The burnt clothing

[Garry Wroe]

Knowing how these tenents came and went, anyone could have seen a light in Kelly's room and tried the door. Finding it locked? could have reached through the broken window turning back the curtain/coat and gasped, "Oh, murder!".

I think it overwhelmingly probable, Jon, that the cry of ‘Murder!’ emanated from Mary Jane herself. The night in question was cold, wet and windy, meaning that very few people were out on the streets. Likewise, had the cry been emitted outdoors from within the court, it would surely have been heard by Mrs Cox who, by her own admission, was awake throughout the entirety of the night. And since there is no evidence of an unrelated ‘domestic’ occurring within the court at the relevant time, it must be considered a near-certainty that the cry signalled the onset of the Miller’s Court murder.

[Robert]

Hi Garry

I agree that it was Kelly uttering the cry. But you said earlier that the room was a trap that the killer would not have wanted to be cornered in. Then you say that very few people were out on the streets because of the weather.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"had the cry been emitted outdoors from within the court, it would surely have been heard by Mrs Cox who, by her own admission, was awake throughout the entirety of the night."

Prater said that the cry, a faint one by her account, seemed to come from the court, whereas Lewis said that it was a loud cry, as if at the door of the Keylers. But Cox, she said she heard no such outcry at all...?

So the cry seemingly WAS emitted in the court, and if we are to believe Lewis, it was even a loud one. So why did not Cox hear it?

It can also be noted that Prater stated that crying "Murder!" was nothing much out of the ordinary in the neighbourhood. I agree, as you will know, that we are speaking of empty streets, more or less, but that is only more or less - it cannot be ruled out that somebody passing through the street did the shouting. If it happened right outside the passageway into the court, it would have travelled into it. And, if we are to rely on the inquest proceedings as recorded in the Times, we may not have to turn to the streets at all, for in these proceedings, Prater is quoted as saying that "she did not take much notice of it, however, as they were continually hearing cries of murder in the court." To me, that implies that stating that it is "overwhelmingly probable" that Kelly did the shouting may be too optimistic a bid.

As for the discrepancy inbetween Lewis´"loud" outcry and Praters "faint" one, I think it is reasonable to suggest that Prater was only just surfacing from the depths of sleep, and so she may have been hearing it all in a haze. It is much more troublesome to imagine Lewis having had the cry magically amplified. But if this is correct, then, once again, why did not the sleepless Cox hear a loud outcry, apparently from inside the court?

Maybe she was NOT awake through the night? That is one possibility. But another one is that there never even was any outcry, in spite of the suggested corroboration inbetween Prater and Lewis; as the people from the court woke that morning and Kelly´s fate was found out, there will have been a lot of discussions and rumours flying about, so what seems like a watertight corroboration may be something else altogether. It has been suggested before on these boards.

Whichever way we look upon this, we are left with built-in logical flaws on a major scale, and, consequentially, making deductions bordering on near-certainties from it may perhaps be unwise. At least that is how I see it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

… it's not much a of a stretch to envisage that JTR made a point of targetting a woman with her own place in order to indulge his desires, particularly if he killed Stride and was disturbed, and was then moments away from being caught with Eddowes.

I’m unsure as to why you assume that the killer came close to capture at Mitre Square, FM. He certainly had the time to inflict a series of delicate cuts to Kate’s face and liberate a portion of her apron. Such behaviour is hardly consistent with a man fleeing from the scene of crime. As for the Stride killing, I regard it on an evidential basis as unrelated to the Ripper series and therefore meaningless in context of understanding the killer’s underlying motivations.

Although I take your point concerning Kelly, I nevertheless maintain that everything about this killing suggests an element of knowledge on the part of the killer regarding Kelly’s domestic situation – and he didn’t come by this by looking her up in a trade directory.

… it follows that Kelly need not have been known to him, just another prostitute he'd picked up, only this time with a place for privacy.

Picked up when, though, FM? If prior to 9 November we have a pre-existing relationship. If not, then Kelly must have gone out in search of business after Blotchy’s departure. But the only evidence supportive of such a contention comes to us courtesy of the demonstrably spurious accounts of George Hutchinson – a witness who came to be discredited by the police.

If Hutchinson is factored out of the equation the facts become eminently straightforward. Kelly took Blotchy home shortly before midnight, shared his beer, then retired to bed for the night. That Blotchy was not the killer is borne out by the reality that he allowed Mrs Cox to view his face. Thus it is likely that he went on his way at some point before 3:30am, leaving Mary Jane alone and sleeping on the bed. Since it is probable that she was killed between 3:30 and 4:00am, it naturally follows that the killer either called on her in the guise of a friend or punter, or simply let himself into the room. Whichever way one looks at it, however, there must have been prior knowledge on the part of the killer.

