Her eyes?

[Michael W Richards]

You really think that everything that was done to Annie Chapman was necessary??

You seem to have a very odd way of looking at these murders, Michael. But then your chosen suspect gave you little choice in the matter.

Are you asking my opinion or questioning the comments made by someone trained medically who actually examined her? Its easy to make every comment my own personal opinion so that you can trash talk it, but Phillips saw 4 of the five and was quite capable of making cutting deductions.

[Michael W Richards]

Kelly was a working prostitute when she met Joe Barnett. They shacked up together almost immediately, and he wanted to earn enough so she no longer had to survive that way. What do you think she did to earn her next bite to eat, when Joe lost his job and later moved out of that room? What do you think Blotchy was there for - her singing? Her cordon bleu cookery? Her collection of penny blacks?

Kelly was said to be fearful of the streets during the Ripper run, and she was 2 1/2 weeks in arrears, and she did have Barnett giving her money even after leaving, and Maria after spending the afternoon in her room with her. Doesnt seem like she was working that last night either, and still got drunk. Some women were lucky enough to still appear marketable after a few years soliciting, she likely had her drinks bought for her, and by Blotchy would be my guess.

I believe Blotchy or someone Blotchy knew was her killer, and getting her almost pass out drunk was part of a plan. Like having someone watch the courtyard for some time that night.

[Michael W Richards]

Stating subjective, agenda-fuelled opinion as fact again, Michael?

Or do you actually know that a prostitute in 1888 would never, ever have shared her bed with a man she didn't know, even after her previous meal ticket had moved out?

What do you suppose was Kelly's relationship with Blotchy? Had Mrs Cox, Joe Barnett or anyone else ever seen this man before in Kelly's company?

Since you asked I think he probably was a safe man to get a walk home with, security if you will. And she rewards him with her company and song.

[caz]

There are so many differences in the Miller Court murder from any other murder of that period that to conclude a man who was suggested to be of surgical grade knowledge....being Annies killer...also is responsible for the mayhem in room 13 is a huge leap. There are so many odd acts that served no purpose in room 13, and in Annies case he cut where he needed to and did what was needed to obtain what he wanted. In Marys case, was it neccesary to strip her thighs, but only one completely? Was that straight line cut across the calf needed to obtain anything? Her slashed face?

I think both you and Mortis should take a closer comparative look at victims, in venue, circumstance and activities, how different Marys murder was. Then look at the skills exhibitted....no suggestion by any contemporary medical man that Marys killer was skilled or anatomically savvy. Again, that differs greatly from Annie.

You really think that everything that was done to Annie Chapman was necessary??

You seem to have a very odd way of looking at these murders, Michael. But then your chosen suspect gave you little choice in the matter.

[caz]

Too much to address but I would suggest that prejudicial perspectives can be paralyzing when trying to understand what the evidence is saying. For one example, the evidence is suggesting that Mary killer allowed her killer to be in that room in the first place. Just like she allowed Blotchy...who we never see leave. That means she knew him. To argue that point with me tells me that you would rather believe if the man was in the room he was there as a client. Even though thats not indicated or warranted by her history. As for left handed, try and reconstruct someone right handed getting a knife to her throat as she lay on her right side facing away from the assailant. If youve done so youd realize he almost certainly was left hand dominant, or possibly ambidextrous. Which is a very very small percentage of any given population.

I realize that people like to disagree with some conclusions I make, but I am doing so without evidence review preconceptions. Feel free to review the data that way too.

On your points:
1. Agreed on the first cut decision.
2. Lost would be I think more appropriate, incomplete seemingly meaningless acts suggest that.
3. Some wounds were, the initial attack less "careful".
4. There is no discernible pattern, you cannot determine in what order certain things were done like the wounds made on Annie for example. Check the Tabram data again...he hit several major organs multiple times.
5. She may appear to have been, but when and by whom?

