Open or Closed-Probabilities

With the greatest of respect, Mike, I hardly think it subjective to propose that Mary Jane sustained defence wounds when those very injuries are clearly visible in the crime scene photographs and were described in some detail by Dr Bond. They may not fall neatly into a preconceived notion of the Ripper and his motivations, but they exist and must therefore be explained.

Likewise, the differences that you discern between the Kelly murder and the deaths of the previous victims are easily rationalized when one considers the reality that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were each killed outdoors at locations which provided limited scope for the killer to give full vent to his more sadistic urges. Kelly, on the other hand, was killed at an indoor venue which presented no such restriction. Given this opportunity, our man subjected Mary Jane to a level of destruction that had been impossible during the earlier murders. His motivations hadn’t changed, but the means to express them had.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

The above part in bold is what I like to refer to as "canned" Canonical logic Gary .....the facts are, that no-one has yet proven that outdoor venues were not only his primary choice for venues but also his only choice.

Since 80% of his attributed crimes were committed in those venues, I think statistically, the odds favour him being accepting of the venues outdoors.

I dont see any reason why we should assign him "preferential venues" that would be a small minority of the overall crimes total, the opposite makes more sense.

Cheers Gary, all the best.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Edward.

The medical evidence to which I referred in an earlier post relates to the estimated time of death based upon body temperature and the onset of rigor mortis calculated by doctors at the crime scene and subsequently. In addition, Dr Bond examined a quantity of food contained in Kelly’s stomach and posited a time of death based upon known digestive rates. (The flaw in Bond’s calculations, however, relates to the uncertainty of the time at which Kelly consumed her final meal.) According to the medical consensus, Mary Kelly had already been dead for several hours when witnesses claimed she was parading about Commercial Street.

As for Joe Barnett, he was taken by police to view Mary Jane’s body at the mortuary. Four or possibly five other people (among them George Hutchinson) underwent the same procedure. Each confirmed the body to have been that of Mary Jane Kelly.

Even today, identificational procedures occasionally rely on something other than facial recognition. The shape of hands and feet are often distinctive. When taken in combination, fingernails, moles and freckles can be unique to an individual person. In short, the process of establishing the identity of the Miller’s Court victim was not nearly as complex as some would have us believe.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

With the greatest of respect, Mike, I hardly think it subjective to propose that Mary Jane sustained defence wounds when those very injuries are clearly visible in the crime scene photographs and were described in some detail by Dr Bond. They may not fall neatly into a preconceived notion of the Ripper and his motivations, but they exist and must therefore be explained.

Likewise, the differences that you discern between the Kelly murder and the deaths of the previous victims are easily rationalized when one considers the reality that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were each killed outdoors at locations which provided limited scope for the killer to give full vent to his more sadistic urges. Kelly, on the other hand, was killed at an indoor venue which presented no such restriction. Given this opportunity, our man subjected Mary Jane to a level of destruction that had been impossible during the earlier murders. His motivations hadn’t changed, but the means to express them had.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

The points you raise are valid Edward, we do not know exactly how the identification of Mary Kelly was made by Barnett, or where or precisely when for that matter, and we can assume safely that McCarthy and Bowyer gave their IDs on the spot that morning.

No. There would have been formal ID procedures to follow - later, at the mortuary - and Barnett playing "peek-a-boo" at a window would not have been one of them.

The reason I dont think Barnett mad his ID in that room is becauise my bet is that they didnt move that body much or at all when they entered

...three days before the inquest. What on earth do you think they did before they took the corpse to the mortuary - encase it in concrete?

Hello, all,

Gary wrote: "As for the ‘sighting’ of Mary Kelly when medical and other evidence suggest she was already dead, I think it likely that we are dealing with a case of mistaken identity."

What medical evidence exists other than the fact that they discovered a savagely murdered female in Mary Kelly's room? Did Mary have tatoos or other disginguishing marks that would make identification certain? Blue eyes would seem to be a fairly common trait.

As for mistaken identity, how did Barnett identify the deceased (by her eyes, and an ear)? Did Barnett enter the room? Was he only allowed to peek through the window? Did he view the body at the morgue? Barnett was looking at a horribly mutilated corpse that he was told is Mary Kelly, and that's what he identified. I'm not denying that Barnett could identify Mary's corpse, I'd just like to see evidence of how he performed the identification. Mistaken identity can go both ways.

Best Regards, Edward

The points you raise are valid Edward, we do not know exactly how the identification of Mary Kelly was made by Barnett, or where or precisely when for that matter, and we can assume safely that McCarthy and Bowyer gave their IDs on the spot that morning.