[Fisherman]

A few more points, Garry, though this post was directed to Fleetwood M and not to me:

"a series of delicate cuts to Kate’s face"

Delicate? I don´t see that, unless you call removing the nose "delicate".

"As for the Stride killing, I regard it on an evidential basis as unrelated to the Ripper series"

Heureka!

"That Blotchy was not the killer is borne out by the reality that he allowed Mrs Cox to view his face."

He had entered the court with Kelly. What was he to do when Cox surfaced? Pull his coat over his head? THAT would have looked very suspicious!

Joking aside, I don´t think this holds water. Many a serial killer have shown their faces. And the Church passage man did, remember! Not that we have any certainty that he was the killer, but I certainly don´t rule him out on account of his showing his face.

"Whichever way one looks at it, however, there must have been prior knowledge on the part of the killer."

No "must" involved - but I think you are right.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. I´ll be off the boards for some time, but I´ll check in again later!

[jason_c]

The killer was safer in Kelly's room than he had been when killing outside. Dont just take my word for it, take JtR's actions as proof of this. He spent far longer with Kelly than he had with any other victim. This suggests he felt safer inside.

One of the reasons he'd feel safe is he could reasonably assume he would not be disturbed. Kelly was a prostitute, it was in her interests not to be disturbed when with clients. Otherwise she'd have no repeat customers.

[Garry Wroe]

"had the cry been emitted outdoors from within the court, it would surely have been heard by Mrs Cox who, by her own admission, was awake throughout the entirety of the night."

Prater said that the cry, a faint one by her account, seemed to come from the court, whereas Lewis said that it was a loud cry, as if at the door of the Keylers. But Cox, she said she heard no such outcry at all...?

It rather depends upon ones sources, Fish. Sarah Lewis was quoted as saying that the cry emanated from close by, seemingly from the direction of Mary Jane’s room. Be this as it may, the anomaly over the volume of the cry is easily rationalized when one remembers that the Keylers’ accommodation overlooked Mary Jane’s room. Mrs Prater’s room, on the other hand, was on the Dorset Street side of the building and looked out on to Crossingham’s/the Commercial Chambers. So not only was Sarah Lewis closer to Kelly’s room, she was closer to the broken window panes which allowed the cry to filter out into the courtyard. It should come as no great surprise, therefore, that the cry was more audible to Lewis than it was to Prater.

And Mrs Cox?

I tend to think that she drifted in and out of sleep without even realizing it.

Maybe she [Mrs Cox] was NOT awake through the night? That is one possibility. But another one is that there never even was any outcry, in spite of the suggested corroboration inbetween Prater and Lewis; as the people from the court woke that morning and Kelly´s fate was found out, there will have been a lot of discussions and rumours flying about, so what seems like a watertight corroboration may be something else altogether. It has been suggested before on these boards.

Indeed it has, Fish. But if Lewis and Prater were in communication on the morning of the murder and somehow fabricated the cry of alarm, it stands to reason that they also spoke to Cox and learned of Kelly’s midnight dalliance with Blotchy. Given these circumstances, it would almost certainly have been assumed that Blotchy was the killer and that he despatched Mary Jane shortly after her candle was snuffed out at one o’clock. How strange, then, that both women placed the cry within fifteen or twenty minutes of a quarter to four. Stranger still that this timing accords remarkably well with Kelly’s likely time of death – a timing that was yet to be established when police questioned Kelly’s neighbours on the morning of the murder.

So I don’t buy into the fabrication theory, I’m afraid, Fish. Sometimes the evidence speaks for itself.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Garry

I agree that it was Kelly uttering the cry. But you said earlier that the room was a trap that the killer would not have wanted to be cornered in. Then you say that very few people were out on the streets because of the weather.

The point, Robert, is that if Kelly and her killer had been unknown to one another, he would have had no idea if he was going to be disturbed by a friend, fellow prostitute, boyfriend, husband or pimp - despite any assurances Kelly may have given him to the contrary. It is for this reason, I believe, that the crime occurred as late as it did. Quite simply, the killer waited until such time as he felt it unlikely that he would be interrupted.

[Robert]

Hi Garry

The only way for him to make sure that there was no one in the room, would have been for him to have hung around outside the court checking on who went in and came out. This would have involved standing around in the rain for hours. Are you suggesting that he had a personal motive for killing Kelly, or simply that he wanted to commit a murder indoors?

