Soliciting or night attack.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Lina, and welcome to the boards.

You make some excellent points, observations which are consistent with the established evidence. I would suggest, however, that the killer would have removed at least some of his clothing as a preventative against bloodstaining and almost certainly washed before leaving the crime scene.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Sox]

I'd disagree. All we know about what Sutcliffe did with his victims before he killed them comes from Sutcliffe himself

Not so Chava, seven women attacked by Sutcliffe survived. Some he approached and actively engaged in conversation (sometimes even oral sex) and others he simply attacked. He killed outdoors and indoors, making no allowance, at all, for the woman's occupation. He came up with the, 'god told me to kill prostitutes', rubbish as a ploy for his insanity plea.

The point being, he was killing prostitutes because they were vulnerable females and not because they were prostitutes.

[Hunter]

The point being, he was killing prostitutes because they were vulnerable females and not because they were prostitutes.

Bingo, Sox. That could be JTR as well. The only other reason would be a vendetta for some reason like contracting a STD, and if he had syphillis, in an advanced stage, it could explain a delusional mind and a sudden stop in the murders. But if he simply chose prostitutes because of the easy access in order to carry out some deranged proclivity for mutilation he would not need to stalk them knowing that these women had to stalk him.

As Garry pointed out, however, Kelly's being killed indoors, and the increasing vigilance on everyone's part gives reason to explore other possibilities, especially if the killer decided he wanted to fulfill his fantasies in a less precarious circumstance. A witness did claim to see someone hanging around the area in Dorset St. that night, and that can't be easily dismissed.

Another possibility is this: The killer is well aware of the increased vigilance on the street. Its been nearly six weeks since the double murder. He may have just been away during that time or was being treated for an illness (STD?) or he is patient and decides he needs a better venue to carry out his fantasy. He decides to find someone that has an office for business. He finds out about Kelly by simply asking prostitutes until he finds one that fits the bill. He could have waited until she comes out to proposition her, or, wait until the activity around Miller's Court has subsided and simply walk to her door and knock, and she lets him in. He obviously had the ability to gain his victim's trust. If she was bringing friends/customers back to her abode she certainly had some just come and pay a visit; and that wouldn't arouse suspicion. That would be easier than risking a locked door or the commotion that an intrusion could cause if he didn't get the situation under control quickly- let alone the possibility of someone else being in there with her. An intrusion is always more risky than an invitation- just ask a criminal.

Having said that, I fall back on the quote below my signature.

[Lina]

Hi Lina, and welcome to the boards.

You make some excellent points, observations which are consistent with the established evidence. I would suggest, however, that the killer would have removed at least some of his clothing as a preventative against bloodstaining and almost certainly washed before leaving the crime scene.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

Hi, Garry. And thank you for the welcome.

Although I admit it would have been a smart move to wash off the blood afterwards, I only recall reading something about a "disused" washstand in Kellys room.

He (I'm assuming JTR is a man) could have removed some clothing as you suggest. In fact, that is more probable than having burned it with regard to the evidence found in the sifted ash (only some velvet and part of a bonnet). But I'm wondering if he had the time to remove clothing if he was breaking in. He could have done it outside, of course, before unlocking the spring lock of her door through the window, pulling aside the old coat hanging there, knowing how to do it (with his left? arm) in the dim light. Perhaps that would even have been more easy to do with a bare arm. When inside her room, wouldn't he have expected her to wake up and scream any second? The unlocking of the door might have startled her, and he would very cautiously enter...and get to it quickly, I imagine, without stopping to remove anything.

[DVV]

Hi Lina,

Although I often find myself in ageement with Garry, it's clear that Mary's defensive wounds and her famous "Murder!" aren't solely consistent with the intruder scenario.

Amitiés,
David

[Garry Wroe]

Although I admit it would have been a smart move to wash off the blood afterwards, I only recall reading something about a "disused" washstand in Kellys room.

Even if there was no water within the room itself, Lina, there was a pump outside adjacent to the windows.

I'm wondering if he had the time to remove clothing if he was breaking in.

According to Dr Bond, the tissues in Kelly’s neck exhibited ecchymosis (bruising). This, taken in conjunction with the clenched hand, is indicative of at least partial strangulation. So even if the killer lacked the opportunity to undress prior to the attack, he could have done so after throttling Kelly into unconsciousness.

Although I often find myself in ageement with Garry, it's clear that Mary's defensive wounds and her famous "Murder!" aren't solely consistent with the intruder scenario.

Which is why, Dave, I have consistently referred to Kelly as having been attacked rather than killed as she slept. Thus the murderer could have let himself into the room as Kelly slept, positioned himself on the bed, then roused Kelly as he gripped her by the throat with one hand whilst holding his knife in the other. Such a scenario accounts for Kelly’s state of undress, her position on the bed close to the partition wall, the defence wounds and cry for help. It also accords well with the underlying sadism of the previous murders.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[DVV]

Hi Garry,

agreed ! - thanks for expressing my thoughts better than I can do.