Kelly was a working prostitute when she met Joe Barnett. They shacked up together almost immediately, and he wanted to earn enough so she no longer had to survive that way. What do you think she did to earn her next bite to eat, when Joe lost his job and later moved out of that room? What do you think Blotchy was there for - her singing? Her cordon bleu cookery? Her collection of penny blacks?

[caz]

If you think in that picture you can make out any features when Bond himself said he couldnt, go ahead and believe what you want. I never said Barnett wouldnt have seen her hair, it IS obvious in the pictures. Why I would say he couldnt use the hair for ID I cant say, and Im puzzled as to why someone would suggest someone who didnt say something, did. When he made his id the flap of skin covering her eyes....in that photo would have been laid aside. Your lines like "You can see the eye clearly on the upper left side of her face"....provably incorrect......"A person defending themselves would leave very strong gashes on the fingers and palm itself"...completely dependant on the position of the person being attacked....."And in such a scenario she wouldn't be able to defend herself in any way"....another presumption you have no evidence for, ....are revealing about you, not this crime.

Heres something you might try to figure out..... how she got her throat cut while lying on her right side facing the partition wall.....the arterial splashes are revealing in that regard, ..then look at the injuries to her left arm, an appendage which would react to the first cut and be between the killer and Mary. The face was slashed, the arm was cut....post mortem? No, review the evidence again. What we have is someone who was on the space Mary left on the left hand side of the bed reaching across with a knife in his left hand to access the throat.

If you interpreted evidence well you can learn a lot....like he was left handed, and she was most probably back to sleep. Why did no-one hear anything after "oh-murder'? Because nothing happened at that time. Soon thereafter, when Elizabeth and Diddles settled back to sleep, thats when he kills. So what can that evidence teach us? That he was in the room with her knowledge, that she likely left him space on the bed to spoon in with her, and that she reacted to the cut while the killer and his weight could be applied to keep her movements subdued. The throat cut was first...calling out was no option at that point, but she was still alive for a few moments.

You think you see something that cant be seen, you dismiss the fact that she is alive after the throat cut and would be reacting, you suggest this murder was like a client Ripper murder...despite the fact she obviously knew her killer and we have no evidence that she had ever brought a "client" into that room, you insist that death comes in seconds after a throat cut even though you can see thats not the case in other so called Canonical murders,....and dispelling that all makes me argumentative?

Evidence is one thing, drawing conclusions based solely on cuts is not how you find out what happened, The physical evidence is the most revealing sure, maybe some crime reconstruction might help you understand why Bond thought he face was almost unrecognizable and why it seems to almost anyone...perhaps excluding you...that wounds on her arms seem like defensive ones. Might even reveal to you that it would appear the man that killed Mary used the knife in his left hand, trying finding that evidence with any other Canonical.

Stating subjective, agenda-fuelled opinion as fact again, Michael?

Or do you actually know that a prostitute in 1888 would never, ever have shared her bed with a man she didn't know, even after her previous meal ticket had moved out?

What do you suppose was Kelly's relationship with Blotchy? Had Mrs Cox, Joe Barnett or anyone else ever seen this man before in Kelly's company?

[caz]

The id of Barnett was made by using her "air and eyes", only her "air" is visible while in her room. So his id was at the mortuary, which presumably would be after the "volte face" was completed, or with only her face exposed. One wonders why the person she had been the most intimate with wouldnt be given other less mutilated parts to look at also...like her hands, or feet. Intimate people would know the others features.

People have imagined they see features like an eye of Marys in the surviving photos, or make out her mouth clearly. But thats really not possible when Bond himself thought her face had been hacked beyond recognition.

Barnett was able to positively identify Kelly from the features mentioned, so there was no need to put him through any more by showing him her hands, feet or anything else.

[Losmandris]

Going slightly off topic. But I often wonder if MJK was pretending to be drunker than she actually was to make the punters more at ease. It always just seems odd that one minute she is very drunk, the next not so. I don't believe it would be possible to sober up that quickly. As she was likely an alcoholic I don't think this bit of acting is beyond the realm of possibility.