[Garry Wroe]

"a series of delicate cuts to Kate’s face"

Delicate? I don´t see that, unless you call removing the nose "delicate".

Here’s a passage from my book, Fish. ‘Each lower eyelid had been carefully nicked with a downward motion of the knife, below which, into both cheeks, the killer had carved an inverted ‘V’. Another curiously delicate cut ran horizontally for half an inch between the left eyelid and eyebrow.’

"That Blotchy was not the killer is borne out by the reality that he allowed Mrs Cox to view his face."

He had entered the court with Kelly. What was he to do when Cox surfaced? Pull his coat over his head? THAT would have looked very suspicious!

Surely, Fish, you aren’t suggesting that an offender as savvy as Jack the Ripper would have allowed himself to be seen at close quarters whilst entering what was soon to become a crime scene?

Many a serial killer have shown their faces. And the Church passage man did, remember!

And many a serialist has abandoned operations when the risks outweighed any potential reward. As for the Lawende sighting, this took place at distance and under poor lighting conditions. As such, it bears little comparison to the Cox and Blotchy encounter.

"Whichever way one looks at it, however, there must have been prior knowledge on the part of the killer."

No "must" involved - but I think you are right.

And I think you’re right in thinking that I’m right.

[Stephen Thomas]

Mrs Prater’s room, on the other hand, was on the Dorset Street side of the building and looked out on to Crossingham’s

Psssst, Garry

Yes , the weight of current information conclusively shows that this was the case (Crossinghams light shone through her front window and was turned off at 3am) but there are loads of people here that just don't seem to want to get it.

[Garry Wroe]

Cheers, Stephen. I believe that there is a plan of the building here on site. Perhaps I should dig it up.

Thanks once again.

[Garry Wroe]

The only way for him to make sure that there was no one in the room, would have been for him to have hung around outside the court checking on who went in and came out. This would have involved standing around in the rain for hours.

If he was familiar with Kelly’s domestic circumstances, Robert, he could have entered Dorset Street at 3:30am, walked down the court, listened at the window for any movement from within Kelly’s room, and then, if satisfied that all was well, reached through the broken pane and eased back the coat that covered the window. Had this revealed Kelly to be alone and sleeping, he could have let himself into the room and set about his business.

There are other, equally plausible scenarios, of course. Under this one, however, there was no requirement for the killer to hang about for hours on end, exposing himself not only to the belligerent weather conditions, but also the possibility of being seen by a casual passer-by.

Are you suggesting that he had a personal motive for killing Kelly, or simply that he wanted to commit a murder indoors?

I consider it most likely that he craved the time and privacy to embark upon the total destruction of a woman. Unfortunately for Mary Jane, she represented the ideal victim, living as she did alone and in a private room.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"It rather depends upon ones sources, Fish."

It always does. But no matter what sources we use, it would seem that we end up with a loudish outcry in the court as recorded by Lewis, and since you said that any cry from within that court would have been picked up on by Cox, being awake all night, I thought I would point to the problems involved with such a scenario. But as you now write that "I tend to think that she drifted in and out of sleep without even realizing it", you by and large agree with me and that particular problem is thus dispelled!

"if Lewis and Prater were in communication on the morning of the murder and somehow fabricated the cry of alarm, it stands to reason that they also spoke to Cox and learned of Kelly’s midnight dalliance with Blotchy."

Maybe. And maybe not. It is not as if we must assume that all parties spoke to all other parties present. Some people are friends, some are not. Some are enemies. You speak to some and not to others.

"Given these circumstances, it would almost certainly have been assumed that Blotchy was the killer and that he despatched Mary Jane shortly after her candle was snuffed out at one o’clock."

Given those circumstances, yes. Not given - different story.

"How strange, then, that both women placed the cry within fifteen or twenty minutes of a quarter to four."

Not if one of the women picked up on the other one, and had no conversation with Cox. Then we would have a very logical outcome.

"Stranger still that this timing accords remarkably well with Kelly’s likely time of death – a timing that was yet to be established when police questioned Kelly’s neighbours on the morning of the murder."

It remains to be established to this day, Garry! We have a span of a good many hours that cannot be ruled out.

At the end of the day, however, it remains an educated guess that Prater and Lewis were both truthful, that somebody cried "Murder" at around 3.30 - 4 AM, and that Cox enjoyed a bit of a nap at that stage. I am merely pointing to the fact that there is not enough in it all to start speaking of things like near certainties.

