MJK Murder Oddities

[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'.

[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

[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.

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]

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.

[Wickerman]

.....any more than we can assume that he had undressed or that sex, consenting or otherwise, had taken place. There's no reason to suppose that the killer needed the ruse of sex to make his first attack, or that he would allow MJK the luxury of calling out before he did so.

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...

.....
Further, I am not convinced that the previous killings, assuming we're prepared to specify a canon, follow a distinct pattern and that this, "therefore", is an anomaly. We're talking three, four, possibly five previous killings--even a qualitative analysis doesn't reliably demonstrate a clear pattern...

For a good quantitive analysis you do need more than three or four examples, generally speaking. This though is speaking from the point of view of the luxury of an 'after-the-fact' investigation.
If these crimes were current the authorities would be attempting to classify them ASAP, they could hardly tell the press "we have to wait for 10-12 more killings to do an analysis". So there is nothing wrong with getting on board ASAP, we are in effect putting ourselves in the mind-set of the contemporary police. And, in consequence, we are bound to jump to some wrong conclusions, just as they did.

.....
As a sort of aside, too, I've noticed this 'oh murder' reference creeping in again with regards to an assault. As discussed elsewhere somewhere here, it's worth remembering that 'oh murder' was, too, just a contemporary version of, 'oh sod it,' or, 'oh, for %$^&'s sake.'

Absolutely, I think we are all aware of this.
It may have been someone hoping to go out on the tiles again, but on opening the door and seeing the rain, they exclaim, "oh...muddur!!".

.....
I have nothing to offer with regards to the discussion of positioning (apart from saying that sex wasn't necessary to kill MJK in any position)

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

[claire]

And what concerns me about all this, is very simple: if he worked out this way to do a basically perfect murder without leaving any obvious trace on his person, why didn't he do this from the outset? And why didn't he do it again? His MO in the other murders is extremely similar. But they follow a distinct pattern, and this is another very distinct way of killing.

I don't think we can assume that there were no traces on his person, any more than we can assume that he had undressed or that sex, consenting or otherwise, had taken place. There's no reason to suppose that the killer needed the ruse of sex to make his first attack, or that he would allow MJK the luxury of calling out before he did so.

Further, I am not convinced that the previous killings, assuming we're prepared to specify a canon, follow a distinct pattern and that this, "therefore", is an anomaly. We're talking three, four, possibly five previous killings--even a qualitative analysis doesn't reliably demonstrate a clear pattern (although cut throats were sufficiently rare to make a case for including all instances as a group). Indeed, if we argue that Liz Stride is part of the canon, that in itself is a bloody good reason for his decision to go indoors if possible.

As a sort of aside, too, I've noticed this 'oh murder' reference creeping in again with regards to an assault. As discussed elsewhere somewhere here, it's worth remembering that 'oh murder' was, too, just a contemporary version of, 'oh sod it,' or, 'oh, for %$^&'s sake.' I don't think it's worth relying on it as evidence in the timing of events (apart from the possibility that MJK said it when someone knocked on her door for a bit of business way too late that night [or that Mr McC or one of his oppos brought some business round for her]).

I have nothing to offer with regards to the discussion of positioning (apart from saying that sex wasn't necessary to kill MJK in any position)--I'm sickly enjoying Gareth's references to floppy ooze, though (that came out wrong, didn't it).

[Wickerman]

I've been thinking about this stuff for ages. The conclusion I came to was that
- Kelly was lifted in the air probably by the hair, and then her throat was cut.

- The killer was almost certainly kneeling behind her when he did this.

I just can't imagine how this was achieved.
Don't the apparent defensive wounds to the forearms suggest he attacked her from the front?, or would you suggest they are not defensive wounds?

It would have been impossible to kill her if he was lying beside her.

No, not at all.
I would picture them both in bed, perhaps they argue, he raises himself up over her, he threatens her, produces a knife to her throat, she moans "oh, murder" as she struggles & receives cuts to her arms, he slices her throat. He may have even punched her out then slit her throat. All the while she is on her side of the bed.

......and asking for anal sex. Which will allow both punter and prostitute to undress completely, and puts the punter into the right position to kill the prostitute. He kneels behind her on the bed, she is face-down, he grabs her hair and pulls her up quickly and then kills her

But then those wounds to her arms need explanation..

[Dan Norder]

Hey 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 only way being behind her when th throat was cut even would work, based upon the location of the wound and where the blood ended up, would have been if the killer was off the bed between it and the wall -- and our understanding of how the room was laid out doesn't suggest that there was sufficient space to do that. There's been an alternate theory that the head of the bed didn't touch the wall, which maybe could make the killer be able to be back there, but the headboard is so high that Kelly would have had to have been in a truly awkward position for a clean throat cut from behind in that scenario.

Maybe a drawing or diagram of what you are thinking happened would help.

Edited to add: If the scenario is anal sex with Mary's head face down and toward the headboard, the blood spatters ended up on the opposite side of her body as where the throat was cut (would have ended up on the table instead of the wall). If it's anal sex with her head to the foot of the bed, the blood spatter should be down more where her knee is in the photo, or else they were over the headboard somehow.

[Chava]

I've been thinking about this stuff for ages. The conclusion I came to was that
- Kelly was lifted in the air probably by the hair, and then her throat was cut.

- The killer was almost certainly kneeling behind her when he did this. It would have been impossible to kill her if he was lying beside her. Her shoulders and arms protect her neck, and the killer doesn't have enough ability to move his own hands and arms sufficiently quickly to kill her without a struggle. He doesn't have the leverage in that position to lift her high enough to get at her neck.

- The killer directed her down towards the mattress which absorbs any arterial spray and any further blood loss.

