MJK Murder

[harry]

The one position that I believe would cover all positions that Kelly might lie in,is the Straddle position.That is as has been explained,with the killer on top with bedclothes between him and victim,legs drawn up with knees about in line with victims shoulders,pinioning arms to victims sides.
This would leave both hands of killer free.Even if Kelly had been lying face down when attacked,the position would have allowed for her face to be forced down into bolster untill unconcious.Face upwards she would have been in position for killers hands to choke or smother.Even on her side the straddle position could be used effectively.

[Rubyretro]

I have been incredibly busy over the weekend, and only just had the luxury today of wasting time on Casebook !

I am put in mind of what D'Israeli said about Gladstone. He described him as
inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity'.

[/QUOTE]

That comment is totally unfair, because Garry's reply was limpid and ventilated (he is actually a published writer you know, and an unfailingly polite person !!).

I don't take Garry as God, and I might disagree with some of his view points
on things which are down to a personal opinion (i.e. when we get into the realms of conjecture), but you simply can't just disregard the facts, which he
has well researched, into the method of killing MJK and the state of her body.

He's got to be one of the people that is an expert on the subject, and you can't simply dismiss him on those points..

[Marc]

Missionary ?

Threading very carefully on the position of attack issue if strangulation is involved, since I'm not even knowledgeable in this field, but wouldn't the missionary position offer a fine opportunity for strangling the
victim quite easily ?
If (and it's definitely a huge 'IF') MJK body was found in the same position as it was when death occured, looks to me that use of the missionary position by the victim and her murderer before the attack is a plausible option.

[Chava]

Jane, that would be amazing! Thank you!

I don't know if it's feasible, but at a Ripper convention, if a space could be found, a recreation of the murder scenes that could be walked through might lead to some interesting conclusions and at the very least a different perspective.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Chava,

There have been several tentative efforts to recreate Mary's room in 3D and some of them have been rather good, however there doesn't seem to have been a definitive 3D rendering of Mary's room that I know of.

I am just about to start some more paintings of the crime scenes, using newspaper sketches, and literally turning them into paintings, which should turn up some interesting stuff, hopefully.

I'll try and do Mary's room from a few more angles, which isn't as good as a 3D walkthrough, but will at least let you see Mary's room from different perspectives.

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[Chava]

Hi Garry,

I am put in mind of what D'Israeli said about Gladstone. He described him as
inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity'.

You say in my original post I argued that MJK was killed while she was lying in bed and her killer lying in bed beside her. This is what I actually wrote:

It looks very much to me as if he kills her while they are in bed. And that's nowhere near as easy to do as it sounds. For a start she might not agree to the sex-from-behind thing. And if she doesn't, he's not in a very good position to kill her without her having the chance to struggle which is the last thing he wants.

My point was that I could not see any way that he could have killed her while both of them were lying in the bed even though the evidence suggests that she was in bed and he had to be in or on the bed to kill her. I do not think it is possible for the killer to kill her as he lies behind her in a semblance of a sleeping position.

She is found lying to the far right side of the bed and it would be hard to kneel over her and kill her in that position as there wouldn't be much room for the killer's left knee. Likewise it would be very hard to slash her from behind as she lies on her side with her whole shoulder and probably her arm protecting her neck. People don't lie in a straight line. They need to balance, they need to find comfortable positions for their arms and shoulders. So I posited a sex-from-behind position that would render her defenceless and would allow him to attack her without a struggle. Probably she's actually further towards the centre of the bed, and the killer pushes her over as he slashes in order to put as much distance as possible between him and the blood pool.

As for the issue of strangulation from behind, what I said was that I could not believe that MJK was strangled from behind as she lay on her side in the bed--if that was in fact where she was lying. For the same reasons as the above reason. It's hard to get at the neck in that position.

Just for clarity--and jolly--I shall put my position in simple point form:

- If she's asleep on her side with her killer pretending to be asleep behind her, he cannot kill her unless he moves his position. It's far too awkward to initiate either slashing or strangulation while lying down. For a start the killer would need one arm for balance...

- If he moves his position then in my opinion he kneels behind her or above her. I would suggest behind her since that gives him maximum opportunity to attack and does not allow her to attack him in return.

- She is in her chemise, and I don't think her killer undressed her before he killed her. So I think she climbed into bed by herself.

