MJK Murder Oddities

[Sam Flynn]

Hi WM,

Sex was the entire premise for all the Whitechapel Murders, why do you think the killer(s) approached prostitutes?

Because they were easy targets, a fact which many other serial killers since, and possibly before, have exploited. In addition, sex might not have been the "entire premise" at all, when we realise that it's possible that all the victims weren't actively prostituting themselves before they died. We know that at least three of the victims were penniless and had no bed for the night, hence they might simply have been begging for money or shelter. This, in itself, would have put them in grave danger of being exploited by an ill-disposed individual, by the simple expedient of his putting on a charitable face.

[perrymason]

Hi Dan, Chava,

I don't understand why you don't think a side attack would work, or why Kelly couldn't have been backed into the corner trying to escape during the brief struggle with the killer on top of her. Either one would seem more practical and more similar to what killers actually do. Lifting her into the air by her hair just doesn't even sound feasible, especially if she were free to struggle at the time.

The side attack would work based on the existing evidence, him on top of her or to the right side of her, or above the headboard, doesnt....as your next section illustrated. But why not discuss what does in fact make sense instead of listing all the reasons why conventional approaches based on his priors fail miserably.

The only time the bed may have been altered to allow for someone between it and the wall is for shooting MJK3. No-one including Prater heard furniture move about....something she assured the Inquest she would have heard, as she had before.

The struggle seems to have occurred while Mary had a sheet covering part of her face, and resulted in left hand defensive wounds. Kelly struggling a lot, or while backing away means her mouth was free and she could yell for help.....something that would only sound "faintish" if the call was not loud, or was muffled. Kelly may have had a sheet over her face. The splatter and all the physical evidence support a on-her-right-side position when first attacked, and that she was simply flipped over onto her back for the mutilations.

When you made another of your fools parallels you neglected to note that slitting while kneeling or crouched by her head when she is on her back is still cutting from behind the body. From there he can tilt the head away, to either sides, to avoid the spray. The main point however was that the other 4 women were likely not conscious when this occurred, it would seem in Marys case that she had her throat cut while conscious....at least it is assured he was using his knife before she was fully incapacitated, ....another anomaly. There is no evidence that any woman recieved cuts before the throat cut, and while conscious....other than in Marys case. Which translates to his not even having the knife out while initially subduing them. With Mary it would seem he has the knife out at the very start of the attack.

As to the killers clothing and extremities in Millers Court....I feel they would have been covered in blood, when with the prior 4 attributed victims, if the killer wore gloves for example, he could remain relatively unscathed blood-wise.

-She is awake.....change in victim demeanor when first cut
-She is in her own home....no other victim even had one
-She was cut on the beds right side, likely on her right side....allowing for a left handed killer, and a throat cut before she is lying on her back.
-She may not have left her room after 11:45pm....meaning the killer may have come for her specifically...unproven with any other C5, not even suggested by any circumstantial evidence, and conflicts with most randomly selected victim, Ripper scenarios.
-She fought with him while he had his knife out.....the only one that shows this in the physical evidence.

There is no getting away from the fact that the murder in Millers Court, if committed by the Ripper, was a change in Victim Profile,...indoors, 20 years younger and with a room she need not raise money for that night, Acquisition Style, a change from his location choices prior, a change in his method of subduing his victim, a change from when he has chosen to even use his knife....based on the consciousness of the victims, and a change in the time spent with a murdered corpse, and to what extent he has mutilated victims prior. Add to that a change in the focus shown towards abdominal organs....and a possible change in the hand that held the knife.

There are also many other disimilar characteristics, making the premise that this was an assured Ripper kill about as likely as him cutting her throat from between the wall and the head of the bed, from the right side of the bed between it and the wall, or while he was straddling her.

Once again Dan has ignored the logical answer, she was probably on her right side facing the wall, which allows for a left handed man this time, and she felt comfortable with the killer being behind her in the room while she lay on the bed facing away. Anal sex is I suppose a realistic notion, but since she was likely woken by the killers arrival, her slipping back into bed while allowing him the left side of it to join her, is too. And it doesnt require that we believe she invited a client to her room for paid sex...something that did not happen when she lived with Barnett likely, and something for which we have no reports, from her court friends, started happening after he then Maria moved out.