- The killer was probably naked when he did this. His clothes somewhere on the other side of the room, maybe on top of Kelly's. That way he avoids getting blood on him.

And what concerns me about all this, is very simple: if he worked out this way to do a basically perfect murder without leaving any obvious trace on his person, why didn't he do this from the outset? And why didn't he do it again? His MO in the other murders is extremely similar. But they follow a distinct pattern, and this is another very distinct way of killing.

I'm not using this argument to say the Ripper didn't kill Kelly. For a long time I thought he did. Then I thought he didn't. Now I am really not sure at all one way or the other. But I can't believe a serial killer like the Ripper would just stop after this kill. So I'm hoping Chris Scott and the other archivists can come up with decent candidates who died not long after this. Because I cannot otherwise understand why the murders stopped.

By the way, much as I hate to admit it, I can see a punter like Mr Astrakhan from Hutchinson's statement picking up Kelly, suggesting he might stay the night, and asking for anal sex. Which will allow both punter and prostitute to undress completely, and puts the punter into the right position to kill the prostitute. He kneels behind her on the bed, she is face-down, he grabs her hair and pulls her up quickly and then kills her

[Dan Norder]

If Kelly was attacked with her back to the killer, as it appears was his slitting position

I can't recall anyone having ever argued that that was the case. Just based upon the wounds and the position of the bed that's about the most unlikely scenario that could be thought up, other than something patently absurd like that she was hanging from a trapeze from the ceiling.

Hi all,

If Kelly was attacked with her back to the killer, as it appears was his slitting position, and to account for the spray, she could have been on her right side, at the right side of the bed. That scenario would lead us to a left handed killer most likely. If her knees were drawn up, as many people do when in a semi fetal side sleeping position, then rolling her over on to her back would account for the change in her location...right side of the bed to middle....and could account for the left knee being splayed, as a result of the momentum caused by the flipping her onto her back.

Why she would be in bed with her back turned though, while someone else is in the room, is a loaded question.

The fact that this was indoors is not addressed by saying "well, this victim had her own room". Or by, "he was looking to move indoors for more cutting activity and his own safety."

It means that he killed a woman that had her own room in her own name.....a fact different from all the other alledged Ripper victims, that he may not have met her while soliciting outdoors, as she did not need doss money that night and we have no credible account of her going back out after 11:45am anyway...another deviation,... that he may have gone directly to a pre-determined location for his victim....something unproven with any others... so far, that he may have been left handed....another deviation, that he may have attacked while the victim was conscious, something that all other JtR victims were probably not due to the lack of struggle that was evident,...that he may have broken and entered to get at his victim, another action previously unseen by this killer,...and it means that Mary Kelly is the only alledged victim of his that required him to work with his back to the only exit....the door or the windows. In Bucks Row he has an open ended street, in the back of Hanbury he has fences and yards all around him, and he may have worked facing the hallway that offered access to the yard, in Berner St he would been able to see both the gate entrance and the yard entrance to the club, in Mitre Square there were 3 avenues of access,...but in Millers Court, he is literally cornered with his back turned.

Just some observations.

Cheers all.

[Wickerman]

......Why should we believe that the killer was "laying out" the body according to a "preference", rather than just moving parts of it in an ad hoc manner to allow the mutilations to take place?

The suggestion that Jack strangled his victims first is, I think, a reasonable conclusion (bruises & scratches around the neck, black blood in the heart and brain, etc. evident in some cases).
That he must have done this from behind is still debatable, but more likely than from the front.
What is very noticable in previous cases is that there has never been any noise or evidence of a struggle.
None of this is applicable to the Kelly murder.

It would have been very difficult to strangle Kelly from behind, the supposed defensive wounds (cuts?) on her arms and hand(s) strongly suggest she was not strangled, at least not successfully, and the scream of "Oh, Murder" is consistent with her struggling against her killer.
The complete destruction of her face, and of her genital area, and removal of her heart all would be consistent with her killer taking a very personal revenge on this victim. The fact the killer lingered in her room for what must have been over an hour also suggests that if anyone came knocking, knowing she was home, his voice would not raise any concern. It would have been hard to stay quiet in a room with a blazing fire - people on the brink of being destitute would not waste a good fire by going out in the rain. This killer knew the neighbors would expect Kelly to be home.
Some of the details of this crime are what we might expect if the killer, knew her, had been wronged by her, and that he had been in a intimate relationship with her. And that his presence at night would not cause alarm.
The fact that apparently no-one did come knocking, or peek through the broken window (unless this be the real source of the 'oh, murder' scream?), or shout for Mary while the fire was blazing, is one of those rare instances of good fortune for the killer.

I think the murder of Mary Kelly should be set apart from the rest of the Whitchapel murders, there's too many differences. It's almost as if someone killed her in a rage of passion, then tried to make it look like another Jack the Ripper killing, but as might be expected he went into overkill!

[Ben]

I accept your point about the ensuing ooze, Gareth, but if, for the sake of argument, we assume that her head was relatively central to the bed, wouldn't the "initial arterial jets" have been more than sufficient to saturate the corner and pool on the floor underneath? I'd be very surprised if not. The evident bloodstaining on the pillow behind Kelly's neck would seem consistent with the sort of post-jet ooze you're talking about.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I think he was talking about the largest concentration, Gareth.

Indeed, Ben - however the largest concentration isn't just composed of the initial arterial jets, it's the ooze afterwards too. There seems to have been enough blood shed to have saturated the mattress at the top right corner, and to pool on the floor directly beneath it. This suggests strongly that the body was closer to the right hand side of the bed as the blood drained from the neck. If the body had been centrally placed on the bed, then there's little chance that the floor beneath the right-hand side of the bed would have seen much in the way of "pooling", unless there'd been a whopping great hole in the mattress.