The Night She Died

[richardnunweek]

Hi Chava,
I have always had the opinion that the blanket was placed in that area by Mary, as you you rightly said 'It would only have been put there if it was not wanted'
Precisely..like having no need for it until the next night.
And please can someone give a reason why the crocodile, alias the bolster should have been slung over the table?
My answer... Mary put it there.
Reason. It had been used as a draught excluder at the base of her door, as it was not used as a head rest.
It had been placed there when Mjk ventured out around 8am on the morning of the 9th, some 45 minutes before she encountered her killer.
We are all conjuring up all these night scenerios, ie..
She was killed by a very patient 'Astracan'
She was disturbed by a intruder.
Could he have been Hutchinson?
Mrs Prater proberly made up her evidence.
The killer made a fire to obtain light.
The killer rolled back the bedroll [with one hand]
That bolster is a gigantic lump of flesh.
The white object around the blanket although shaped like one, is not a stocking[ left leg].
And theres more...
Why cant we simply suggest [ like myself[ that medical reports were no more then educated guesswork based on reports of a possible cry heard.
Why can we not believe Praters inquest report of 'Awaken from a nightmare', especially as that observation is backed up by a report some three years after.?
Summming up.
Why can we not say, Mary Jane, alias Ginger, alias Black Mary, alias, Mary Jane McCarthy, alias Mary Jane Lawrence, alias Mary Kelly, alias Marie, Jeanette, alias Mary Jane Davies, was actually killed around 9am by the last person seen with her, ie, One middle aged Market porter?.
Then everything falls into place.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Chava,
I have always had the opinion that the blanket was placed in that area by Mary, as you you rightly said 'It would only have been put there if it was not wanted'
Precisely..like having no need for it until the next night.
And please can someone give a reason why the crocodile, alias the bolster should have been slung over the table?
My answer... Mary put it there.
Reason. It had been used as a draught excluder at the base of her door, as it was not used as a head rest.
It had been placed there when Mjk ventured out around 8am on the morning of the 9th, some 45 minutes before she encountered her killer.
We are all conjuring up all these night scenerios, ie..
She was killed by a very patient 'Astracan'
She was disturbed by a intruder.
Could he have been Hutchinson?
Mrs Prater proberly made up her evidence.
The killer made a fire to obtain light.
The killer rolled back the bedroll [with one hand]
That bolster is a gigantic lump of flesh.
The white object around the blanket although shaped like one, is not a stocking[ left leg].
And theres more...
Why cant we simply suggest [ like myself[ that medical reports were no more then educated guesswork based on reports of a possible cry heard.
Why can we not believe Praters inquest report of 'Awaken from a nightmare', especially as that observation is backed up by a report some three years after.?
Summming up.
Why can we not say, Mary Jane, alias Ginger, alias Black Mary, alias, Mary Jane McCarthy, alias Mary Jane Lawrence, alias Mary Kelly, alias Marie, Jeanette, alias Mary Jane Davies, was actually killed around 9am by the last person seen with her, ie, One middle aged Market porter?.
Then everything falls into place.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Chava,
I have always had the opinion that the blanket was placed in that area by Mary, as you you rightly said 'It would only have been put there if it was not wanted'
Precisely..like having no need for it until the next night.
And please can someone give a reason why the crocodile, alias the bolster should have been slung over the table?
My answer... Mary put it there.
Reason. It had been used as a draught excluder at the base of her door, as it was not used as a head rest.
It had been placed there when Mjk ventured out around 8am on the morning of the 9th, some 45 minutes before she encountered her killer.
We are all conjuring up all these night scenerios, ie..
She was killed by a very patient 'Astracan'
She was disturbed by a intruder.
Could he have been Hutchinson?
Mrs Prater proberly made up her evidence.
The killer made a fire to obtain light.
The killer rolled back the bedroll [with one hand]
That bolster is a gigantic lump of flesh.
The white object around the blanket although shaped like one, is not a stocking[ left leg].
And theres more...
Why cant we simply suggest [ like myself[ that medical reports were no more then educated guesswork based on reports of a possible cry heard.
Why can we not believe Praters inquest report of 'Awaken from a nightmare', especially as that observation is backed up by a report some three years after.?
Summming up.
Why can we not say, Mary Jane, alias Ginger, alias Black Mary, alias, Mary Jane McCarthy, alias Mary Jane Lawrence, alias Mary Kelly, alias Marie, Jeanette, alias Mary Jane Davies, was actually killed around 9am by the last person seen with her, ie, One middle aged Market porter?.
Then everything falls into place.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Chava,
I have always had the opinion that the blanket was placed in that area by Mary, as you you rightly said 'It would only have been put there if it was not wanted'
Precisely..like having no need for it until the next night.
And please can someone give a reason why the crocodile, alias the bolster should have been slung over the table?
My answer... Mary put it there.
Reason. It had been used as a draught excluder at the base of her door, as it was not used as a head rest.
It had been placed there when Mjk ventured out around 8am on the morning of the 9th, some 45 minutes before she encountered her killer.
We are all conjuring up all these night scenerios, ie..
She was killed by a very patient 'Astracan'
She was disturbed by a intruder.
Could he have been Hutchinson?
Mrs Prater proberly made up her evidence.
The killer made a fire to obtain light.
The killer rolled back the bedroll [with one hand]
That bolster is a gigantic lump of flesh.
The white object around the blanket although shaped like one, is not a stocking[ left leg].
And theres more...
Why cant we simply suggest [ like myself[ that medical reports were no more then educated guesswork based on reports of a possible cry heard.
Why can we not believe Praters inquest report of 'Awaken from a nightmare', especially as that observation is backed up by a report some three years after.?
Summming up.
Why can we not say, Mary Jane, alias Ginger, alias Black Mary, alias, Mary Jane McCarthy, alias Mary Jane Lawrence, alias Mary Kelly, alias Marie, Jeanette, alias Mary Jane Davies, was actually killed around 9am by the last person seen with her, ie, One middle aged Market porter?.
Then everything falls into place.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Chava,
I have always had the opinion that the blanket was placed in that area by Mary, as you you rightly said 'It would only have been put there if it was not wanted'
Precisely..like having no need for it until the next night.
And please can someone give a reason why the crocodile, alias the bolster should have been slung over the table?
My answer... Mary put it there.
Reason. It had been used as a draught excluder at the base of her door, as it was not used as a head rest.
It had been placed there when Mjk ventured out around 8am on the morning of the 9th, some 45 minutes before she encountered her killer.
We are all conjuring up all these night scenerios, ie..
She was killed by a very patient 'Astracan'
She was disturbed by a intruder.
Could he have been Hutchinson?
Mrs Prater proberly made up her evidence.
The killer made a fire to obtain light.
The killer rolled back the bedroll [with one hand]
That bolster is a gigantic lump of flesh.
The white object around the blanket although shaped like one, is not a stocking[ left leg].
And theres more...
Why cant we simply suggest [ like myself[ that medical reports were no more then educated guesswork based on reports of a possible cry heard.
Why can we not believe Praters inquest report of 'Awaken from a nightmare', especially as that observation is backed up by a report some three years after.?
Summing up.
Why can we not say, Mary Jane, alias Ginger, alias Black Mary, alias, Mary Jane McCarthy, alias Mary Jane Lawrence, alias Mary Kelly, alias Marie, Jeanette, alias Mary Jane Davies, was actually killed around 9am by the last person seen with her, ie, One middle aged Market porter?.
Then everything falls into place.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
What the Hell happened there , now that is a multiple post if ever I saw one, my PC must have been poccessed.
Sorry one again.
Richard.

