MJK Murder

[richardnunweek]

Hi Kensei,
With Reference to Maxwell, we have the fact that her statement of returning plates that morning checked, and confirmed, also she was interviewed on the very same day as the sighting.
Also there surely is no chance of mistaken identity, she knew Barnett had left her recently, she described clothing found in room 13.
And I cannot imagine that she was not taken to view the body , before the inquest, to confirm, which would give her every chance to accept a mistake, and prevent embarrassment to the police doctors.
Hutchinson was asked to view the body , to make sure of the correct identification, so surely Mrs Maxwell especially as she was to attend the inquest.
Regards Richard.

[kensei]

Just a couple of thoughts/comparisons here, playing catchup- when a thread takes off, checking in every 24 hours just isn't enough!

On the possibility that the Ripper himself may have been slightly drunk when he committed his murders- it's a little known fact that Ted Bundy usually was, needing a little liquid courage to psyche himself up. As for George Hutchinson not mentioning that Mary was drunk, if the theory that he had great affection for her is true then he may not have wanted to say anything unflattering about her.

And about Caroline Maxwell, the witness who said she saw MJK alive at 8:30 a.m.- I've always assumed that she simply had the date wrong, and once she'd convinced herself she was right no one could dissuade her. There is precedent for this. In the Yosemite Park murders of 1999, there was a shopkeeper who insisted she'd seen Carole and Juli Sund and their friend Silvina Pelosso in her shop on a date after they'd gone missing. She even remembered Silvina talking about how she was from Argentina. When everything came out, it turned out the women had definitely all been dead at the time and the shopkeeper was simply dead wrong in spite of how absolutely certain she'd been. How can you explain it? It's freaky, but it happens. Mary Kelly was most likely dead by around 4 a.m., and probably well before then as I believe the Ripper left at that time and the mutilation would have taken at least an hour, because you have to consider not just the time it took to do it but also the savoring of it.

[harry]

Whilst in the military,I was shown many ways to kill a person,but not one in bed with the clothes around them,but if one had to improvise for that eventuality,then I think I would choose to stab to the heart area,that is if I had run out of bullets.
However a person in bed with the bedclothes around the body, and hands and arms under the clothes,and with a solid body on top straddling,is well nigh defenceless if attacked suddenly,while the attacker can still retain the use of both hands.It might still give the victim a fleeting chance to cry out "Murder",and would not be dependent on the attacker being in bed with the victim immediately prior to the assault.

[Chava]

Hi,

Sorry Chava, I misread your post and thought you were saying that they had their throats cut while they were standing up!

I think it was that I still had your first post in my mind when I wrote that last one, and we got our wires crossed somehow.

'However it still would have been easier and more efficient to kill her from behind while she was standing rather than to kill her from behind while she is lying down.'

You obviously meant that he just started the process while they were standing up. A breakdown in communications I think!!


Much love

Janie

xxxxx

Hi Janie!

Yes, I meant that he started the process when the others were upright.

However it would have been easier, in MJK's case, to slash her throat while she was upright. She is clearly killed in a very particular location over to the far side of the bed, facing sideways and down. He could do this if he rolled over on her as she lay on her side, rolled her face-down and slashed her. That's what I think he did do. But it's nowhere near as efficient a way to deal with the situation. Which is why I believe he was either in bed with her, and decided to kill her at the last minute, or there were other reasons why he did not subdue and kill her in an easier fashion.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

Sorry Chava, I misread your post and thought you were saying that they had their throats cut while they were standing up!

I think it was that I still had your first post in my mind when I wrote that last one, and we got our wires crossed somehow.

'However it still would have been easier and more efficient to kill her from behind while she was standing rather than to kill her from behind while she is lying down.'

You obviously meant that he just started the process while they were standing up. A breakdown in communications I think!!


Much love

Janie

xxxxx

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
With regard to the time that the mutilation of Mjk may have took, we should look very closely of the amount if time it took the killer to dismember poor Eddowes, I feel to much thought has gone into the leisurely killing theories at Millers court.
Richard.

[spyglass]

Hi all,

Going back to the original threads, I feel to much emphasis and assumptions are being made on what we see in the MJK photo.
It should be remembered that police photography was in it infancy and so very likely in my view the body and the room had been moved about for the photographer to take his pictures. I feel it even more likely that her face was turned towards the camera to show the devastation to full effect.
I recall that Simon Wood in a dissertation goes in to this in a lot more detail and is well worth a read.
I therefore think it likely that Dr Bonds report cold have been written after the photos and moving around of the body was done.
Remember no CSI in those days.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Greg,
Agreed its an imaginative theory, however at any crime scene, one has to take into account the last sworn statement of a witness, that not only stated that they saw the victim alive at 815am, but swears on oath[ although warned to be careful] that they saw a male dressed as a market porter, of short stout build, talking to the victim , just sixty yards from her place of abode. at least two hours prior to the discovery of the body.
This simply can not be overlooked...
A morning murder would explain away many mysteries, and for those of us, that mentions rigor mortis/ T.O.D, and vommiting as a prosecution against such a theory, should listen to modern day interpretations, not 1888 police doctors,who were experts of educated GUESS WORK.
Regards Richard.

[GregBaron]

Morning murder.......?

