Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Her eyes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    Dr Phillips' own inquest testimony is recorded as saying that "...the severance of the right carotid artery [which] was the immediate cause of her death..."
    Yes, but only due to the fact her right side was nearest the partition. He is assuming she was killed on her back in the position she was found. It's the only logical conclusion anyone can arrive at if you assume she was laid on her back, but that is a detail he cannot know for sure. If, as I theorised she was face down, then the left carotid artery would have been the first cut.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      Most prostitutes of the time offered their services as anal sex, their client being behind them, whether this was a quick 'knee-trembler' down some dark ally, or in the comfort of a bed. In this case I see Kelly facing the partition, or lying face down to provide the service. Either way she was attacked from behind, as I believe were all the other victims.
      As I said, that is interesting. I'm unaware of the positions sex workers back then found preferable.



      There is enough circumstantial evidence from the murder's of Nichols and Chapman to justify the theory. Stride is another possibility, but neither Eddowes or Kelly provide anything towards that idea.
      The only comment I have about Kelly was the cry of "murder", if as some speculate, she did physically defend herself (ie; has defensive wounds) then we should expect considerably more vocal exclamations than a mere "oh, murder". She would have had time to scream the house down.
      It is though perhaps all she could get out if she was being strangled.
      Well, here's the thing. With the previous 4 victims we have a very clear evidence that the killer placed his hands on their mouth, bruising their faces. It was not in the sense of choking them but making them quiet while he cuts their throat. Mary was too butchered to understand what precisely he did apart from cutting her throat, but it is nevertheless extremely likely that after he cut her throat he placed his hands on her mouth to shut what little sound she could make.

      To me the "oh murder" is a red herring. Not only it doesn't make any sense by itself, if you're going to get killed, but the testimonies of it are contradictory by design. And although I do believe Prater, her hearing the cry after waking up from being asleep is very unreliable, least of all the time she heard the supposed cry. We also have to take into account that for Kelly's throat to be cut that deep, the killer did it from behind. It really wouldn't work if he struggled with her from the front, the cut wouldn't be that deep and it'll be very problematic to be done correctly. IMO, Kelly was long dead by 4:00 AM. If I had to guess, she was probably killed somewhere before 1:30 AM but around 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM is the best guess anyone can make. This is the last time anyone of note can track her movements - the singing stops around that time, the lights go off, neither Blotchy or Kelly are seen to leave and we have only Hutchinson's testimony to go on. Problem is, Hutchinson's testimony is almost completely off for we to believe it. It's about as reliable as the women who say they saw Kelly alive 10 hours after she was already dead.

      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      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.
      We have to clear one thing out. It seems to me you're suggesting that she knew him as in being friends, albeit no evidence gathered ever suggest something of that sort. Blotchy quite clearly wasn't a friend to her, yet she invited him in her room. They might have talked for hours, gotten drunk together, etc, but that doesn't mean they were friends, otherwise Cox would have mentioned something of that sort. Barnett appears to have been the only male friend in her life (as far as recently goes).

      Why is it not warranted for her to invite clients into her bed? Witnesses speak to her as being an "unfortunate", that is a prostitute. We know from Barnett that she would invite friends to sleep over in the room. Why not invite clients for sex?

      Now as far as the slitting of the throat goes. If we presume they were preparing to sleep together with her on the left side of the bed while the killer on the right, obviously he wouldn't be able to slice her throat with his right-hand. But you do not need to be left-hand dominant to slice a throat. You can try to do the motion yourself. A slice to the throat doesn't require any meaningful strength, just the motion with a bit of pressure.