[Wickerman]

Yes, he doesn't describe where the bruises came from, that much is true, but he makes a clear distinction from the bruises that were likely done to her in her fight and those that may have been to by her killer. He wouldn't need to make that distinction if it wasn't relevant....

Phillips made the distinction that the bruises were of different ages, not that the younger bruises were made by the killer. He didn't suggest that, he didn't say that, he also didn't choose to describe the younger bruises as an indication of anything concerning the murder.
He didn't, because he couldn't.
Therefore, what we can deduce from that is those bruises did not form a pattern of finger marks indicative of restraint in any form.

The vertical scratches on her neck are another matter, possibly left by the killer as he grasped her neck some have thought.
However, more likely in my opinion made by Chapman herself in trying to grasp something very thin & tight wrapped around her throat.

But a cord would leave quite a lot of marking that would be impossible to be ignore.

One mark actually, a continuous line around most of her neck. Why else would this killer cut her neck with a circular sweep of the knife? It didn't achieve anything that we can see.

...... For example, she spent some time drinking with Blotchy. People often eat when they drink. It would be logical to assume she ate with him before going back home.

Sure, but some would argue that if they carried food into the room Cox would have seen it, likely even smelled it, especially as it included fish, and Cox was walking behind down the passage.

How often do you see a guy in the middle of the night, out of nowhere, put a hand on a woman's shoulders and tell her a joke?

From my experience, at night people generally only speak if they do know each other. The very fact this occurred suggests he recognised her, then she him.

I don't know. Only Hutchinson, Kelly or Astrakhan (if he exists) would appear to know that. And as far as Kelly not being able to recognize him as a friend (Astrakhan, I mean). I doubt that. I can recognize the people I know easily at all hours.

Well of course, the streets at night today are considerably better lit than the sparsely gas-lit streets of the 19th century. Once you stepped out of the halo of light around the lamp, you're pretty much in semi-darkness.

I knew you would counter with that. We do not know how clearly she sang. We know the song, but Cox didn't exactly give a detailed description if Kelly hit the notes. Suffice to say, she must have been drunk enough that even a passing greeting would give the impression she was drunk....

Kelly apparently wasn't too drunk that she couldn't walk straight, and not too drunk ,as Cox said she (only?) noticed Kelly was drunk as she said good night, which tends to suggest it wasn't obvious.
In the Daily Telegraph we read: "I did not notice she was drunk until she said goodnight".
Which is at least consistent with Hutchinson's "spree'ish", not overly drunk but giggly/carefree.

I'm only dismissing Hutchinson's story because it doesn't fit with the evidence, there is zero evidence that he knew Kelly and because his description is very suspicious. He also appears to be a guy that would go out and look for fame and money. Not exactly the most trustworthy of sources, that's for sure.

Odd that, because it is precisely because his story does fit what little evidence we have that I do believe him.
Hutchinson was not in the position of having to prove his story, he was a witness. He said he had known her for 3? years, well, three year prior Kelly was living at 79 Pennington street, and Stephen Maywood also lived there (or next door), who was a horse dealer with stables at Romford.
Did Hutchinson, a horse-groomer, and connections to Romford, know Stephen Maywood three years ago?

Wouldn't late evening hours be the best time to catch clientel? They'd just be coming off from work, would have enough time to relax and then go home for the next day? Early hours in the morning would be too late for the majority of them to even get the slightest bit of sleep.

I'm going on McCarthy's own words.
I just noticed, earlier you wrote that you believed rents were paid daily? - it was McCarthy who told the inquest it was due weekly.

Where do you get that from? From what I've seen Kennedy is described as a "married woman". And as far as staying there, that could be interpreted both ways. For what purpose would the article read that "she was staying there on the night"? If she lived permanently with her parents, would "staying" even be mentioned, let alone her parents?