- That means that at the very least she was alive and in the room with her killer for, let's say, a minimum of 20 seconds (that would be if he knocked on her door while she was in bed and she got up and let him in and returned to her bed). That would give him 20 seconds to kill her in the way he had clearly killed the other four. But he doesn't. He kills her on the bed.

- So I think this is an important difference and might give us a little bit more information about the killer. For example, as I said in another post on the thread, he might be shorter than she was. Which would make him choose a different method of attack. Blotchy was short. And Blotchy is someone I like for this murder and the other murders. So I'm not quite sure why we're arguing.

- 'Clear evidence of asphyxiation'. Maybe. But if he did asphyxiate her, he did so in a different way from the way he asphyxiated Chapman. Who exhibited unmistakeable evidence of asphyxiation. She is the only one that can be clearly proven to have been asphyxiated. I doubt he read too many medical texts between Chapman and the others. I understand that the chokehold could well have subdued the victims and I think it's possible that it did. But given that Chapman was asphyxiated beyond a reasonable doubt and the others weren't, I will not put too much credence into the possibiity of prior asphyxiation in MJK's death. Nor is it germane to my central thesis (God, Garry, I'm starting to sound like you!) Which is not how was she killed, but why did the killer wait? Why did he not kill her in another area of the room. It doesn't sound like he waited long to attack the others. It appears that he attacked them first chance he got. The first chance he would have had with MJK would have been when he first arrived in the room. Or, in Blotchy's case, as soon as she finished the first round of that ghastly-sounding song. But he waits. And as I've said before. There had to have been a reason for that.

- Final point. Garry, simplicity is the essence of good style.

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry Garry, but I'm having a hard time cutting through the verbiage here.

Then you’re in good company, Chava, since I’m experiencing considerable difficulty in rationalizing those elements of your argument which contradict a clearly established body of evidence. For example:-

- MJK could well have been on all-fours with her head hanging down and therefore her neck close to the bed. The spray might hit the wall at the moment her throat was slashed.

Under this scenario, Chava, you are again ignoring the spatial limitations imposed by the proximity of Kelly’s throat to the mattress. You are also disregarding clear evidence of asphyxiation, the presence of which renders all of these mattress gymnastics utterly pointless.

It is just about impossible to kill her in the way she was killed while she lies prone on her side on the bed.

Apart from the fact that she could not have been lying prone and on her side, this is precisely what you argued in your initial post.

I doubt he tried to strangle her from behind either. Almost impossible to get at her neck while she is in that position.

So you’re arguing that it was impossible to strangle her from behind, but perfectly possible to inflict two vicious knife slashes from the same position?

- The bruising around her neck could have been caused by a number of things including but not limited to a tight collar. I don't see any suggestion of burst blood vessels in the eyes which would be a clear indication of asphyxia.

The signs of strangulation are not always as obvious as you appear to imagine, Chava. The earliest victims of the Stockwell Strangler, for example, were each believed to have died through natural causes. It was only subsequently when those cases were revisited that the signs of foul play became apparent. With Kelly, however, the indications are a little more obvious. The ecchymosis discerned in the neck tissues coupled with a clenched fist and blanched lips and hands (blanched in medico-speak meaning flushed) place the issue beyond dispute. Given the certainty, therefore, that Kelly was immobilized by strangulation, why would her assailant have then created unnecessary practical difficulties for himself by inflicting the throat wounds from behind?

[i]f he was killing an already unconscious woman, I doubt he would drag her large and heavy body over and onto a rickety bed, thus allowing ample opportunity for the kind of noise he didn't care to make.

Should you read my book, Chava, you’ll discover that I’ve never suggested any such thing.

I humbly submit that she was alive, sentient and willing when she climbed onto that bed.

If you’d care to incorporate ‘inebriated’ into your list of descriptors, I would agree entirely. I also think it likely that she clambered into bed with Blotchy and at some point thereafter slipped into a drink-induced stupor. But to elaborate further would be to take us off-topic, so I’ll leave it there.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Chava]

What would really help would be a mock-up of the room, clothes on the armchair, fire in the grate and all. (I could do without a mock-up of the body!) It would be great to actually walk into the room and get a feel for the size, location of stuff and so on. Has anyone ever done that?

[Jane Coram]

Hi Richard,

I think you've got it spot on. There are so many ifs and buts and possibilities, that we can go on guessing forever about how Mary died and not get any nearer the truth. I know that's a bit of a cynical view, but unfortunately, no matter how much we guess at things, they are only guesses.