      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?
      2. Why would you classify the acts as "incomplete" and "meaningless"? If we go by that kind of logic, all of Jack's acts in each kill were incomplete and meaningless. The guy wanted to kill and mutilate, there was no particular "sense" to his acts aside from deriving pleasure in it. What we need to understand is that he had particular goals in his mind and he accomplished them in each and every kill. You call his acts "meaningless", but they were precisely what he wanted to do and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. He cut her in the places he wanted to cut, he took out the organs he wanted to take out, he posed them in the ways he wanted them posed, he carved her face in the way he wanted to carve the face, he sliced her flesh off and to top it all off he took her heart with him. These are not the acts of someone who doesn't know what he is doing. If you want to talk about "seemingly meaningless acts" that would be Tabram's killer that suggest an enraged person whose end goal was to kill his victim, but either didn't know how or was too enraged and the adrenaline came over him to actually do it in a calculated manner. In contrast to the Ripper's killing with Kelly, his actions are very deliberate and calculated.

      3. The only thing we know about the initial attack is that her throat was cut while she was close to the partition wall. The very fact that the killer once again targeted the throat to incapacitate his victim speaks very much that this guy knew what he was about, he wasn't your random killer. We can only speculate how he cut her throat, but I firmly believe that Wickerman is right. The small evidence we have would suggest that.

      4. The pattern is pretty obvious - the killer wanted the victim to be mutilated. He wasn't a sadist or wanted to "hurt" her and cause her unnecessary pain, he just wanted to play with her body, just like he did with the other victims. What this tells us is that this wasn't personal, she just happened to be at the wrong place, wrong time and with the wrong person. His butcher of her body is very specific. If we go by the face, you will notice that he left her eyes undamaged. A similar thing can be observed in Eddowes case where he, for no purpose whatsoever, cut through her closed eyes with a single cut on both eyes. The "V" marks hold a similar pattern. Her face is the way he wanted it to be. Then we go with him ripping her organs. All of them were extracted and carefully placed by her side, there was no real unecessary stabbing or anything that would suggest that this was something personal or the killer didn't know what he was doing. You go lower and her vaginal area was practically destroyed, both of her upper legs had her flesh carefully skinned down to the bone, said flesh is carefully placed on the table. The body is quite clearly posed in a suggestive manner. The crime scene speaks of a calculated killer.
      5. That is the question we're all trying to answer, isn't it?


      Originally posted by Meet Ze Monster View Post
      With that in mind, I wonder, Mortis, if you have an thoughts on popular suspect, William Bury and his one known victim sharing similar mutilations to the C5? ... Can he be a possible fanboy, intentionally drawing notoriety to compensate for a pathetic, cowardly existence?
      To me this screams of a man that was interested in what Jack the Ripper did, but was unable to go through with it. For one, the killing itself is chaotic. He apparently smashed his wife with a blunt object to the face, then choked her out with a ligature. Looks like something done in a heat of passion, not very calculated. The abdominal incisions are too shallow and "unconvincing" for a lack of a better word. Like he doesn't have the stomach to go through it. Then, if I'm not mistaken from what I've read, the wounds do not seem to be done immediately after but of a space of time, like he is interested in desecrating the corpse, but doesn't really know "how", least of all having the stomach to do it. Post-killing he seems absolutely clueless as to what to do, whether to dump the corpse, give himself up, make the killing look like it is something it is not, further showcasing that this individual is very disorganized and has no real idea what he is doing. Bury himself looks like a mess in his private life, often beating his wife, being dirt poor, basically living off his wife. He also didn't leave in the immediate area of the Whitechapel killings. In contrast to the Ripper who would appear to be somewhat well off, would have his private life mostly in order, would appear to be a friendly person, someone you would not notice and would be hard to detect to the naked eye. Would be somewhat intelligent compared to the rest of his environment and would be a Whitechapel native or resident for a decent amount of time. Bury seems the opposite of that in every way. He mostly spent his days drinking himself into a stupor, being violent towards his wife even in public, showing himself to be very undisciplined in his private life (unable to keep his job, often lying to people about things that if caught, would get ihim in trouble, marital problems on full display to people, wasting his days in pubs, etc). He was also a very small man of 5'2 while most Ripper descriptions put him about average, slightly taller than his victims 5'7 to 5'9.

      In short, I do not think Bury is the Ripper, although it is possible. The Ripper on the surface would look like a fairly respectable man, friendly to people, the good next door neighbor, maybe even married, would have a decent job that would allow him to spend money on prostitutes and on dressing fairly well. There would be hints out there that something is not right with the guy, but they'd be subtle and not all that obvious to his close circle or people around him, unlike Bury whose problems were at full display.


