Mary Jane and Blotchy

[Wickerman]

I don't think the position of the bed or her body would allow him to reach from behind though, would it? My understanding is that the head of the bed was up against the wall, so there's no space for an attack from that angle.

Hi Jeff.
Some years ago, I think it was Debs who spotted a detail, or at least was the one who raised it that I recall.
In the 'body-on-the-bed photo we can see a horizontal line extending from what appears to be a sealed up door panel, towards the right side across the top of the headboard. From this horizontal line we can see what looks like 3 panels, possibly wainscotting?
If we're correct, the headboard was some distance (2 ft?) from the corner of the room.
However, there is a sketch in the press that shows a washbasin in that location, behind the headboard.
Not to suggest any of those press sketches can be relied on, but this one is consistent with the photograph, that the bed is some distance away from the wall behind the headboard.

And if that's the case, it seems quite possible that when she was attacked he could have been on top of her, say sitting on top of her, holding her arms down with his legs, left hand over her mouth, and using his right hand to cut her throat type of thing. I'm thinking of the attack starting just after her killer gets up to get dressed type of thing (at which point he would be able to access his knife, and she's not going to notice what he's doing until it is too late, particularly if she's half asleep due to booze and the late hour, etc).

What you offer above would also be consistent with her being face down, the killer up on her back behind her, which is how I think the attack began.
He pulls her head up off the pillow by the hair,, then slices her throat from L-R, he is right-handed, as was the case with the previous victims.
Following this attack he rolls her over onto her back, she is now central on the bed. He begins his mutilations. This is the position in which she was found.

Anyway, I'm not saying that is what had to happen, only that there are situations that allow for a right-handed attacker. Something like the above doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but perhaps I'm overlooking something.

- Jeff

Agreed.

[Wickerman]

Its simply of matter of the physical realities Wick. She is first cut while one her side facing the wall on the right hand side of the bed.

I did read your previous post where you decided she was on her right side facing the wall, whereas no medical opinion offered that position. She was found face-up on her back, and positioned roughly central on the bed. Neither Phillips nor Bond concluded she was on her right side, so lets be fair from the start. Your conclusion as to how you think she was murdered depends on her being in the position you placed her in.
It is not a 'reality' for those who read the evidence carefully, but it may be your 'reality'.

She was cut about the throat while positioned against the partition wall, whether on her back, right-side, or face down was unknown to the authorities. All they could deduce is, she had been moved after her throat was cut.

Arterial blood flow on the wall. Phillips..."The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner."

Agreed, and his conclusion about "the right carotid artery" was purely based on her being found on her back.
Phillips knew the body had been moved, but he assumed she was on her back all the time and merely pulled away from the partition, not rolled over.
Phillips concluded her right-side must have been against the partition, as she was on her back, ergo her throat was cut on the right-side..

Its also on record that the cut was made from right side of the throat to the left.

Actually, it is not.
In his final report to Anderson, Dr. Bond wrote:
"....in the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right. In the last case owing to the extensive mutilation it is impossible to say in what direction the fatal cut was made....."

Ergo, the most logical and probable answer is that he used his left hand with the knife, reached across her throat from behind, and pulled it back towards him.

Unfortunately, as we can see, your logical deduction is based on incorrect assumptions.

[JeffHamm]

Its simply of matter of the physical realities Wick. She is first cut while one her side facing the wall on the right hand side of the bed. Arterial blood flow on the wall. Phillips..."The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner."

Its also on record that the cut was made from right side of the throat to the left. Ergo, the most logical and probable answer is that he used his left hand with the knife, reached across her throat from behind, and pulled it back towards him.

I don't think the position of the bed or her body would allow him to reach from behind though, would it? My understanding is that the head of the bed was up against the wall, so there's no space for an attack from that angle. With her far to the right side of the bed at the time of the attack, as you outline, that sounds more like she was sharing the bed with her killer. And if that's the case, it seems quite possible that when she was attacked he could have been on top of her, say sitting on top of her, holding her arms down with his legs, left hand over her mouth, and using his right hand to cut her throat type of thing. I'm thinking of the attack starting just after her killer gets up to get dressed type of thing (at which point he would be able to access his knife, and she's not going to notice what he's doing until it is too late, particularly if she's half asleep due to booze and the late hour, etc).