I used quotes from the press.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881110.html?printer=true

There we read that Kennedy was married, but was staying at her parents house.
Several generations; grandparents, parents, children, all occupied these dirty little hovels, in fact often they share just one room, it wasn't just two people.
We have no alternate address for Kennedy, and her husband is not mentioned, so, was he also living there, or perhaps they had a fight and Kennedy goes back to live with her parents for a few days - it's not like this is unknown.
It could be either, we simply don't know.
Not one report suggests she was "visiting", that was Lewis.

It's not about where he is standing, but the fact that the couple Lewis sees would pass Hutchinson while he is looking for Kelly in the court because the man standing on Dorset street, observing the court would presumably be Hutchinson, but the couple of Lewis' testimony comes AFTER he is already looking at the court. And if the couple is some random couple with no relation to Kelly, then only a very small, insignificant part of what Hutchinson said is true.

Lewis only noticed the man (Hutchinson?) as she reached the court herself.
As she says: "....when I went in the court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset street."
By then, the couple ahead of her had entered Millers Court. So, it cannot be argued that the couple must have passed the man - Lewis doesn't say where the man was before the couple enter Millers Court.

As Lewis is walking towards Millers Court, in one report she says "ahead", in another she says "further on", she saw a couple, they entered the court.
Only as she arrived at the court did she notice the man standing opposite.

[Greenway]

In the video above your post someone gets 'choked out' (or more properly 'rendered unconscious through strangulation') accidentally, in about 3 seconds - it looks very easy to do in the video.

Here's a 'real life' example from a standing position - the strangler is around the same height as the strangled, demonstrating that you don't need to be significantly taller to successfully strangle someone from a standing position:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c3WqDzQEvI

[Greenway]

Well, I'd beg to differ on the difficulty. Furthermore, whether she was choked out till she fell unconscious or until the victim died would be quite problematic given where the victims were killed. And you gave a video of a UFC bout, but let's be honest - the Ripper was certainly not an MMA artist.

In the video above your post someone gets 'choked out' (or more properly 'rendered unconscious through strangulation') accidentally, in about 3 seconds - it looks very easy to do in the video.

[Mortis]

It is always interesting to see strong support for the inclusion of Stride. Her case is often the fly in the ointment. I also feel that the bogus (?) Saucy Jacky postcard's mention of a double-event has helped to fuse Stride's murder to the c5. I think it's likely she was done in by Jack, but not a forgone conclusion.

The card, that is most likely fake, is hardly relevant. What is way more relevant are the circumstances around her murder and the fact that within a walking distance a definitive Ripper killing occurs, on the same night, in almost precisely the time it would take to go from Dutfield's Yard to Mitre Square and chat a prostitute up. And we know that unlike the previous victim the Ripper wouldn't spent a lot of time with Eddowes because was released shortly after 01:00 AM and she'd be killed some 40 minutes later. Don't get me wrong, I myself am not sure on whether Stride is a Ripper killing or not, but it'd be hell of a coincidence if she is not.

In current terminology 'choking someone out' means strangling someone until unconscious - people underestimate how easy that is to do.

Chocking someone unconscious would take a lot longer, so it depends on precisely what you mean by 'choking someone out'

Well, I'd beg to differ on the difficulty. Furthermore, whether she was choked out till she fell unconscious or until the victim died would be quite problematic given where the victims were killed. And you gave a video of a UFC bout, but let's be honest - the Ripper was certainly not an MMA artist.

I didn't say 'make a clear distinction', I said he never described the 'recent' bruises in detail the way Llewellyn did, which would help to determine if they were due to being physically hit, or were they pressure marks - the same as with Nichols.
You, are saying they were made by the killer, but you have nothing to support that claim.

Yes, he doesn't describe where the bruises came from, that much is true, but he makes a clear distinction from the bruises that were likely done to her in her fight and those that may have been to by her killer. He wouldn't need to make that distinction if it wasn't relevant. How an autopsy is described depends entirely on who does it. For example, the case about the medical knowledge and how different surgeons would say different things.

When using a cord, and from behind, it makes no difference how big the victim is. Pee-Wee Herman could bring down a gorilla with a cord from behind. A cord cuts off the air flow & the blood flow to the brain, at the same time, they collapse in seconds.