Having said that, without all the guessing and theorizing, we probably would have a very boring board and nothing to talk about, so keep them coming.

Much love

Janie

xxxxx

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
According to The vast majority of casebook the murder of MJK, is very straight-forward, she was drunk when she returned to her room around midnight, she had a sing song with Blotchy face, and this man was her killer, waiting till she passed out in her chemise?, before moving in for a easy kill.
Ah,
Wait a minute,... what about Hutchinson alias mugger, stalker, Liar, murderer?
Was Astracan a invention by this alleged monster.
What about the cry at 4am. surely this was Mjks last moments, ah but was it a nightmare.. think about that .
Then we have the elusive Maurice Lewis?
Was his story of seeing kelly at 8am a complete lie?
And what about Maxwell, a liar, a fame seeker, a drunk, a idoit...?
This kelly case is so obvious, we can piece it all together cant we?
We know kelly was not killed after 8am dont we?
What this post is meant to press home is , we must not reject any possibility that occured that fateful night in millers court.
Even mine........
Regards Richard.

[GregBaron]

M.O.

Excellent description of Polly's demise Jane and I must say I agree.
I didn't realize the bit about the clothing but I must also say Victorian
female clothing puzzles me greatly.......many layers of chemises and
petticoats and other things I don't understand...I have wondered and
haven't seen it discussed whether Jack had to cut through the clothing
or if he could just pull it up out of the way....? I still find it remarkable
that someone can grab someone by the chin and with the other hand
by the nose and mouth and quickly render unconsciousness....I thought
this was just the stuff of Mr. Spock.....still seems she could get her
hands up to try to wrench his away for even a few seconds which
would show on her fingernails......like I said, I still find this remarkable...
...I also believe this might take some practice and JtR had done it before......!

As for the outside sex, I'll take your word for it as it does make sense...

Maybe with Annie his normal method wasn't working as quickly so he opted for
wholesale strangulation to subdue her......I'm still surprised though by the
apparently complete lack of struggle........

As you say with Mary we don't know. But with little noise the normal subdue
method is not precluded. Maybe he jumped her in the bed and began stabbing her
in the chest and as she choked in horror slit her throat...from the
decimation of the body we can't rightly know although I think someone
mentioned something in the autopsy that indicated a possible chokehold/strangulation method....

I just saw Chava's post and Chava also has some good points.....the logistics of that
small room present some difficulties but perhaps we're overstating
those and as someone else mentioned by this time he was an experienced killer.....

Also, perhaps because the cops were getting too close, he decided to go indoors
when least expected........!

The 'Oh Murder' scream itself lends many thoughts? First, was it a scream or a shriek
of more of an excited statement? If it was Mary, something clued her in seconds
before she was forever silenced.......


Greg

[Marc]

The streets were full of women who could take a punter back to a nice cosy bed. But four times out of five the Ripper kills a certain type of woman in a certain type of location. I really have no idea whether he knew MJK or not. But I do think he had to have had a good reason to vary what had been a very successful MO.

Points well made Chava

[Chava]

Jane I agree with everything you've written--including the attack from the rear. However it seems to me to be just about impossible to kill MJK the way he killed the others unless she was bending over or kneeling on all-fours in front of him on the bed. Even then, because a bed is much less stable than a pavement or floor, I think his regular method of attack would be compromised. One think we haven't even thought about is the stability of the bed! If he attacks her suddenly on the bed and throws her down, there's a pretty good chance the bed will collapse!

Given that, it's possible she was attacked in the room close to the bed and then lowered onto it. However she's a big woman and probably not light. Manoeuvring that dead weight onto the bed soundlessly would not have been easy. I think he was with her either in bed or out of it. I think he waited until she was asleep. And then I think he knelt quietly up on the bed behind her, pulled her head back fast and then slashed her throat.

As you've pointed out, the other victims were all clothed and all killed in the open air. MJK was not the only tart in the area to have her own room. We know Mary Ann Cox did for a start. So did Lizzie Prater. So, finally, did Maria Hervey. The streets were full of women who could take a punter back to a nice cosy bed. But four times out of five the Ripper kills a certain type of woman in a certain type of location. I really have no idea whether he knew MJK or not. But I do think he had to have had a good reason to vary what had been a very successful MO.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Greg,

Sorry, long post!!!