Anyway, I'm not saying that is what had to happen, only that there are situations that allow for a right-handed attacker. Something like the above doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but perhaps I'm overlooking something.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Would you mind listing those physicians who think the killer was left-handed?

Its simply of matter of the physical realities Wick. She is first cut while one her side facing the wall on the right hand side of the bed. Arterial blood flow on the wall. Phillips..."The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner."

Its also on record that the cut was made from right side of the throat to the left. Ergo, the most logical and probable answer is that he used his left hand with the knife, reached across her throat from behind, and pulled it back towards him.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'll tell you why, because you don't have the twisted mind of the type of person who chooses to do this.

The Ripper wasn't a knife wielding maniac, he was a strangler first and foremost. The knife was to enable a swift dispatch so he can then satisfy his lust for mutilation.
It is precisely the position you describe that lends itself to suit his purpose. Not many posters here seem to be aware that anal sex was the most common routine, they toss up their skirt at the back and face a wall.

For a strangler, it isn't the kill that gains them the thrill, it's holding someone's life in your hands as they gasp while you squeeze their throat; gasping, gurgling, they feel like their head is going to explode, then he lets go, while they take a breath, then grasps her tightly again, he's watching the tears run down her cheek as she slips towards unconsciousness.
It's that feeling of power where they get their thrill.
The victim isn't dead, he knows that, if she comes around she might be able to describe him, so he brings the knife to swiftly end her life. Then chooses an organ as a trophy. A piece of clothing isn't personal enough, most of them wore second or third-hand clothing anyway. He chose an organ, you can't get more personal than that.

So you are now an expert on the criminal behaviour of serial killers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

I don't have an opinion when it comes to medical matters and so I leave that to the experts, but I do have an opinion when it comes to how these victims were murdered.

It seems that the victims accompanied the killer to these secluded locations for what seems to have been for sex, with that in mind the killer would have to have the victims at ease in a vulnerable position which in the case of Chapam could have resulted in her facing the fence with her back to the killer. With that in mind, I fail to see what purpose there would be for the killer to strangle her first when he could have simply unbeknown to the victim produced his knife and simply cut her throat from behind in which case she would not have had the opportunity to cry out, fight him off, and not risk any blood being transferred to his clothing.

I'll tell you why, because you don't have the twisted mind of the type of person who chooses to do this.

The Ripper wasn't a knife wielding maniac, he was a strangler first and foremost. The knife was to enable a swift dispatch so he can then satisfy his lust for mutilation.
It is precisely the position you describe that lends itself to suit his purpose. Not many posters here seem to be aware that anal sex was the most common routine, they toss up their skirt at the back and face a wall.

For a strangler, it isn't the kill that gains them the thrill, it's holding someone's life in your hands as they gasp while you squeeze their throat; gasping, gurgling, they feel like their head is going to explode, then he lets go, while they take a breath, then grasps her tightly again, he's watching the tears run down her cheek as she slips towards unconsciousness.
It's that feeling of power where they get their thrill.
The victim isn't dead, he knows that, if she comes around she might be able to describe him, so he brings the knife to swiftly end her life. Then chooses an organ as a trophy. A piece of clothing isn't personal enough, most of them wore second or third-hand clothing anyway. He chose an organ, you can't get more personal than that.

[Trevor Marriott]

You're kidding, right?
You're trying to wind me up?

Listen, I know my memory isn't what it used to be, but clearly it is better than yours.
Go back to post #89, its the one where you injected yourself into a conversation, not a problem, everyone is always welcome. But, you jumped in on an exchange I was having with P.I., take a look at post #84. P.I. made the same mistake you have just made.

This issue began with post #77 where P.I. asked "is there any evidence of strangulation?"