[Robert]

Richard, you believe in driving home your point.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Robert,
Its a case of having too, at least it didnt duplicate thirty nine times...
Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

And please can someone give a reason why the crocodile, alias the bolster should have been slung over the table?
My answer... Mary put it there.

Possibly - can't see why the killer would have wanted to move it, still less place it neatly on the table.

Reason....

... the bolster was not on the bed that night, indicating that Mary was not sleeping, nor intending to sleep, at the point she died?

It had been used as a draught excluder at the base of her door, as it was not used as a head rest. It had been placed there when Mjk ventured out...

Ah - can't quite see that, Rich. Why would you put a bolster-cum-draught excluder on the bedside table? More to the point, why not just leave it by the door - kicking it aside perhaps - or simply put it back on the bed?

[Robert]

Hi Chava

If you believe that the murder was sexual, but that Jack was not a client who had been taken home, could you give a scenario, e.g. Jack stalks Kelly and waits till she's alone, or he comes along in the middle of the night and peers through the window..........

[Chava]

Hi Robert,

I don't necessarily believe that the murder of Mary Jane Kelly was sexual as I'm not completely convinced she was a victim of the Ripper. However I do believe that the other canonicals were sexual murders. One of the reasons why I'm not sure about Kelly is the general pattern of wounding rather than the concentration on the generative organs we see in the others. It's difficult, because you could argue that the wounds inflicted on the face in the Eddowes murder were transitional, and we see him move to a more general pattern in Kelly. I waver back and forward on this one. But one of my main reasons for thinking that Kelly may not have been a Ripper victim is that I believe she was either surprised in her sleep by someone breaking in--which could argue a stalker, and we don't know for sure, but it doesn't look like the others were stalked--or she was woken up by someone she knew knocking on the door and let him in. Because she was certainly found dressed for bed, and I don't see the Ripper allowing his victims that much time before he kills them. I think if it was a Ripper murder and she'd brought in the worst trick, he would have killed her as soon as he walked in the door.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

I believe its accurate to state that the only Canonical victim that has strong suggestions of "intimacy" between the killer and the victim, is the murder in Millers Court.