But a cord would leave quite a lot of marking that would be impossible to be ignore. We've seen this with Stride where the Ripper didn't even use anything to strangle her with, he just used the handkerchief to pull her head and slice her throat.

"It's highly unlikely that Mary would have eaten in the early hours of the morning"?

Why do you think food vendors were still open in the early hours?
Hint....because people do eat at that hour, hunger is not limited to 9 till 5, in fact we/they will eat around the clock.
One witness in the killing of McKenzie was on his way to McCarthy's for some supper at 1:00am, McCarthy's was open till 3:00am selling food.
"Kelly not eating" at an early hour is an unsupportable argument.

Nobody said it was "impossible", but it is unlikely. How many people you know eat in the early hours of the morning? Yeah, sometimes it might happen, but I think it's a good idea to deal with the more likely scenarios here rather than argue on what is possible like Michael does. For example, she spent some time drinking with Blotchy. People often eat when they drink. It would be logical to assume she ate with him before going back home.

Prater didn't see Cox, and Cox didn't mention Prater, so it is quite reasonable to conclude their statements are not complete. As Prater was talking to Mrs McCarthy, and it was apparently raining outside, then Prater was likely inside McCarthy's shop while talking to Mrs McCarthy. Therefore, Prater would not see anyone enter or leave Millers Court - as she said was quite possible.
McCarthy's shop door faced onto Dorset st. anyone inside the shop cannot see people enter or leave the court.
And, Cox wouldn't see Prater, as was evident.
That, in my view, is the likely solution.
Prater didn't see Kelly & Blotchy leave Millers Court between 1:00-1:20am.
Blotchy goes on his way, and Kelly goes to find something to eat. There was an all-night eatery in Thrawl street that sold fish.
Perhaps Kelly didn't use McCarthy's because she had been hassled for the overdue rent?

But the problem with Prater and Cox is that it can easily be explained. It'd be normal to presume that since they both went out at approximately the same time, they missed each other. Around 01:00 AM Cox was leaving to go find work while Prater was coming down from her room to wait for her husband. It would take only a few seconds for them to miss each other in this type of scenario. But afterwards we know Prater stayed around 20 minutes to half an hour waiting for her husband at the entrance. And she specifically mentions that towards the end she goes to speak to McCarthy before going back to her room. The whole point of her waiting her husband was for him to notice her and they can go home. How would her husband know she is in McCarthy's shop, for example? Yes, you're right, maybe they missed each other and Blotchy left with no-one noticing, but again we come down to the question of how likely this is? I do not think it is very much.

I'm not seeing what you think is suspicious about that, it seems quite normal to me.

How often do you see a guy in the middle of the night, out of nowhere, put a hand on a woman's shoulders and tell her a joke?

"Hail him from afar"?
This was 2:00 in the morning, how far do you think you can see at that hour?
The story reads to me like Astrachan made some kind of joking remark, as Hutchinson said, "they both burst out laughing".
Does that sound like they are strangers?

I don't know. Only Hutchinson, Kelly or Astrakhan (if he exists) would appear to know that. And as far as Kelly not being able to recognize him as a friend (Astrakhan, I mean). I doubt that. I can recognize the people I know easily at all hours.

Yet, she was able to sing clearly enough. And it is known what the song was so her words cannot have been too garbled.
Are you sure you are not trying too hard to dismiss Hutchinson's story, by choice?
You just refuse to accept it?

I knew you would counter with that. We do not know how clearly she sang. We know the song, but Cox didn't exactly give a detailed description if Kelly hit the notes. Suffice to say, she must have been drunk enough that even a passing greeting would give the impression she was drunk. I'm only dismissing Hutchinson's story because it doesn't fit with the evidence, there is zero evidence that he knew Kelly and because his description is very suspicious. He also appears to be a guy that would go out and look for fame and money. Not exactly the most trustworthy of sources, that's for sure.

They charged more for a bed, as opposed to in a dark ally. I think that was the 'sixpence' mentioned by Hutchinson, as opposed to the normal 'fourpence' for a knee-trembler down some back ally.