Hello Everyone.
We are touching some well discussed points once again,
My version is rather different then most, believing that MJK was killed around 9am, on the 9th,and she was despatched by the man that Maxwell saw around 845am.
I believe the Ripper was a middle aged stout man, that worked at Spitalfields Market, and Kelly was approached by him near Ringers around 830am, he made his sexual intentions clear, and Mary unfortunetly was taken off guard and offered herself, and gave the killer directions to her room.
'I have always suggested that she may have spoken the words 'All right my luv, down the court up the road, second door on the right, give me a bit of time to get ready, just come straight in.
She walked back to her room , took off her boots, and undressed down to her chemise, the bedroll was already rolled, because Mary had been up some time, even the bolster[ sorry Jane[ was placed on the table,[ used as a draught excluder, from either the door, or the window]
My scenerio is as Mjk sat on the bed , she was about to pull off her left stocking ,when the door opened, and as she twisted her body to dangle that item over the bed roll, she was attacked without warning.
This morning scenerio explains a lot, and gives a explanation why the police had Caroline Maxwell give evidence at the inquest , even if it went against their own doctors medical reports.
Mary was awoken by Catherine pickett at 730am , after she banged her door, she got out of bed , lit the fire with the little fuel she may have had, and rolled up her bedroll.
The killer kept the fire going by burning several garments in the room.
Why if it was daylight?
To give the impression that it was a night murder, the police would see a woman on her bed , her clothes draped, her boots by the fire, and to all intent and purposes the woman appeared to have been killed many hours before.
Mayby the killer had a night alibi?
Regards Richard.

Boy, that's an imaginative theory Richard but I can't see it.
It would be much more likely to have a visitor between 9 and 10
a.m. than 4 or 5. Didn't the kid come looking for rent at 10:30
or 11? And when it's time to go many more people would be bandying about.
If he's seen walking out that door an hour before the murder is discovered,
uh oh, not good. Makes me wonder if MJK and the other girls had some sort of
'do not disturb' sign. Perhaps JtR knew it was the fire and took advantage?
Anyway,in addition, I'm not sure anyone could determine how much time this horrible
evisceration required but it appears to me a rather leisurely affair. It seems an
hour or two. I know there are conflicting witness statements but I would expect
the medical reports to be more reliable. Wow though, a nice theory, if true
it would up JtR's incredible boldness yet another notch...........


Greg

[Fleetwood Mac]

Therein lies the problem, Kensei. You argue on the one hand that Kelly was killed by the Jewish-looking pick-up, then assert on the other that she was drunk. But the one and only source we have for the Jewish-looking pick-up is Hutchinson - and Hutchinson claimed that Kelly was sober when he encountered her. Or are we to believe that the hyper-observant Hutchinson was able to recollect the microdetail of Kelly's punter but failed to notice that Kelly herself was drunk to the point of near-incoherence?

Didn't Cox say that she walked up behind her and noticed she was drunk only when she spoke? Now I find that strange....because someone that drunk wouldn't be very steady on her feet and surely it would be noticeable.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Oh...and just to add....why is it such a stretch for someone to wait an hour or two?

He's paid to spend the night so he has time to wait for the right moment.....she's lively...singing and what have you....surely it makes sense to wait until she's not so lively...minimising the risk of her screaming and being heard.....she's already had a load of beer and he's taken more back....just a matter of time before she's rendered unable to protect herself...and as he's paid for the night there's no rush...surely that is the simplest solution.....

[Chava]

Hi Jane,

I know they were killed lying down but they were attacked standing up! You yourself use the words 'lowered to the ground' and that would be after the initial attack.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Basically, I do not believe that Mary Jane's killer was someone who knew her or that there is any reason to feel that this must be so.

Well....were it known that she did or didn't have a habit of taking clients back......it would shed a bit of light on the matter.

I'd go with it not being a Barnett type.....i.e. not an enraged lover.....the extent of the mutilations were due to opportunity. But that doesn't mean she didn't know him....that could be the reason he was entrusted into the place. I think the idea that he slipped the latch is stretching it a bit.

To answer the original question.....I'd go with him posing as a client...paying to spend the night.....paying well (compared with the usual charge).....and so had all the time in the world. To say he intended to kill quickly at all times.....well it could reasonably be argued that he had to on the street but didn't have to in someone's lodging.

To me.....the solution is that it was Blotchy....prepared to wait because he had already planned to stay the night when they'd be talking in the pub or somewhere.....in the knowledge that killing at 4 o'clock....would be less risky than killing at 1 o'clock....with fewer people wandering around and hopefully the neighbours tucked up in bed. I suppose it does beg the question: "what was Blotchy doing for 2 hours? did he put the alarm clock on for 4 so he could wake up and get to work?" and that is a fair question that would need an answer.....and perhaps the answer is that the time of death was closer to 2. And.....if people think he's taking a risk by killing in someone's house in the early hours of the morning with people still wandering around....well if he's full of beer then his reasoning capacity isn't likely to be on top form.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Chava,

Sorry, but it is more or less certain that all of JtR's victims were killed while they were lying down. If we read back over the inquest testimony and Bond's report, there is really no chance that they were killed whilst standing up. All of the doctors, except Blackwell agreed that all of the victims were killed whilst lying down. Blackwell just wasn't sure.

It's also not really indicated that any of them were strangled in the strict sense of the word. The term 'partial strangulation' was used in Annie's case. In Polly's case there were some signs that a hand may have been placed over her nose and mouth causing suffocation to the point of unconsciousness, but there were no physical signs of true strangulation.

With the others it's a bit hard to tell, but for the most part the impression given was that the victim's were deprived of oxygen in some way, either by a hand being placed over their nose and mouth, or using a blood choke or some other kind of stanglehold, then lowered to the ground and their throat cut before they regained consciousness.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx ps apologies for the emoticon at the top. It looks like I'm constipated, rather than sorry for disagreeing with you!! Lol.

[Mitch Rowe]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned in this thread but the problem I have with MJK being killed in close position as to the position we see her in the gruesome photo is that she is laying the exact opposite way as AC was laying.
This means if both were killed while laying JTR needs to hold the knife in opposite hands!