To which I replied that there was, and subsequently gave several factual observations that are consistent with suffocation/strangulation.
This was the conclusion of Dr Phillips who had authority over the post-mortems of Chapman & Kelly.

Once P.I.'s interpretation was challenged, he returns with "where's your proof?".
All of a sudden "any evidence" turns to "proof", like yourself you suddenly reach for the "proof" card when your opinion is challenged.
It's a shame "proof" was not your principal focus when you wrote your suspect book.

There were several points of evidence which lead Dr. Phillips to conclude that Chapman had been strangled.
As much as you might not like it, you can't change the fact.

Ever heard of James Cameron & Francis Camps, two Pathologists from the 60's, or thereabouts?
They separately concluded the Ripper had strangled his victims before using the knife. It was a radical proposal for the time, but modern sexual serial murderers now most frequently strangle their victims first.
Isn't it funny how Pathologists have no trouble recognizing the evidence that suggests strangulation, yet modern theorists, presumably with no particular training in that field seem to struggle to accept the facts.
Perhaps if 'we' listen to those who are trained in the field more often, 'we' will not waste our time inventing theories to contest the obvious?

I don't have an opinion when it comes to medical matters and so I leave that to the experts, but I do have an opinion when it comes to how these victims were murdered.

It seems that the victims accompanied the killer to these secluded locations for what seems to have been for sex, with that in mind the killer would have to have the victims at ease in a vulnerable position which in the case of Chapam could have resulted in her facing the fence with her back to the killer. With that in mind, I fail to see what purpose there would be for the killer to strangle her first when he could have simply unbeknown to the victim produced his knife and simply cut her throat from behind in which case she would not have had the opportunity to cry out, fight him off, and not risk any blood being transferred to his clothing.

whereas cutting her throat from behind with one hand and holding his free hand over her mouth to me is a far better option

Furthermore, if he had strangled her what would the point be in then cutting her throat if he was organ harvesting? These murders were nothing more than murder and mutilations.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Seems a lot of folks dont realize that there is no need for her to have been choked. She was on her right side, facing the partition wall, likely asleep or about to be, and someone slid a knife across her throat, right to left...in other words pulled towards the killer. That is a very clear indication of 2 things. Her killer was in her room with her permission, she wouldnt have flipped on her side, scootched over to the right side of the bed, if he wasnt known to her. And secondly, its almost assured her was left handed. Look at the other crimes, see clear evidence of left handed work? See evidence from the professionals that thought he was left handed?

Rhetorical of course, this is the only one of the group that has that kind of evidence regarding a dominant left hand. And dont both pulling out the ambi argument...around 1% of any given population is truly ambi.

Would you mind listing those physicians who think the killer was left-handed?

[Wickerman]

There is no issue to side step the onus is on you to prove that she was strangled before having her throat cut

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You're kidding, right?
You're trying to wind me up?

Listen, I know my memory isn't what it used to be, but clearly it is better than yours.
Go back to post #89, its the one where you injected yourself into a conversation, not a problem, everyone is always welcome. But, you jumped in on an exchange I was having with P.I., take a look at post #84. P.I. made the same mistake you have just made.

This issue began with post #77 where P.I. asked "is there any evidence of strangulation?"

To which I replied that there was, and subsequently gave several factual observations that are consistent with suffocation/strangulation.
This was the conclusion of Dr Phillips who had authority over the post-mortems of Chapman & Kelly.

Once P.I.'s interpretation was challenged, he returns with "where's your proof?".
All of a sudden "any evidence" turns to "proof", like yourself you suddenly reach for the "proof" card when your opinion is challenged.
It's a shame "proof" was not your principal focus when you wrote your suspect book.

There were several points of evidence which lead Dr. Phillips to conclude that Chapman had been strangled.
As much as you might not like it, you can't change the fact.

