Mary Jane and Blotchy

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Ah, I was completely unaware of that and always understood the bed to be up against the wall. Obviously, if it's not, and there was 2 feet between the head and the wall, then that negates my objection. I stand, or sit, corrected.

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.

Agreed.

Yes, face down works of course. The main point, on which we agree, is that there is nothing to prevent thinking of an attack with JtR on top and in front of her.

- Jeff

[Bridewell]

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.

Hutchinson says he saw, recognised and exchanged words with her. He doesn't allude to her, directly or by inference, as being drunk so it seems reasonable to infer that she wasn't obviously intoxicated to any significant degree. Corroboration is always helpful but I don't subscribe to the view that a witness whose account isn't corroborated must always be seen as unreliable.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson says he saw, recognised and exchanged words with her. He doesn't allude to her, directly or by inference, as being drunk so it seems reasonable to infer that she wasn't obviously intoxicated to any significant degree. Corroboration is always helpful but I don't subscribe to the view that a witness whose account isn't corroborated must always be seen as unreliable.

The unsubstantiated argument is nothing more than a means to try justify an argument. Michael see's it as a weak link so he plays on it over and over again.
The fact is, as you point out, an unsubstantiated statement is no less true than a substantiated one. Each statement should be judged on it's own merits regardless whether any other witnesses came forward or not.
Sorry, of course you know better than anyone....

[Michael W Richards]

Hutchinson says he saw, recognised and exchanged words with her. He doesn't allude to her, directly or by inference, as being drunk so it seems reasonable to infer that she wasn't obviously intoxicated to any significant degree. Corroboration is always helpful but I don't subscribe to the view that a witness whose account isn't corroborated must always be seen as unreliable.

And we know he knew Mary Kelly at all, or had some kind of friendship with her....how?

[Michael W Richards]

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.



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..



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....."



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

Her arterial spray hit the wall, which means she was facing it...not lying on her back, and its plain to everyone, excluding you perhaps, that she was rolled onto her back when the mutilations took place. She is in the middle of the bed when found, not on her right side or on the right side of the bed, as she is when cut. All perfectly compatible with her sleeping on her right side facing the wall.

Now Wick, explain how he used his right hand to make a right to left cut, which is indicated by Bonds analysis "The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes"..when she had her head laying facing the wall?

Hard to believe how illogical people can be. Logic. Reason.Informed opinion...you should try them out bud.

[Michael W Richards]

Hutchinson says he saw, recognised and exchanged words with her. He doesn't allude to her, directly or by inference, as being drunk so it seems reasonable to infer that she wasn't obviously intoxicated to any significant degree. Corroboration is always helpful but I don't subscribe to the view that a witness whose account isn't corroborated must always be seen as unreliable.

I agree with the part in bold Bridewell, but we are talking about comparatives. If I have one witness whose statement is a standalone account vs another which has secondary verification...if those accounts clash in timing or actions witnessed, Im taking the one with secondary verification. In the case of Mary Ann Cox and Elizabeth Prater, I have every confidence they knew Mary and they were near her room that night. The stairs Prater had to take went up on the other side of Marys partition wall, and Mary Ann passed Marys room multiple times that night. For me, they are Credible Witnesses. And neither heard or saw Mary Kelly leave after she had arrived home just before midnight. As for George, my belief is that he came forward with his story because it negated the "accomplice" theory. Why? I dont know yet, but I have some ideas. Some include his mate at the Victorian Working Mens Home..one Daniel Barnett, Joes brother and seen with Mary earlier that week. I think he just used Sarahs sighting details to assume the Wideawake Man role without obstacles.

After waiting 4 full days it would be hard to suggest that he gave his story on Monday night to help police find her killer. Because he was her "friend".

[Wickerman]

Her arterial spray hit the wall, which means she was facing it...not lying on her back, and its plain to everyone,...

No Michael, it doesn't, and it isn't.

........ that she was rolled onto her back when the mutilations took place. She is in the middle of the bed when found, not on her right side or on the right side of the bed, as she is when cut. All perfectly compatible with her sleeping on her right side facing the wall.

These poor Eastenders slept with their clothes on Michael.
The fact she was in her nightdress tells you she was entertaining, she wasn't asleep.
Your completely out of touch with the people of the time.

Now Wick, explain how he used his right hand to make a right to left cut, which is indicated by Bonds analysis "The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes"..when she had her head laying facing the wall?

I already quoted Bond reporting that it was impossible to say if the cuts were L-R or R-L, you can't expect to learn anything Michael if you don't read the replies.

[Wickerman]

I agree with the part in bold Bridewell, but we are talking about comparatives. If I have one witness whose statement is a standalone account vs another which has secondary verification...if those accounts clash in timing or actions witnessed, Im taking the one with secondary verification.

That is not true.
Nothing said by Cox or Prater contests Hutchinsons' story.

In the case of Mary Ann Cox and Elizabeth Prater, I have every confidence they knew Mary and they were near her room that night. The stairs Prater had to take went up on the other side of Marys partition wall, and Mary Ann passed Marys room multiple times that night. For me, they are Credible Witnesses. And neither heard or saw Mary Kelly leave after she had arrived home just before midnight.

Which does not mean she did not leave.
For goodness sakes Michael, Cox was out on the streets from just after 1:00 till 3:00, how could she possibly know if Kelly left her room?
Cox didn't even hear the scream, so she is not a reliable witness. Plus, she lived at the far end of the court.
Cox was the furthest witness from the action. You really know how to pick a poor witness.

The same with Prater, she went directly to bed and slept from 1:30 till 3:30 am, so she would not hear her leave either.
One was asleep and the other was out - this is the best you can do for witnesses?

As for George, my belief is that he came forward with his story because it negated the "accomplice" theory.

You 'believe'?, but you don't know why.....?

After waiting 4 full days it would be hard to suggest that he gave his story on Monday night to help police find her killer. Because he was her "friend".

He didn't claim coming forward "because she was a friend".
A fellow lodger advised him to go to police.
Try stick to the published story Michael.