      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      There was a blood on the partition wall from the arterial spray and it was determined that that throat cut was the first. The fact that she is on her back in the middle of the bed when found is indicative of him flopping her back in that position so he could do the cutting he wanted to.
      Mary was not "flopped" back from that position. She was carefully posed. From what position he did that is impossible to determine. It might be you're right, it might be Wickerman is right. The arterial spray to the partition wall from her neck wound is entirely possible to be done while she was getting ready for sex and the killer slashed her neck from behind. Due to blood spatter analysis not even being in its infancy at the time, it is impossible to discern in what kind of position her throat was cut, all we know is that her neck was somewhere at the right corner of her bed and thereby her head would be there. What position she had during that time is only a matter of guessing, but either way, he didn't have to be left-handed in order to kill her, all he needed was a left-hand he could use.

      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      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.
      There are no fundamental differences. Mary is absolutely consistent with the core aspects of the killer's MO. I'm also curious where do you get the killer's "purpose" from. All we know about the killer is that he enjoyed doing what he did. There is nothing to suggest he had some great goal of harvesting organs or whatever. You say he did "meaningless things" to Kelly but I see no meaningless stuff in anything he did to Kelly. You're also implying that the Ripper in Annie's case had medical knowledge but in Mary he did not. Well, how do you judge that? To me in all of the killings except Stride and Nichols (which were probably interrupted) showcased some skills in anatomy, certainly for his time. He generally seemed to know where a person's organs are and how to get them which is pretty impressive for living in a very poor and uneducated area in a time with no internet. His butchering of Mary to me indicates a person with some degree of anatomical knowledge. And what is interesting is that you have to take into account that depending on who did the autopsy on the victim, different opinions would be necessary. Bond says Kelly's killer held no real skill, yet Brown said Eddowes killer possessed a great deal of anatomical knowledge. Kelly and Eddowes killers are most certainly the same. Phillips says that Chapman's killer possesses anatomical knowledge.

      Suffice to say, I think the crude way in which Kelly was butchered clouded Bond's opinion on the knowledge of the murderer's surgical skills. Nevertheless, Bond himself was absolutely convinced that all 5 of the murders were done by the same hand.

      You also keep saying whether cuts were necessary or whatever... how do you define "necessary", in your mind? Was the killing and butchering of Annie Chapman "necessary"? There is nothing necessary about any of the Ripper's killings, he did them because he wanted to and wanted to mutilate their bodies. The question is not about necessity but about wanting. And as far as the stripping of her thighs go, I think he did it to both. He did expose the femur of only the right leg, but I think that may be by design. At the end of the day only JTR would know why he did what he did.
      Last edited by Mortis; 10-18-2021, 12:35 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

        As I and several others have mentioned before, I find this hard to bat away as a mere coincidence, especially in the light of everything else we know about him:

        Ellen: ‘On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle’.

        Eddowes: ‘The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum’.
        I agree that Bury was almost certainly the same perpetrator. In the interest of speculation though, I can't completely come to terms with his behaviour after the murder (and some before). Humour me for a moment.... If Bury was not the Ripper, but had a sick obsession with the Whitechapel atrocities I think it's possible he could have, in a drunken state, decided to emulate them to reap a kind of notoriety. The reason I think this is a possibility is his bizarre visit to the police to report his wife's 'suicide' and confess his fear that he would be labelled as the Ripper. That part of the events along with the graffiti at his home lead me speculate (rightly or wrongly) that there's room for some query. I will add though that my first instinct was always that he went into a blind rage when drinking and committed the acts in a kind of disassociative state.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          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.
          I respectfully disagree. Surgical or anatomical knowledge was likely required for the simple act of knowing where to cut. He wasn't performing surgery on these women, he was butchering them with the intent of extracting as much viscera as he desired. Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were killed in high risk settings allowing only moments for the Ripper to work. His ritual was cut, extract, pose, escape. Only with Kelly, he had no reason to escape. I thought it was pretty obvious that being indoors allowed the Ripper to go much further than he could before. A working girl with her own room was hardly common, thus, he made do until he encountered poor Mary and her hideaway. The differences you mention are merely elevations of what he could do rather than what he didn't do in the previous crimes.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Mortis View Post