Amitiés,
David

[Lina]

Hi Garry and hi David.

Then we are all in agreement. I, too, think Mary Kelly was attacked in her sleep although not killed at once. Throttled first, as you say, and then killed. If she was unconscious she awoke during the knife attack (or was roused - good point!). And considering her defensive wounds she must have still been capable of putting up quite a fight.

I am not entirely convinced about the pump, though, Garry. Pumps are usually kind of noisy, plus it was standing right outside a window. But then again I suppose nobody would react to hearing ordinary sounds like that when they hardly even reacted to cries of "murder!". Did they ever find any blood by the pump? Couldn't he have been wearing gloves? The gloves would also have protected him from accidently cutting his own hands, as he was trying to get to Mary Kelly's neck with the knife whilst holding her down.

[dixon9]

Hi Lina/others

are you then thinking the person who entered mary's room whom she sang to,waited till she fell asleep before slaughtering her,or is it a.n.other who entered the room after the first 'client' left?


Dixon9
still learning

[Garry Wroe]

Blotchy allowed his face to be seen by Mary Ann Cox, Dixon, so is unlikely to have been the killer. My guess is that Kelly invited him to enjoy the warmth and shelter of her room in exchange for a share of the beer. And since he'd evidently departed the scene by 3-30 or thereabouts, it's possible that he went off to work. Hence he may have been a coster, dockside labourer or a Billingsgate employee.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

I am not entirely convinced about the pump, though, Garry

Ordinarily, Lina, people of Kelly's ilk would keep a jug of water in their room. Failing that, let us not forget that a kettle was recovered from the room - a vessel that, presumably, would have contained at least some water.

thanks for expressing my thoughts better than I can do.

You do yourself a disservice, Dave.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[DVV]

Blotchy is innocent.
More than Sid Vicious.

Amitiés,
David

[Chadwick]

Agree with you

Blotchy is innocent.
More than Sid Vicious.

Amitiés,
David

I agree with you. I think Blotchy is innocent. He strikes me as a goodtime guy, with his pale full of beer.

I think Hutchison is innocent, too. Where is the history, the psychopathology, the general evidence to include him among the suspects, save his being outside Mary Kelly's door? Thousands of men could have met the same criteria Hutchinson did, but it takes far more terrible specifications to be the Ripper.

Hutchinson stated that he didn't have any money. He may have been telling the truth, which would result in no bed for the night at the logings. Since it was already closed, he may well have been standing out there waiting for Mary Jane Kelly's customer to leave so he could see if he could stay with her. He said he had given her the odd bob or two on odd occasions. Maybe he was counting on her good will. It was a cold and rainy night. Who woulldn't want a warm spot for the night?

He claimed to have looked into the Ripper's face. Much has been made over the idea that he may have been Jewish, but that doesn't address what we may have been feeling if we had looked into his face... and the Ripper looked into ours... The mere fact that the Ripper knew that Hutchinson could possibly identify him may have been the reason he hesitated in going forward. That he thought he saw him, may have had a chilling effect, as well.

The fact that Hutchinson didn't admit to Aberlaine that he approached Kelly's room at 3am, doesn't mean he didn't. He may have been afraid that he could be implicated, somehow.

I was reading the discussion about whether the Ripper may have disrobed partially. He probably did and maybe completely disrobed. The amount of blood, skin, body parts and goo would necessitate keeping his clothing away from the bed area. I wouldn't be surprised if he used the clothing he later burned to wipe himself down before dressing.

I read with great interest and admiration Gary Wroe's piece regarding the Ripper. I followed along all the way until the end. Excellent, but I just could not agree with the conclusion that Hutchison was the Ripper. After laying such detailed analysis about how such a preditor is formed, there was no history, no foundation, no information that would support Hutchison. I agree that he had opportunity, but was he such a man? Location, location, location is good advice in business, but it isn't conclusive in this instance. Where is the proof of the kind of life that led to such depravity?

I think Hutchinson was telling the truth. I think Hutchinson saw the Ripper. He said he was pale. He may not have been Jewish. I think there is room for more investigation.

Best to you all,

~Chadwick

[dixon9]

thanks Garry

ok i can understand that,so he leaves and then Mary goes out again approx after 1.00 am(as she was still singing at approx 1am).She then picks up 'client two' who she is seen with by Hutch at 2.00am,so if Hutchinson is to be believed his discription of client 2 could well be 'jack'(or at least Mary's slayer)
Sorry about all the approx's.


Dixon9
still learning

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Agreed about Blotchy and Hutchy being innocent; Blotchy seems to be just a drinkin' buddy of Mary's, and Hutch seems to be either be a bit of a loner with a fondness for Mary or someone who wanted to be a part of the investigation by concocting a suspect (or both). I doubt either of them were particularly sinister.