Now a woman having street or alley sex might feel comfortable turning their back to their clients, (at least until the Fall of 1888),...one scream could arose people, and they were in a position to fight or run if needed...but a woman undressed in her own room with her back turned implies some trust, and a lack of fear of the person behind her.

Stranger brought home for paid sex? Maybe we better find a credible witnessed trip out to meet one, a record of Blotchy leaving, evidence that she ever brought men to the room before, and a reason why she would let in a stranger after she had been asleep from perhaps 1:30am, the time her room is first dark and quiet,....a condition that does not change while witnesses are awake.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

No-one including Prater heard furniture move about....something she assured the Inquest she would have heard, as she had before.

Actually, Prater didn't say that she would have heard furniture being moved, nor that she'd heard it happen before, Mike. She responded to a question asking whether she'd heard a bed or table being moved, to which she answered, simply, "None whatever". She didn't elaborate further.

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

What's wrong with the killer approaching from the left - in a standing postion - and killing her with a knife attack to right-hand side of the neck? It seems perfectly logical, and would preclude the need for incorporating "Astrakhan man" into the equation, let alone having him strip off his finery and getting unnecessarily naked as part of an anal sex ruse!

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi WM,Because they were easy targets, a fact which many other serial killers since, and possibly before, have exploited.

Certainly they were, but so were old men, and what easier target than an old drunk staggering home after the pubs close? Or a nightwatchman alone in some warehouse, or a shiftworker wandering through the backstreets at 2am?

A female victim offers that 'sexual' edge. We are not to presume that intercourse was one of the objectives, a 'sex' angle can take many forms.

But regardless, I was referring to the official line (it was remiss of me not to point that out). I have never been sold on the old SSK theory, largely because I think we only see the same hand at work with Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, all the others, from Tabram through to Coles are only 'maybe's'.

[Sam Flynn]

Certainly they were, but so were old men, and what easier target than an old drunk staggering home after the pubs close?

It strikes me that old men might still put up a better fight than a frail, small-framed woman. Besides the salient point is that, simply because a particular sex is targeted, doesn't mean that the killer had a sexual intent, nor does it mean that all the victims were prostituting themselves when killed. They were frail and middle aged, out on the streets, desperate, vulnerable and alone.

[Wickerman]

It strikes me that old men might still put up a better fight than a frail, small-framed woman.

Well, if there was no visible signs of a struggle (Bonds report, excluding Kelly), and yet they were strangled (or otherwise subdued and laid out), then the initial attack could have been from behind, and most likely was - therefore, the killer had nothing to fear by way of resistance from man or woman, his approach circumvents that possibility.

[claire]

What I find more difficult to envisage is Mary undressing on a cold and wet November night just to pose on her bed while Jack stands in the shadows in his top hat and cape...


Sex was the entire premise for all the Whitechapel Murders, why do you think the killer(s) approached prostitutes?

Hi WM,

As to the first, I think it's pretty easy to envisage her undressing to go to sleep, and then being woken by one of Jack McC's punters that he'd sent down there since he knew he'd be needing some rent from Mary pdq.

Regarding the second, I agree with Gareth that this was a simple expediency. If sex was indeed the entire premise, then there isn't really a need to focus just on prostitutes (such as they even were prostitutes), other than expediency. A killer would know that, however undesirable he might look, he'd a fair chance of persuading one of these unfortunates into a relatively secluded place. And, as discussed on another thread, a sexual motive doesn't require conventional sexual contact...murder was the entire premise for the Whitechapel Murders: it may be a tautology, but there it is. And, to commit a murder, it's not necessary to wait on someone's being in the right position.

[Ben]

I think it's pretty easy to envisage her undressing to go to sleep, and then being woken

Indeed, Claire - very safe indeed.

The idea that Kelly was surprised by her killer as she slept is an incredibly reasonable one, and quite consistent with what we know of other serial killer behaviour.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

The idea that Kelly was surprised by her killer as she slept is an incredibly reasonable one, and quite consistent with what we know of other serial killer behaviour.