            To me the "oh murder" is a red herring. Not only it doesn't make any sense by itself, if you're going to get killed, but the testimonies of it are contradictory by design.
            Back then people would say rather strange things when being murdered
            Here is just one example reported by a witness of the 2nd Ratcliffe highway murder quoted from my own work:
            "At the inquest, John Turner said he had gone to bed at 10:40 p.m. but shortly afterwards, he’d heard the tavern door open with a bang. Bridget cried out, “We’re all murdered!” and Mr Williamson shouted, “I am a dead man!” It’s unclear whether this just reflects the unusual turn of phrase they had back in the 1800s, or whether John Turner was imagining a more dramatic version of events"
            Shortly after saying this they were indeed murdered.

            There's also further examples in Jan Bondeson's Victorian crimes books.
            Last edited by MrTwibbs; 10-18-2021, 03:52 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Meet Ze Monster View Post

              I agree that Bury was almost certainly the same perpetrator. In the interest of speculation though, I can't completely come to terms with his behaviour after the murder (and some before). Humour me for a moment.... If Bury was not the Ripper, but had a sick obsession with the Whitechapel atrocities I think it's possible he could have, in a drunken state, decided to emulate them to reap a kind of notoriety. The reason I think this is a possibility is his bizarre visit to the police to report his wife's 'suicide' and confess his fear that he would be labelled as the Ripper. That part of the events along with the graffiti at his home lead me speculate (rightly or wrongly) that there's room for some query. I will add though that my first instinct was always that he went into a blind rage when drinking and committed the acts in a kind of disassociative state.
              I agree some of Bury's behaviour in Dundee is certainly hard to explain. Why would he chalk those messages and then claim to be worried about being arrested as JtR? I think the latter claim could well be a worry based on the fact that he has repeated something he has done before and knows how it looks, so attempts a throw away comment to disassociate himself from the earlier example. As for the graffiti, there is some good analysis on the Bury website where the messages are reproduced. The PC that made the copy obviously made a fairly close study as the vertical lines of the door are also reproduced. Reading the commentary, and viewing the messages, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the same person wrote both, as there are enough similarities to give the game away. But why would he then claim to be worried about being JtR - it would be worth someone like a criminal psychologist reviewing Bury's actions to see how they square. Is the fact that there are chalk messages in a school boy hand, with an odd spelling error (seller) at a crime scene with ripper-like injuries a coincidence?

              On the injuries, if he was copying, would he not have done something like McKenzie? By that I mean a lot of non specific scratches. If someone wanted to copy the ripper they would need to find someone vulnerable in the early hours (prostitute), he would then need to take them to some dark quite corner, and then to get at the lower body he would need to lift there skirts. All of that is so general, along with her injuries, that anyone who knew the basics of the case could have done it. If he wanted to copy the ripper, why didn't he also cut her throat, as that was what he was known for? On another post someone mentioned Ellen's injuries being like 'an itch he had to scratch' and I think that is probable. He is in a new area, known to be from the east end, if he had gone any further than he did, he would have been arrested as JtR, I am sure.

              On a side note, one of the things I find so plausible about Bury is the front on sketch of him stood at the dock in his nice respectable suit, nicely groomed and looking every inch the picture of normality. Yet this is the man that actually went back to Ellen's body to make further incisions for the hell of it. As I said in my first post, I can so easily see all the victims being taken in by Bury and his 5.2 frame and neat dress.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                I agree some of Bury's behaviour in Dundee is certainly hard to explain. Why would he chalk those messages and then claim to be worried about being arrested as JtR? I think the latter claim could well be a worry based on the fact that he has repeated something he has done before and knows how it looks, so attempts a throw away comment to disassociate himself from the earlier example.
                Interesting! And totally reasonable. Claiming her death was a suicide and acknowledging how it looks to an outsider could well be a weird kind of double bluff. It also shows how disassociated and pathological he really could be.


                Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
                On the injuries, if he was copying, would he not have done something like McKenzie? By that I mean a lot of non specific scratches. If someone wanted to copy the ripper they would need to find someone vulnerable in the early hours (prostitute), he would then need to take them to some dark quite corner, and then to get at the lower body he would need to lift there skirts. All of that is so general, along with her injuries, that anyone who knew the basics of the case could have done it. If he wanted to copy the ripper, why didn't he also cut her throat, as that was what he was known for?
                I suspect he cut the throats of his victims because strangulation was relatively slow and killing alone was not really his drive. I posted somewhere else that I think after Chapman he probably did away with strangulation in favour of a lethal cut to avoid resistance etc. But as for Ellen, he had no need to 'sneak' attack her and subdue her quickly. The abdominal/genital mutilations were all that really mattered to him.


                On a side note, one of the things I find so plausible about Bury is the front on sketch of him stood at the dock in his nice respectable suit, nicely groomed and looking every inch the picture of normality. Yet this is the man that actually went back to Ellen's body to make further incisions for the hell of it. As I said in my first post, I can so easily see all the victims being taken in by Bury and his 5.2 frame and neat dress.[/QUOTE]

                I don't disagree. It is known that he possessed a vicious darkside and would crawl the streets at night in a stupor. The fact that he was 'demasculated' and dependent as well as cruel is to me a very strong case for guilt.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Mortis View Post
                  Well, here's the thing. With the previous 4 victims we have a very clear evidence that the killer placed his hands on their mouth, bruising their faces. It was not in the sense of choking them but making them quiet while he cuts their throat....
                  Are you sure?, I recall bruising around the jaw of Nichols, but not on Chapman, Eddowes or Stride. Chapman had scratches on her neck below her left(?) ear, which was thought to be due to the killers nails, but could equally have been Chapman's own nails.

                  To me the "oh murder" is a red herring. Not only it doesn't make any sense by itself, if you're going to get killed, but the testimonies of it are contradictory by design. And although I do believe Prater, her hearing the cry after waking up from being asleep is very unreliable, least of all the time she heard the supposed cry.
                  I think too 'theatrical' is the word, yes I agree, however what Mr Twibbs writes is also true. Back in the 19th century they had a strange vocabulary compared to our usages. We can also see a variety of uses for "Oh, murder" in the contemporary press. Back in the day we find stories in the press of theft where the victim cries "oh, murder", but the culprit had left the scene already. Another case I recall of a woman in her back yard at night being frightened by a homeless man, she screamed "oh, murder", until the police showed up.

                  .... IMO, Kelly was long dead by 4:00 AM. If I had to guess, she was probably killed somewhere before 1:30 AM but around 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM is the best guess anyone can make.
                  So you agree with Dr. Bond's estimate?
                  "...The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder."
                  One wonders how he arrived at that estimate without an established time for when she last ate.
                  Unless, of course, Abberline had been able to trace the source of that last meal?

                  This is the last time anyone of note can track her movements - the singing stops around that time, the lights go off, neither Blotchy or Kelly are seen to leave and we have only Hutchinson's testimony to go on.
                  Not quite, we do have Mrs Kennedy who said she saw Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am.
                  Also, the police had to return to Millers Court the day after the inquest to re-interview some of the residents, it turned out Kelly was seen out on the streets between 2:00-3:00am, afterall.

                  Problem is, Hutchinson's testimony is almost completely off for we to believe it.
                  Part of Hutchinson's story is corroborated by Sarah Lewis.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by MrTwibbs View Post

                    Back then people would say rather strange things when being murdered
                    Here is just one example reported by a witness of the 2nd Ratcliffe highway murder quoted from my own work:
                    "At the inquest, John Turner said he had gone to bed at 10:40 p.m. but shortly afterwards, he’d heard the tavern door open with a bang. Bridget cried out, “We’re all murdered!” and Mr Williamson shouted, “I am a dead man!” It’s unclear whether this just reflects the unusual turn of phrase they had back in the 1800s, or whether John Turner was imagining a more dramatic version of events"
                    Shortly after saying this they were indeed murdered.