Its a tiny intimate room, 2 chairs 2 small tables...Mary is in a state of undress, on her bed...its later than one might expect to receive strangers at the door. By the surroundings and her manner of dress, its also the only murder that has overt sexual tones...late at night, Marys undressed and in bed...she is found posed almost "provocatively" in a reclining "come hither" pose....some feel this is accidental, I dont myself. Look at sketches of models from the period by famous artists....the pose is similar to those.

What if any indications are there that the killer of the 4 Canonicals prior craved or wanted greater levels of intimacy between he and his victims?

It seems to me that after charming them to someplace dark, he treated them without any regard for their humanity, or femininity..almost as a butcher would treat a piece of meat. The only real sexual overtones in those murders would be the site of the mutilations, and the position of the womens legs. And both those issues are resolved when you consider that he apparently wanted to cut them in the abdomens. Their demeanor and pose is therefore logical,.. so he could accomplish his goals.

Propping Marys head up with a breast is not in that logical realm.

On that item.....if a bolster is a rectangular pillow, stuffed with feathers, used at the head of the bed to prop oneself up to read, or to talk with someone in the room, or knit...whatever, then where it is placed makes sense...if the person in the bed wished to lie flatter when sleeping. They could then just place it on the table beside them. Who knows how often Mary cleaned the floors...she may have put it there to keep it off dirty flooring.

Brings up a point....if Marys head is propped up by a breast....then its most likely the bolster wasn't under her at that time,...which would reasonably suggest that she had placed it there herself earlier....before getting ready to sleep lying flat. Why would the killer have moved it if he wanted her head propped up anyway...as he evidently did.

Best regards all.

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

I believe she was either surprised in her sleep by someone breaking in--which could argue a stalker, and we don't know for sure, but it doesn't look like the others were stalked

No particular reason to think they weren't either, though, Chava. Different crime venues will naturally call for different approaches. Robert Napper may have encountered Rachel Nickell by chance on Wimbledon Common, but when it came to the indoor location of the Samatha Bissett murder, he stalked her and killed her only after a period of prior surveillance outside her home. Bundy resorted to a similar tactic prior to committing the indoor Tallahasee murders, which deviated from his usual approach to victims outdoors.

Regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

...she may have put it there to keep it off dirty flooring.

Why not simply put it on the bed, therefore, Mike?

if Marys head is propped up by a breast....then its most likely the bolster wasn't under her at that time,...which would reasonably suggest that she had placed it there herself earlier....

Indeed - I presume you mean she herself had placed the bolster there earlier, not the breast

before getting ready to sleep lying flat.

Or not sleeping at all, which is arguably more probable, as people tend not to sleep lying flat, in the main.

Why would the killer have moved it if he wanted her head propped up anyway...

A very good point.

[Fisherman]

Chava writes:

"I don't necessarily believe that the murder of Mary Jane Kelly was sexual as I'm not completely convinced she was a victim of the Ripper. However I do believe that the other canonicals were sexual murders. One of the reasons why I'm not sure about Kelly is the general pattern of wounding rather than the concentration on the generative organs we see in the others. "

I´m with you on most points here, Chava; the murders leading up to the Kelly deed seem to be of more exclusively led on by some sexually connected urge, whereas that is somewhat diluted by the mass-distirbution of wounds in the Kelly case. The one thing where we differ is tat I think they are all Ripper deeds just the same. My suggestion is that Fleming killed Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes for some sort of sexually connected gratification, but that he killed Kelly for another motive altogether - I suggest that he did it because he thought that he was about to be exposed as the Ripper and wanted to save Kelly the shame, or, as an alternative, that his being convinced that he would be exposed led him to tell Kelly who he was, only to get the wrong reaction from her; one of horrification.

I think that the chance that two killers were on the prowl in that district, able to commit those kinds of deeds, and also making the very same moves to a significant extent (as evinced by a comparison Kelly/Chapman), is very, very slim. I also think that there are a number of factors that speak for the Kelly deed having been perpeetrated by somebody who was well-known to her.
If I am right, we can actually narrow down the possible Rippers to the amount of men that would have access to an undressed Kelly within her own quarters in the middle of the night, and they would not have been very many. And since Fleming moved to the heart of the district in august 1888, and was incarcerated, diagnozed with mania and delusions of persecution later on, I think he is as good a bid as we are ever going to find. Add to this that we have a Joseph Fleming, burglar at the age of fourteen back in 1872, and an assertion from his mother that lunacy ran in the family since way back, and I really don´t see how Fleming could NOT be our number one suspect.
Others can, though...!

The best, Chava!
Fisherman