You may be right. As I said, I have little knowledge on prostitutes, especially those of 19th century.

They don't earn much during daylight hours, their clientel are generally at work.
McCarthy said the late morning is the best time to catch them in (asleep), as they are generally out all night.

Wouldn't late evening hours be the best time to catch clientel? They'd just be coming off from work, would have enough time to relax and then go home for the next day? Early hours in the morning would be too late for the majority of them to even get the slightest bit of sleep.

It was her parents house, she was "staying there", not visiting. Where does any report say she was "visiting"?
Sarah Lewis says, "I visited a friend at Millers Court", Mrs Gallagher was not her friend, it was Kennedy who was her friend.
Kennedy lived with her parents, but it was her parents home. As we are told, she had separated from her husband, so naturally she came home to stay with her parents for some time.

Where do you get that from? From what I've seen Kennedy is described as a "married woman". And as far as staying there, that could be interpreted both ways. For what purpose would the article read that "she was staying there on the night"? If she lived permanently with her parents, would "staying" even be mentioned, let alone her parents?

Hutchinson makes no distinction between standing at the entrance to Millers Court, or standing on the opposite side of the street, thats all.
As Lewis approached she saw him standing opposite, which must be the side of the road he walked along while Astrachan & Kelly walked along the northern side.
Lewis saw him standing there as she noticed the couple ahead of her walk up the passage. Lewis followed, up the passage.
Hutch says he walked up the court "to see if he could see them" (Astrachan & Kelly), "but could not".
Where is the conflict?

Hutchinson simply waited for Lewis to pass before he crossed the street to walk up the court himself.

It's not about where he is standing, but the fact that the couple Lewis sees would pass Hutchinson while he is looking for Kelly in the court because the man standing on Dorset street, observing the court would presumably be Hutchinson, but the couple of Lewis' testimony comes AFTER he is already looking at the court. And if the couple is some random couple with no relation to Kelly, then only a very small, insignificant part of what Hutchinson said is true.

[Greenway]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKpQYwVJASQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiBG3CXr3vQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKr17h2nHbM

[Greenway]

Manuel: Que? - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKpQYwVJASQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiBG3CXr3vQ

[Wickerman]

When trying to sort things out its best to use what is known and not what is speculated. What is known is that if Mary had been working the streets when Barnett still lived there she didnt pay her rent, and that she worked the streets in the first place when working, She didnt bring customers to that room.. according to what is known. Never.

We only 'know' what was written, we have no other sources. And, it was written that all the women brought men home. "All" is likely a reach too far, some were married, so we can at least take from Prater's words that 'those women who were available' - All - brought men home, or at least it was a frequent enough occurrence that it was taken to be normal practice.
While Barnett lived with Kelly, we will assume Kelly was not available.
However, when Barnett left her on the 30th, Kelly was able to bring men home with her as Prater indicated, and she could have done for about eight days straight.

Its is also known but not universally accepted that the story given by Sarah Lewis and Ms Kennedy are essentially the same and almost certainly from the same person.

If you blindly choose to ignore TWO separate home addresses, TWO separate story 'details', & TWO separate arrival times, for the TWO separately named women.

Even George Sims, writing at the time described them as TWO separate women.
This idea that they were the same person is purely modern, and purely wrong.

Its is also known that Wideawake was part of a story given Friday, so Hutchinson would have learned of that story and Wideawake before he came in Monday night.

Why would he need a story?, I'm sure he was well aware of the Wideawake hat, he doesn't need to wait for it to appear in a newspaper story.

It is not known for a fact but its highly probable the Pardon offer Saturday was based on Wideawake being some sort of Accomplice..."if even after the fact". Which means that Hutchinsons statement Monday night may have changed the whole perspective on Wideawake's possible involvement and been responsible for police putting less potential on the Accomplice angle. He changed the investigation. My contention is that the reason he came forward at all was to do just that.

What was the story he changed?