all the statements by Barnett, you would be aware that Mary had already resumed to turning to prostitution before he left her.

Im also curious about this point....people who imagine this was Jack the Ripper acting as a client, then why is he so pissed off at Mary? those facial slashes and cuts, they seem like anger actions. Even Kate, who is the second most butchered woman in the series, has facial cuts but they didnt even sever her nose, and the chevrons were likely cut intentionally. But with Mary, just flailing at her with the knife, the hollowing her out.

Annies eviscerations seem controlled and objective driven, so....did he take Mary completely apart just so he could access her heart? Lots of extra work there.

Even in modern crimes, the police never know the reasons until they catch the killer.....

[c.d.]

were Marys injuries made so he could access and take her heart.

Not really sure what you are asking here. Your post was long. Could you simply your question?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

were Marys injuries made so he could access and take her heart.

Not really sure what you are asking here. Your post was long. Could you simply your question?

c.d.

Thats actually an interesting question, it is something I posted on many years ago.

Those who may be familiar with barbequing ribs will know what I mean when I talk about the meat that we see between the ribs.
That meat on the rack of ribs in the animal (lamb, pork or beef), is what the medical profession call "intercostals" in the human thorax.

Let me just remind everyone of Dr Bond's description concerning Kelly's intercostals.

"The intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings."

The space between the ribs with respect to the 4th, 5th & 6th rib is directly over the heart. The fact the killer felt it necessary to remove the flesh (intercostals) between those specific ribs strongly suggests he needed to see inside the chest at the location of the heart. These incisions must have been necessary in his mind for him to see what he was doing as he removed the heart, from under the thorax.

Therefore, the answer to that specific question by Michael must be "yes"

[c.d.]

I was unclear just what the question entailed. I thought maybe he meant if the object was to take the heart why cut the face or leg.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

I was unclear just what the question entailed. I thought maybe he meant if the object was to take the heart why cut the face or leg.

c.d.

The question was certainly too general by being vague, but I saw one specific mutilation that was likely applicable. As for the others, like you point out above. I'm not clear what was meant.