What body mechanics did Jack the Ripper employ while deconstructing Mary Kelly?

[kensei]

I've been away from the board for a while but was just perusing and caught this question, which is something I've always had some strong thoughts about, though Errata beat me to what I was going to say about how much blood the Ripper would have had on him. I too think that he would have been undressed or at least shirtless while he did his work, both to keep his clothes clean and for sexual titilation, and that he built the fire mostly for warmth so he could be unclothed on a cold November night. He could have even rubbed the blood all over himself if he wanted, then covered up with his shirt and coat when he left with Mary's heart in his pocket. He had the privacy and the time with her that he had always wanted, so he could do things he'd wished he could have done to all the other victims but just couldn't. The way Mary was placed on the bed right up to the headboard makes me think of the way her severed breast was found under her head, and the scene in the "From Hell" graphic novel where the Ripper places it there as he says "Pillow for you." Which, in turn, always makes me feel like I need a shower just for thinking about it.

It's always seemed weird to me that Mary was dressed for bed, her day clothes neatly folded. It really does seem that she was ok with her killer spending the night. Either that, or he knocked on the door after she'd retired for the night or as she was about to and she let him in. Then again there is the question of just how drunk she was. If she was completely blotto then he could have easily manipulated her into doing virtually anything. She may even have passed out while they were interacting. Might he even have undressed her after she passed out and put her chemise on her as part of his fantasy before he killed her? The questions are many, and unanswerable.

[GUT]

G'Day C4

Hello Gut,

There was the large pool of blood under the bed, by the wall, which apparently came from the throat-cutting, but the pieces of flesh which were cut off would have "bled" to a certain extent, just as (horrible analogy) you get blood from pieces of meat from the butcher or the supermarket.

Best wishes,
C4

No argument from me there.

[Elenahoyos66]

I think it is fairly obvious that he killed her while she lay on her back.

He most likely threw the sheet over her head, very quickly, and cut into her throat. She may have had enough time to offer him a struggle of some sort.

I've always been of the opinion that he thrust her face down, holding her either by the face or throat, very hard, and killing her that way.

This is a strong and well built man. It doesn't take much to subdue a drunk woman; even a woman who was reputedly built with some meat on her bones.

He surprised her.

Now, as for the mutilations? I feel it is safe to assume they were done when she was lying on the bed and he was above her. He may have moved the body; the legs and such. The arms were clearly placed.

Why do people look for things that are already clearly evident I do not know.

Damn. . .

[curious4]

Sheet

Hello El,

This does rather beg the question why would he/she handicap himself/herself by covering the part he/she wanted to get at first. His/her usual method was to choke his/her victims into unconsciousness before cutting their throats. It seems to me that in this case his/her plan was to cut her throat while she was sleeping, but that she woke up.

Actually, I have been reliably informed that a woman would not be strong enough to carry out the mutilations on Mary, but am feeling feministic today. And who knows?

Alo good wishes,
C4

[Hunter]

...Why do people look for things that are already clearly evident I do not know.

Damn. . .

Welcome to the world of Ripperology.
Now, what are you going to do since your post made perfectly good sense?

[Dr. John Watson]

Interesting thread, although the method of dissection has been discussed before, I think. For what it's worth, I believe Mary was first strangled and then had her throat cut while she was positioned diagonally on the bed, face up, with her head near the left top corner, accounting for the large amount of blood found beneath that spot. Jack then repositioned her more toward the center of the bed for easier access to the body. I think it possible, even likely, that Jack kneeled astride the body when he began carving. He may well have removed some or all of his clothing during this procedure, leaving no outward staining to give him away in his escape. Incidentally, once the heart stops beating, the body doesn't really hemorrhage anymore. There may be some seepage from wounds, but not in any great quantity.

John

[curious4]

Please argue...

I think it is fairly obvious that he killed her while she lay on her back.

He most likely threw the sheet over her head, very quickly, and cut into her throat. She may have had enough time to offer him a struggle of some sort.

I've always been of the opinion that he thrust her face down, holding her either by the face or throat, very hard, and killing her that way.

This is a strong and well built man. It doesn't take much to subdue a drunk woman; even a woman who was reputedly built with some meat on her bones.

He surprised her.

Now, as for the mutilations? I feel it is safe to assume they were done when she was lying on the bed and he was above her. He may have moved the body; the legs and such. The arms were clearly placed.

Why do people look for things that are already clearly evident I do not know.

Damn. . .

Hello again El,

Do please argue with me. I'd hate to think I'd put you off! There may well have been something which made him pull the sheet over her face - something ritualistic perhaps. With the little evidence we have, we can only go on what seems logical, or in keeping with what we do know - about killers, or the LVP, or Whitechapel at the time.

Best wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

I would imagine that when a coroner says that the cause of death was the severance of the right carotid artery, then he means the right carotid artery, no matter what other damage there may be. If both carotids were severed, there would be no differentiation. If both were severed, one would not be the cause of death and not the other one as well.

Dr Phillips has detailed precisely why he made the foregoing assumption:

I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition, the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the paliasse, pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head & neck in the top right hand corner.