Unfortunately, Ben, it doesn't appear to be consistent with Jack's - or any other murderer of street-walkers that I can recall.

[Ben]

Unfortunately, Ben, it doesn't appear to be consistent with Jack's

Nor does killing indoors, Gareth, but if we're prepared to accept that he could change the type of venue, we ought to make the same sort of allowances for the manner in which he approached them. If not, I'm afraid you're giving "Kelly wasn't a ripper victim" theorists with a stick to beat you with.

or any other murderer of street-walkers that I can recall

If we have examples of serial killers entering homes and surprising their victims as they slept, the type of victim isn't of immediate relevance. They probably reasoned that a sleeping victim was easier to murder that an awake one, and that will hold true of prostitutes and non-prostitutes alike.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Nor does killing indoors, Gareth, but if we're prepared to accept that he could change the type of venue.

Jack had changed the type of venue several times already - an open street, a back yard, a secluded square. To him, and arguably his victims, these were little more than "places to work" - ditto Kelly's private room.

If not, I'm afraid you're giving "Kelly wasn't a ripper victim" theorists with a stick to beat you with.

Not if Kelly met him on the street, and took him somewhere else to do what ever business she had in mind - which seems "incredibly reasonable" to me, given Kelly's incontestable status as a prostitute.

If we have examples of serial killers entering homes and killing victims in their sleep, the type of victim isn't of immediate relevance.

I don't hold with the idea of a "serial killer" as a "species" in its own right - each killer is largely different from another, and each has his own quirks. Holding up Bundy, say, as an example of a killer who picked up women outdoors but who once attacked a bunch of preppy girls in their dorm might indeed reflect the type of victim he coveted, rather than something we might expect to find repeated in others who belong to the same coarse-grained descriptive category.

[Ben]

Jack had changed the type of venue several times already - an open street, a back yard, a secluded square. To him, and arguably his victims, these were little more than "places to work" - ditto Kelly's private room

Yes, but not to the comparatively radical extent that he decided for forgo outdoor kills altogether in favour of killing the victim in her home. I'm not, for a moment, suggesting that this points to an assailant other than JTR, but a fairly drastic change in venue can quite plausibly call for a difference in approach as it does with other serialists. Even if the venue changes weren't in place, we know that serial killer aren't exactly robotic in the manner in which they approach their target - far from it.

Not if Kelly met him on the street, and took him somewhere else to do what ever business she had in mind - which seems "incredibly reasonable" to me

Indeed, but no more so than the alternative I suggested.

Holding up Bundy, say, as an example of a killer who picked up women outdoors but who once attacked a bunch of preppy girls in their dorm might indeed reflect the type of victim he coveted

Yes, but alternatively, it could have been his preferred approach to indoor targets as it afforded him a greater chance of evading capture. When it came to outdoor attacks, Bundy inveigled his victims using false guises, but when it came to indoor attacks, it was boring old breaking and entering.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Not if Kelly met him on the street, and took him somewhere else to do what ever business she had in mind - which seems "incredibly reasonable" to me

Indeed, but no more so than the alternative I suggested.

The idea that Kelly went meekly to bed at 1AM when other streetwalkers in Miller's Court and elsewhere were known to be up and about for some time afterwards, whilst possible, seems less reasonable on balance than the usual view. That is, that a known street-walker, in desperate rent arrears, seen taking a man back to her room that very night, did the very same a little later - thus meeting a killer who had shown previous "form" in picking up his victims in the street.

[Ben]

The idea that Kelly went meekly to bed at 1AM when other streetwalkers in Miller's Court and elsewhere were known to be up and about for some time afterwards

Except we know that at least one Miller's Court prostitute was venturing out into the small hours and wasn't bringing clients home. I'm not sure where "meekly" comes from, but according to Mrs. Cox, Kelly was heavily intoxicated and potentially in no good condition to a) care a great deal about her rent arrears (which McCarthy allowed to climb to the lofty figure it did), or b) venture out again on a miserable night when the pickings were slim. As I've said before - and without wishing to engage in an interminable debate along those lines again - I'd also expect at least some indications of a client in the room with Kelly after 1.00am as there was with the Blotchy man, but there wasn't.

Regards,
Ben