Soliciting or night attack.

[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.

[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

[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.

[DVV]

Hi Garry,

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

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 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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Lina]

Hi everyone.

She may have been asleep or recently tucked in. I think the Ripper quietly waited the other client out from somewhere nearby. He may have known her a little and gone to seek her out. Her injuries seem personal to me. Especially the inflictions on the face.
After "partying" with her friend/client and he went out she was probably too tired to remember to lock her door after undressing (rather neatly btw, folding everything) and putting on her nightgown (alternately leaving her chemise on). And I don't believe she would have folded everything like that before sex. The Ripper snuck in when all was quiet, throttled her with one hand so she wouldn't scream, got untop of her to hinder further movements, cut her throat and got blood all over him. Her hands and arms would have been free and she would probably be clasping his arm when she awoke thus getting several cuts on the lower arms.
Or she may have opened the door after hearing a tap on the window, thinking it was her friend returning, but that would have made it more risky and she would have had time to scream or at least say something (oh, murder?), and there would perhaps be a noisy struggle as he dragged her to the bed.
I believe what you see in the photograph is not a sock or garter but an incision. He was trying to bare her entire leg of flesh but decided he didn't have the time to finish.
Afterwards he wiped blood from face and hands with his shirt and fueled the fire with it to avert suspicion when going home. His coat and trousers were probably dark-colored for this reason.
I don't think it has to have been the man she sang to. It seems a bit risky after she had been calling attention to them all night by continuous singing. Could still have been, of course. All the murders were risky.
If I was the man she entertained before being murdered I would not have come forward.

[Garry Wroe]

Absolutely, Ben. All of which highlights the importance of evaluating Mary Jane's behaviour immediately prior to her death. So is it likely that a drunken and at best semi-coherent Kelly would have rid herself of Blotchy and gone out into the cold and rain in search of punters who had largely abandoned the streets as a consequence of the prevailing weather conditions?

Personally, I think it unlikely.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

I agree wholeheartedly with all of the above, Garry.

There have certainly been cases involving prostitute-targetting serialists who have demonstrated a propensity towards adopting both false "client" guises as well as the stalker-intruder approach. In the early 1990s James Jones was arrested and sentenced to 27 years for a string of sex attacks on prostitutes in the Manhattan area that included two murders. Although his preferred approach was to pose as a normal customer, a survivor reported that she had noticed him stalking her for some time before attempting to enter her apartment.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Your point about Bundy is valid and I stand corrected. Indeed, a serial killer can change his MO, as Bundy did.

I’m not sure that we have to think in terms of a change in modus operandi, Hunter. To my mind, as the offender becomes more competent and confident as a predator, he simply introduces more exciting elements into his fantasies and his crime scene behaviour evolves accordingly.

I believe there was a reason that he chose prostitutes and that reason has previously been stated. As far as I know, Bundy didn't kill this type of woman. But, some other serial killers did choose protitutes and I would be curious if there is evidence that their killers stalked and subsequently attacked their victims as opposed to using the inherant vulnerability of these women-i.e- seeking customers- to locate and murder them.

If you mean that the Ripper elected to kill prostitutes because they represented a comparatively easy target and could be found when the streets were largely deserted, Hunter, I would agree entirely with your reasoning. I would also happily concede that, because most prostitute murders occur outdoors, they are apt to be ‘random’ crimes rather than pre-planned forays undertaken with a specific victim in mind. The difference with the Miller’s Court case, however, is that Mary Kelly was killed indoors. No-one forced the killer to change from an outdoor to an indoor venue. He adopted this tactical shift of his own volition. To my way of thinking, this was an operational refinement suggestive of an evolving psychopathology – an indication that this man was seeking something more than had been afforded him by his previous hit-and-run killings. He was looking for the time and privacy to give full vent to his sadistic urges. Hence, when viewed in these terms, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Mary Kelly was targeted in advance, and that her killer awaited the opportunity to find her alone, then entered her room as she slept and unleashed a level of savagery that had been impossible with the outdoor victims.

Again, I am only suggesting this as a possible scenario. But the escalating level of violence running through the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes murders, together with a similarly burgeoning desire for body parts, renders it a very real possibility.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[DVV]

Hi Chava,

you are both right, in fact.
Jack killed these women because they were prostitutes.
And killed prostitutes cos they were women...

Amitiés,
David