Phillips has assumed she was killed on her back, this assumption coupled with the other details will naturally lead anyone to conclude the right carotid was cut first.
He made no suggestion of direct medical evidence. There is nothing to be gained by trying to imply evidence existed, it didn't. Otherwise Dr Phillips would not have given the circumstantial reasons (above) why he made the assumption and therefore drew the conclusion he did.

[Wickerman]

... Might he even have undressed her after she passed out and put her chemise on her as part of his fantasy before he killed her?

All the Whitechapel victims wore their chemise under their clothes. These Unfortunates wore everything they owned.

[Wickerman]

I think it is fairly obvious that he killed her while she lay on her back.

He most likely threw the sheet over her head....

I've always been of the opinion .....

This is a strong and well built man. .....

So what is the basis for an 'obvious' conclusion, three guesses?

He surprised her.

Now 'that', might be deemed 'obvious'.

[markmorey5]

Possibly she slept in her chemise as a type of nightdress or wore it while having sex. It wasn't so common then to be completely naked during sex, even in brothels. The usual hypthesis is she took a client to her room, she removed her clothes and folded them and placed them on a chair, which would have taken some time given the layers of clothes she wore. Even a woman in poverty wore starting from the bottom layer, drawers tied at the waist, chemise, petticoat, underskirt, skirt, corset, possible corset cover, blouse, vest and in the case of Mary Kelly that night a red pellerine. Her boots would be the lace up and hook type up to her ankles, and it takes a few moments to unhook and loosen the laces. So the killer was patient. As you can see the chemise went under everything except her drawers.

There are a few obvious differences to this murder and the other ripper murders apart from the degree of mutilation. Rather than striking immediately when alone with the victim it took a minimum of several minutes. There was much more blood involved with the throat-cutting than with the other women, the cut was done left-handed if she were laying on her back, but that may have been due to her position relative to the wall and the killer's desire to keep blood away from him, although the ripper was normally able to cut a woman's throat and minutes later slip away, presumably not drenched in blood. The area of the murders was quite concentrated and there were police and vigilantes everywhere, so the ripper had to be capable of slipping away unnoticed.

"The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about two feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed and in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes." (Dr Bond)

"The mutilated remains of a female were lying two-thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest the door. She had only her chemise on, or some underlinen garment. I am sure that the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead that was nearest the wooden partition, because of the large quantity of blood under the bedstead and the saturated condition of the sheet and the palliasse at the corner nearest the partition." (Dr Phillips).

[GUT]

G'Day Mark

So the killer was patient. As you can see the chemise went under everything except her drawers.

He was only patient if he was in the room whilst she disrobed.

[Wickerman]

..... the cut was done left-handed if she were laying on her back, but that may have been due to her position relative to the wall and the killer's desire to keep blood away from him, ..

Correct, there is distinct indications with previous victims that the killer positioned himself on the right side of the victim. Consistent with him being right handed. If Kelly's throat was cut while she was on her back then a right handed man just made an already awkward task more difficult.
Naturally, he is not going to do such a thing.

Also, it has been noticed in previous murders that this killer knows how to position himself when cutting the throat so as not to be in direct path of blood ejected from the arteries. Yet here it is suggested he positioned himself directly in front of her?
That is a contradiction.

If our killer was the same as with the previous murders (right-handed?), and if he conducted this murder the same as with previous murders then, he strangled Kelly, then threw her down, and sliced her throat - away from himself.

The cuts to the bed sheet have been more associated with the facial mutilations, ie; after death, nothing to do with the throat wound for which the killer needs the throat accessible & visible.

[markmorey5]

The differences of Mary Kelly's murder against the other women are why I am inclined to believe that she wasn't murdered by the serial killer known as Jack the Ripper, and her murder was for other reasons and made to superficially look like a ripper murder, probably from information gained by reading newspaper reports.

It was possible that the killer broke into Kelly's room when she was in bed asleep and therefore didn't wait for her to undress, although it was a common practice at the time to wedge a table against the door before retiring, and Kelly had enough tables to do that.

Mary Jane Kelly was not the only young and by all accounts attractive prostitute working in Whitechapel. Far from it. So it is also interesting that the other victims were older but generally considered attractive for their ages, and Mary Kelly was quite different. We can consider that the serial killer was sexually dysfunctional in some form and either a mysoginist who acted his hatred out on prostitutes because they were readily available, or had a specific hatred towards prostitutes for some reason, or had a specific hatred towards middle-aged women for some reason (related to his mother maybe) or had a specific hatred towards middle-aged prostitutes for some reason. That ought to exhaust the list! If we knew his motives then we could rule Kelly in or out.

Subsequent murders attributed to the serial killer return to middle-aged prostitutes, so Kelly is an anomaly. Fortunately in terms of my professional writing I am a writer of fiction, so my story which includes Mary Jane Kelly as one of many characters at a time which was cruel, dark and ugly, doesn't have to answer the unanswerable!

[GUT]

G'Day Mark

We can consider that the serial killer was sexually dysfunctional in some form

But that is only guess work, isn't it. We really don't know what the motive was for any of the murders.