We do know that Marys eyes are not visible in the photo MJK1, from roughly the position of the large window, and the majority of her hair including its full length cannot be see as its down her back. I cant say whether anyone could make out her ear, in case the 'air/'ear issue was valid. I dont believe that Barnett ID'd Mary in the room......and that geographical connection when faced with a locked room from the inside and her being undressed in my mind is a key reason for anyone to assume that was Mary in the bed.... even before seeing her.

The reason I dont think Barnett mad his ID in that room is becauise my bet is that they didnt move that body much or at all when they entered, and that would mean they didnt flip back a flap covering her eyes so Joe could ID them.

He likely saw her as the jurors did....wrapped from head to toe with only her destroyed face visible....after her Volte Face surgery.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

It's not simply a question of Barnett's identification here.

Not just Barnett's either. Abberline's internal report states that the body had been identified by several people.

[c.d.]

It's not simply a question of Barnett's identification here. If it was in fact not Mary on the bed but one of her prostitute friends, how probable is it that Mary took one look and said "whoa, I am out of here" and took off never to be seen again? She would have had to have done so with no money and only the clothes on her back. Also, wouldn't the friends and/or relatives of the dead woman report a missing person to the police?

c.d.

[Edward]

Hello, all,

Gary wrote: "As for the ‘sighting’ of Mary Kelly when medical and other evidence suggest she was already dead, I think it likely that we are dealing with a case of mistaken identity."

What medical evidence exists other than the fact that they discovered a savagely murdered female in Mary Kelly's room? Did Mary have tatoos or other disginguishing marks that would make identification certain? Blue eyes would seem to be a fairly common trait.

As for mistaken identity, how did Barnett identify the deceased (by her eyes, and an ear)? Did Barnett enter the room? Was he only allowed to peek through the window? Did he view the body at the morgue? Barnett was looking at a horribly mutilated corpse that he was told is Mary Kelly, and that's what he identified. I'm not denying that Barnett could identify Mary's corpse, I'd just like to see evidence of how he performed the identification. Mistaken identity can go both ways.

Best Regards, Edward

Hi Gary,

I just captured this section of your post to counter...

Whereas I would agree with you that any additional cries beyond the “Oh, murder!” would have been heard had Kelly made them, I would disagree with the assumption that this silence infers that Kelly could not have been under attack. On the contrary, it suggests to me that Kelly was very much under attack and was being subdued by way of strangulation – see Bond’s report and the ecchymosis (bruising) noted in the neck tissues. As for the contention that ‘the Ripper doesnt even use a knife until the victims have been quickly and quietly subdued’, I would suggest that the defence wounds inflicted to Kelly’s hands and arms suggest otherwise.

The part that is underlined shows a subjective approach to the data Gary, and what Im trying to combat.....in fact Mary Kelly was attacked with a knife while she could still resist and that is not what occurred in all 4 of the prior "Ripper" attacks, save a simultaneous knife attack and choke by scarf that Liz Strides killer used.

To say "Jack" did attack while the victims could fight back based on Mary Kellys death is presupposing that he killed her, its not that the evidence suggests cumulatively that "Jack" attacks with a knife first.....and the attribution isnt based on hard evidence to begin with.

I stand by this......Polly, Annie and Kate's murders were almost identical in every aspect until the postmortem wounds,... and even in Kates case, they were abdominally focused mutilations as well. All were likely done by a right handed man, and he had all of them flat on their backs and unable to resist before he cuts anything.

All the best Gary

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Harry.

Whilst I would agree entirely with your sleep-related observations, there are several issues which, I believe, ought to be accorded due consideration. To begin with, in Sarah Lewis and Liz Prater we have two witnesses who independently related what was essentially the same story. Both women heard the cry whilst situated in reasonably close proximity to the Kelly crime scene; and by her own admission, Sarah Lewis was not in a deep sleep, if she was sleeping at all. More importantly, perhaps, the police sealed off Miller’s Court as soon as Kelly’s body was discovered and set about questioning the residents and their visitors. This being the case, it seems unlikely that Lewis and Prater could have entered into any kind of collusion, and it must be considered doubtful that one woman overheard the story of the other, then decided to replicate it for less than honourable motives.

In view of the foregoing, it would seem that both Lewis and Prater told the truth as best they knew it. And since each woman heard only one cry for help, I consider it a near-certainty that this was the best Kelly was able to do before being overpowered and murdered. Indeed, in view of the fact that Jack the Ripper had become an accomplished killer by the time he added Kelly to his tally of victims, I remain somewhat surprised that Mary Jane was permitted to make any sound at all.