"Here’s a passage from my book, Fish. ‘Each lower eyelid had been carefully nicked with a downward motion of the knife, below which, into both cheeks, the killer had carved an inverted ‘V’. Another curiously delicate cut ran horizontally for half an inch between the left eyelid and eyebrow.’"

The inverted V:s are only delicate up to the point where you realize that they were in all probability collateral damage from cutting off the nose. There were two cuts into the bridge of the nose, and it would seem that the first one struck bone, stopping it from travelling through the nose in it´s entirety. I believe that this was when the V:s came about - the knife simultaneously cut into the nose and the cheeks on both sides, but since the bone structure prevented the knife from travelling through the nose, the cuts into the cheeks were also halted, leaving the impression of two V:s. After that, the killer retracted the knife and cut once more a bit lower down on the nasal bridge, and since he found cartilage here, the nose was sliced off.
As for the other damage you speak of, I think there is every chance that this too was collateral damage. If you work from the assumption that the gash on Eddowes´right cheek and up over the nasal bridge was inflicted by drawing the knife from her lower cheek up to the nose, you will see that as it passes the nasal bone, it will travel out over the valley formed by the deeply set eyesocket. If the cut was followed through, the next place it would have come into contact with the face would have been the very area where the "delicate" wound is present - on the raised area under the eyebrow.

The theory that the V.s were collateral damage was presented on the boards by Jon Smythe (Wickerman) in a very convincing manner some year or two ago. The link http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1338&page=7 will show you Jon´s excellent post on it. I think he is spot on. Just like you say, sometimes evidence speaks for itself.

"Surely, Fish, you aren’t suggesting that an offender as savvy as Jack the Ripper would have allowed himself to be seen at close quarters whilst entering what was soon to become a crime scene? "

I am suggesting a whole lot of things, actually, one of them being that we do not know how "savvy" Jack was. But I DO know that killers that have proven themselves quite "savvy", like Ted Bundy for example, have shown their faces to potential witnesses.

"As for the Lawende sighting, this took place at distance and under poor lighting conditions. As such, it bears little comparison to the Cox and Blotchy encounter."

All cases are different from all other cases, and it can always be argued that the differences make for better or worse comparisons. But I don´t think that killers who are very cautious about showing their faces are quite content to do it anyway, as long as the lux level is below a certain number. To me, it´s either or. And in most cases, it´s either. Since the conditions allowed Lawende to speak of the man´s complexion, pointing out that he had a fair moustache and a red hanky round his neck, we must realize that any truly careful killer would have preferred if the observation had never been made. And it is not as if this could not have been accomplished - the Church Passage man could at any moment have turned away, grabbed Eddowes round her shoulders, said "come along, dear" and walked down the passage. He could have done so as the door to the club opened. Still he chose not to do so, once again leaving us with evidence that speaks for itself, if I may once more lend your words: He did not care.

We also need to couple our knowledge of modern serial killers to all of this. We know full well that many of them have witnessed about an ever rising feeling of invincibility, a feeling that whatever they do and however they do it, they are going to get away with it. This may well have played a role both for Bundy and the Ripper. Once these guys are caught, some of them say "I got sloppy", but that sloppiness seems often to derive from a feeling that they can actually afford sloppiness or whatever else they want to try, since they will stay out of harm´s way anyhow.


The best,
Fisherman

[GregBaron]

Occupied Signal....

Hi all,

I've been off the boards for many months as life rather rudely got in the way. I'm a nobody but only an interested amateur who sometimes injects silly comments...Well I guess I'm about to do it again..anyway...through all this discussion of burning clothes and melting kettles and light and warmth etc... it occurred to me that perhaps Mary and other ladies of the night had a signal that meant 'leave me alone I'm doing business'. I wondered if keeping a fire or light on scenario might mean stay away I'm servicing at the moment. My guess is probably not as warmth and drying were also often needed as discussed...but maybe there was some other signal? I would think even in these squalid conditions, no one would want to walk in or be walked in on while performing unspeakable deeds. Maybe JTR knew the signal for occupied and took advantage. With this same thought in mind maybe dark and quiet meant 'I'm sleeping now' which for JTR meant the perfect time to sneak in and attack. Once there, light the fire to indicate 'Occupied' to keep other blokes from attempting early morning sojourns. Just a thought. I wonder if anyone has any ideas about trying to maintain some privacy while doing the dirty deed and if perhaps JTR, through his stalking, knew the signal
and took full advantage..........?



Greg