Ever heard of James Cameron & Francis Camps, two Pathologists from the 60's, or thereabouts?
They separately concluded the Ripper had strangled his victims before using the knife. It was a radical proposal for the time, but modern sexual serial murderers now most frequently strangle their victims first.
Isn't it funny how Pathologists have no trouble recognizing the evidence that suggests strangulation, yet modern theorists, presumably with no particular training in that field seem to struggle to accept the facts.
Perhaps if 'we' listen to those who are trained in the field more often, 'we' will not waste our time inventing theories to contest the obvious?

[Michael W Richards]

Seems a lot of folks dont realize that there is no need for her to have been choked. She was on her right side, facing the partition wall, likely asleep or about to be, and someone slid a knife across her throat, right to left...in other words pulled towards the killer. That is a very clear indication of 2 things. Her killer was in her room with her permission, she wouldnt have flipped on her side, scootched over to the right side of the bed, if he wasnt known to her. And secondly, its almost assured her was left handed. Look at the other crimes, see clear evidence of left handed work? See evidence from the professionals that thought he was left handed?

Rhetorical of course, this is the only one of the group that has that kind of evidence regarding a dominant left hand. And dont both pulling out the ambi argument...around 1% of any given population is truly ambi.

[Michael W Richards]

I agree - I think - inasmuch as if she was "drunk" at 12.30am she can't have been "sober" at 2am. Similarly, if she was "sober" at 2am she can't have been all that "drunk" at 12.30am. IMHO the fact that she was on the streets at 2am means she wasn't seriously drunk at midnight.

I used to find, with drink drivers, that they lost about 8 microgrammes per 100 ml of breath every hour. Someone who was double the legal limit for driving in England would take between 4 and 5 hours to drop below the limit.

I agree with very little of the above....yes, if she arrived home very drunk at 11:45 Thursday night, she wasnt sober at 2am. Maybe thats why all noise had ceased and the room was dark before 1:30am, she likely went to bed with Blotchy or passed out.

There is no witness who said they saw Mary out after that time that has any secondary verification.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nicely side-stepping the issue once again?

There is no issue to side step the onus is on you to prove that she was strangled before having her throat cut

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

So on that basis there is no definite proof that she was strangled?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nicely side-stepping the issue once again?

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh, and to be precise, Dr Phillips suggested these were the ordinary signs of suffocation/strangulation. He made no declaration that these criteria offered 'proof' of strangulation. Likely Dr Biggs will explain to you that doctors in general rarely entertain the notion of 'proof', that is an issue for lawyers not doctors.

So on that basis there is no definite proof that she was strangled?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

The report you quoted is from a newspaper not local to London and published 3 months after the inquest and is in direct conflict with the Times and The Telegraph who published the inquest testimony at the time.

The newspaper I quoted from was the LONDON Star, of 24 Dec. 1888. Load up the page:

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881224.html

See the top left corner of the page - Star (London).

What do you mean "in direct conflict"?, the inquest coverage in the Times is not the same as that published in the Telegraph, so all three are different.
Also, both the Times and the Daily Telegraph mention suffocation and partial strangulation as a conclusion after analyzing various injuries. There were bruises on the neck, a swollen face, the protruding tongue, turgid lips & finger nails,

Just for clarity, I will speak to Dr Biggs on this matter

Good, and while you are with him why don't you ask him the same question you posted in post 89?, just a little more accurate.

Originally you only mentioned two criteria (bruises on neck, protruding tongue), whereas Dr Phillips mentions five criteria; bruises on neck, swollen face, protruding tongue, turgid finger nails & lips, black blood in brain.

Quote: When Dr. Phillips was called to see the body he found that the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The face was swollen, the finger-nails and lips were turgid, and in the brain, on the head being opened, he found the membranes opaque and the veins and tissues loaded with black blood. All these appearances are the ordinary signs of suffocation.

In obtaining any modern medical opinion we must ensure the source is presented with all the information we have, otherwise the subsequent opinion has little value.

Oh, and to be precise, Dr Phillips suggested these were the ordinary signs of suffocation/strangulation. He made no declaration that these criteria offered 'proof' of strangulation. Likely Dr Biggs will explain to you that doctors in general rarely entertain the notion of 'proof', that is an issue for lawyers not doctors.