Hi Richard.

Thanks for providing the source of the Liz Prater observation. To my mind, though, Prater was merely providing context for the cry she heard rather than suggesting causality.

As for the ‘sighting’ of Mary Kelly when medical and other evidence suggest she was already dead, I think it likely that we are dealing with a case of mistaken identity. If, for example, Carrie Maxwell, Maurice Lewis and others had seen a young female coming and going from 13 Miller’s Court and heard through the local grapevine that a young streetwalker named Mary Kelly lived there, they may have confused Kelly with one of her regular visitors. If so, we have a logical explanation for Kelly’s rise from the dead, the anomalous description each provided of her (short and rather plump), and the impossible sighting of Kelly with Barnett in the Horn of Plenty when Barnett was known to have been at his Bishopsgate lodgings.

Hi Mike.

Whereas I would agree with you that any additional cries beyond the “Oh, murder!” would have been heard had Kelly made them, I would disagree with the assumption that this silence infers that Kelly could not have been under attack. On the contrary, it suggests to me that Kelly was very much under attack and was being subdued by way of strangulation – see Bond’s report and the ecchymosis (bruising) noted in the neck tissues. As for the contention that ‘the Ripper doesnt even use a knife until the victims have been quickly and quietly subdued’, I would suggest that the defence wounds inflicted to Kelly’s hands and arms suggest otherwise. Equally, given the fact that the Whitechapel Murderer’s identity has never been established, how can we be certain of the ‘principle’ that the ‘victim and killer are strangers to one another’?

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Edward]

Did Mary discover a murder?

Could it be that Mary, coming home late at night opened the door to her room, discovered the sight of her murdered room mate, and at that point cried out, "Oh Murder"? She did have a woman temoprarily staying with her, I believe. Wasn't the room mate a prostitute? Additionally, a cry of, "Oh Murder" from Mary's doorstep could be described as if "coming from the court", and as "just outside" the other witness' door. Any cry from just outside Mary's door would not have to go through partitions, broken windows, pilot coats, etc. Finally, didn't at least two persons claim to have seen Mary alive the morning after the murder? I do believe Mary's door was open, I'm just advancing a notion that she may have been on the other side of it.

Hi all,

Gary, I think that if "oh-murder" signaled any kind of attack commencement we could not ask for two more attentive witnesses listening for those sounds that would follow the cry out. Both were made attentive to any sounds by the cry and they both listened for any follow up sounds, which did not occur.

That there werent any suggests that if Mary made the cry out that she was in the company of someone she was not physically struggling with at that moment....in her room.....at around 4am. And 2 key Ripper principles are that they victim and killer are strangers to one another....and that the Ripper doesnt even use a knife until the victims have been quickly and quietly subdued.

Best regards

[richardnunweek]

Hi Garry,
The source [ more of them exist ] comes from The Morning Advertiser of the 13 nov 88, quote..'The voice was a faintish one, as though someone had woke up with a nightmare'
If one takes the words 'Oh Murder'. and the Lottie story to Kit Watkins which refered to a 'bad dream' that Mary Kelly allegedly had, shortly before her death. ie between the double event, and November, and the dream was one of kelly being murdered, one could suggest that kelly may have had a reoccurance of that dream at 4am on the morning of the 9th, thus the apt wording of 'Oh Murder'.
That being the case it would then be credible that Maxwell did see kelly as she stated, I have not been put of by lack of witnesses having seen kelly drink beer that morning, for could it simply be a case of Mary drinking remains of Blotchy faces ale, which may have been poured in a glass at midnight, which she did not touch until she woke.
Just because no pot remained, does not mean she did not down the proceeds from a glass.
Regards Richard.

[harry]

If one were asleep,would a single cry of murder be known as the cause of awakening them?A problem I have is knowing what awakens one.We might say the thunder awoke me,which might be true.but would we be able to say it was the first peal of thunder or a succeeding one.Or the first pistol shot,or the very first heavy trafic if those were the causes and there was more than one.What is our memory of these things,if we are truly asleep to begin with.
So was there only the one cry of murder in Millers court that night,and those that heard it,awake to hear it.Or were they oblivious of the cry that awoke them,then concious enough to hear one or more cries?

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Richard.

I can’t say that I recall ever having read the Prater quotation to which you have referred. Do you by any chance recollect the source?

The simple explanation for it having been largely ignored, I would venture, is that Kelly issued a cry of “Murder!” and was then found slain a few hours later. The overwhelming likelihood, therefore, is that the cry and murder were causally related – a situation that, for most people, obviates the need for additional elucidation.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.