I'm desperately trying to stay on topic here, so will try and link this post to Mary's murder, to keep on track. Fingers crossed.

We obviously can't say for certain how Jack attacked his victims. We can only say what's less likely or downright unlikely, and of course that goes for Mary as well, even though her situation was somewhat different.

If I compare what I think happened with the other victims, as opposed to Mary, then we're still on topic I think.

With Polly, there are a few interesting points that are worth taking into consideration, which might help to give us a clue of his general MO.
Polly was wearing an Ulster coat when she was killed. These coats are floor length and quite tightly fitting. Underneath this, she wore several layers of petticoats, and skirts. Add them all together and you have a hell of a lot of compressed clothing on her bottom half.

My best guess is this: Jack approached Polly as a customer. There are really only two ways a prostitute will service a customer when outside, then or now - either front ways standing up, or with the woman bending over. A prostitute won't lie down on the ground unless she has no other choice -- too hard on her back, or kneel down -- too hard on her knees. The blokes knees suffer either way. The ideal location is against a fence or gate, because it's much kinder on the back. Bending over is by far the easiest for both parties especially when drunk. Please don't ask how I know this. This would make the gates of Brown's stable yard ideal, the same for the fence in Hanbury Street and the gate in Mitre Square. They are all perfect spots for a prostitute to service a client.

Whether Polly was facing her killer or had her back to him, her killer could still have used the same basic method really, although it would have probably been easier for him if Polly's back were turned. She would have had to lift her skirts of course either way. This would have kept her hands occupied, which would have suited Jack very well.

In Polly's case it would seem likely that he grabbed her by the chin, judging by the bruises there. This seems to be the official thought on it anyway.
He may have tried to cover her nose and mouth with his hand, until she stopped struggling or used some other way of depriving her of oxygen, like a stranglehold. She was drunk and probably not able to put up much resistance. The most effective would have been an arm around the throat from behind, but there's no way of knowing which method he used. Whatever -- he found a way to get her onto the floor without making a sound or a struggle.

Then with her skirts still around her waist, he lowered her down to the ground, tilted her slightly to the left, to avoid getting blood on him and cut her throat twice, just to make sure. The arterial spray was contained and minimal because he positioned her carefully. I think he knew exactly what he was doing from start to finish.

The reason I think that Polly must have had her clothes still around her waist when he lowered her is that with her dead weight on them, I think it would have been nigh on impossible to lift up those layers of skirts and tight fitting coat to above her waist. Much better for him if they were already there. He couldn't afford to waste precious minutes struggling to get all those layers up.

I think he used more of less the same MO on Annie and Kate, although their clothes need not have been raised before hand as they were looser fitting, and he may well have used a similar method on Liz, without the follow up mutilations.

With Mary, we have real problems, because there are so many possibilities and variables. All we can say for certain is that he subdued her without making any apparent noise or struggle, and she had her throat cut whilst her head was at the top far side of the bed. I honestly don't think we can narrow it down any more than that. But if he'd used the same MO so successfully before, then he may well have stuck to it. One guess is as good as another though, because we just don't have enough evidence to be more certain.

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[GregBaron]

Chokeholds etc..........

Thanks for that stranglehold link Jane, this helps clarify what for
me had been a mystery. I knew actual strangulation to death would
bring blood from the throat and all kinds of horrors to the face,
not to mention it takes some time....I couldn't understand how Jack
silently and submissively got his victims to the ground(sans chloroform)
where he offed them......As to logistics, I suppose the two could have
been walking to their dark destination with Jack having his arm around
the girl as one might a sweetheart...from here it's a quick move to pull
the arm across and form the pressure triangle on the throat...this seems a
bit amorous though for a prostitute/punter scenario....not to get
vulgar here but perhaps sex from behind was what JtR proposed and once
in this position the chokehold is easily administered.....he can then
lie her on the ground and proceed to whatever position is most comfortable
and will avoid the arterial spray for the throat cutting....Again, to me
there are inferences here.....as mentioned, Jack knew how to kill, he
apparently knew a chokehold, he knew how to avoid alot of blood stains
probably, he knew how to escape unseen...........this suggests something
other than a docksmen, laborer, even butcher background.......perhaps he
learned such things from books or police or military acquaintances but
judging by his success, it seems he had done such things before....at least
the chokehold.........hmmmmm.......do sailors learn such things.......?


Greg