                    There's also further examples in Jan Bondeson's Victorian crimes books.
                    Yes, but isn't Turner's statements hearsay? From what I've read there's no evidence he was even there. And police didn't seem to believe some of his other outlandish statements. And as I said in my response to Wickerman, it's not simply about the words.


                    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    Are you sure?, I recall bruising around the jaw of Nichols, but not on Chapman, Eddowes or Stride. Chapman had scratches on her neck below her left(?) ear, which was thought to be due to the killers nails, but could equally have been Chapman's own nails.
                    There was bruising on Chapman's face, wasn't it? I remember thumb marks around her eyes. Stride was "controlled" via her handkerchief and Eddowes had no signs of being bruised anywhere. But it is possible for the Ripper to have placed his hands on her mouth without bruising them.


                    I think too 'theatrical' is the word, yes I agree, however what Mr Twibbs writes is also true. Back in the 19th century they had a strange vocabulary compared to our usages. We can also see a variety of uses for "Oh, murder" in the contemporary press. Back in the day we find stories in the press of theft where the victim cries "oh, murder", but the culprit had left the scene already. Another case I recall of a woman in her back yard at night being frightened by a homeless man, she screamed "oh, murder", until the police showed up.
                    It's not really about the vocabulary, but about the fact that we as humans have an instinctive self-preservation reaction of screaming, if we're attacked. Like nothing to do with words, but actual screaming. We have no evidence Mary was ever heard screaming. Lewis and Prater testimonies contradict each other, we do not even know where the "oh murder" even came from. Don't get me wrong, it is possible they heard the shout, but it most likely wasn't from Mary's room. As the people around that neighborhood say, "it was common".

                    So you agree with Dr. Bond's estimate?
                    "...The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder."
                    One wonders how he arrived at that estimate without an established time for when she last ate.
                    Unless, of course, Abberline had been able to trace the source of that last meal?
                    Absolutely. If I remember correctly, Philips estimated her time of death at somewhere around 06:00 AM, which is highly unlikely. Since Kelly's body was so butchered, it is pretty hard to estimate her time of death. The loss of blood, the various removal of organs would have accelerated that. I'm not sure how much Bond and Phillips took that into account. Bond to me had the right idea though, but we'll have to reconstruct what time she ate which is next to impsossible, but still - we can make a good guess and i'll try.

                    So we know that that around 11:45 PM Mary is sighted with Blotchy. Evidently Cox looked down and saw only a pot of beer. If Blotchy and Mary were carrying anything else, we'd know. So no food. I'm not exactly sure if the police found food in her house, but I've never seen anything of that sort, so we'll presume she had zero food in the house. She must have eaten somewhere before going back to her room. For us to hit somewhere around her supposed death at 02:00 AM she must have eaten around 10:00-11:00 PM. This is highly likely given that Mary was drunk and coming home with the guy that probably brought her this stuff. Highly unlikely she had eaten before that given the time the food was in her stomach. This also completely discounts Hutchinson's testimony and other such sightings after because they'd push her time of death way after she was more than likely killed, even past 04:00 AM. The earliest she could have eaten to fit in the 04:00 AM scenario was 00:00 AM or 01:00 AM, give or take. We know she was in the house with Blotchy at the time and highly unlikely to have food at the house. So if we reconstruct the events:

                    Prater meets her somewhere around 20:00 PM, they exchange greetings and part ways, she leaves her house. Mary plies her trade and meets Blotchy somewhere, he charms her and they spend some time together (evidently the Ripper seemed to spend some time with the majority of his victims except Eddowes who he blitzed.), he probably buys her food and a drink, they have a good time and Blotchy suggests they find some desolate place to "try" her services, Kelly agrees and suggests her home to which he happily agrees and invites him to her own room (his other victims had lodgings, so he was at a serious disadvantage as to how to kill them and mutilate them fast in the open), but Kelly was perfect. Now he could do with her body whatever he always desired to do (probably why she is his last victim - he achieved everything he wanted. But that is my speculation). So they go back, Cox meets them and Mary starts to sing. Now obviously she signs for a hour and more and Blotchy doesn't kill her because that'd raise a lot of suspicions if she stops suddenly. Hell, maybe he enjoyed it. I don't remember anyone commenting how good Kelly's voice was. Anyway, somewhere after Cox leaves and Prater returns home at around 01:00 AM Kelly stops singing and Prater says there was no light on coming from the partition. It is likely that at this point they are getting ready for sex. Mary undresses herself, gets ready on the bed, Blotchy slits her throat and proceeds to mutilate her without a sound. This is the only scenario that fits with all the evidence gathered, unless some witnesses were completely off with their accounts of her.


                    Not quite, we do have Mrs Kennedy who said she saw Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am.
                    Also, the police had to return to Millers Court the day after the inquest to re-interview some of the residents, it turned out Kelly was seen out on the streets between 2:00-3:00am, afterall.
                    Problem is Mrs. Kennedy didn't even know Mary. Mary being the girl she saw is also highly unlikely given Bond's autopsy report and the last time Mary had eaten food. Some witnesses also say they saw Mary basically the next day which is not only highly unlikely, it is impossible. We have to be very careful when taking to account what every witness say he/she saw.

                    Part of Hutchinson's story is corroborated by Sarah Lewis.
                    Yes, but only the part that is most believable - that he was probably there but concocted the story of meeting Kelly and Astrakhan man. Lewis only sees presumably him and no-one else.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Mortis View Post

                      2. Why would you classify the acts as "incomplete" and "meaningless"? If we go by that kind of logic, all of Jack's acts in each kill were incomplete and meaningless. The guy wanted to kill and mutilate, there was no particular "sense" to his acts aside from deriving pleasure in it. What we need to understand is that he had particular goals in his mind and he accomplished them in each and every kill. You call his acts "meaningless", but they were precisely what he wanted to do and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. He cut her in the places he wanted to cut, he took out the organs he wanted to take out, he posed them in the ways he wanted them posed, he carved her face in the way he wanted to carve the face, he sliced her flesh off and to top it all off he took her heart with him. These are not the acts of someone who doesn't know what he is doing. If you want to talk about "seemingly meaningless acts" that would be Tabram's killer that suggest an enraged person whose end goal was to kill his victim, but either didn't know how or was too enraged and the adrenaline came over him to actually do it in a calculated manner. In contrast to the Ripper's killing with Kelly, his actions are very deliberate and calculated.
                      If the above actually represents your conclusions then we arent talking about the same events. Th murder of Annie Chapman instigated a search of trained and skilled medical students or practioners, there is no other murder in all the Unsolved murder that suggested someone of that calibre. "There were no meaningless cuts" Phillips said, so he saw intent and purpose. Phillips believed that the cuts made on Annie were done so as to obtain what he specifically sought.

                      So when I say meaningless in room 13, you can have your pick. Almost all the was done to her was no so as to obtain her heart, which was the organ tken from Mary.

                      As for prostitution, perhaps you forget that Mary didnt have a room to bring clients home to until Barnett was gone, then she had Maria there. In reality she had one or two days when she even could have done so, and not one account of someone there that saw her bring anyone in before Blotchy. You could say he represents a client, but that would only be true if what he was buying was a serenade for about and hour or so.

                      Evidence is not static, it falls to one side or the other when new information is introduced, like dominoes. I suggest you use all the dominoes.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        If the above actually represents your conclusions then we arent talking about the same events. Th murder of Annie Chapman instigated a search of trained and skilled medical students or practioners, there is no other murder in all the Unsolved murder that suggested someone of that calibre. "There were no meaningless cuts" Phillips said, so he saw intent and purpose. Phillips believed that the cuts made on Annie were done so as to obtain what he specifically sought.
                        The murder of Eddowes did, too, as per the autopsy. Your only real thing to go on here is to say that Chapman wasn't butchered as much as Eddowes and while that may be true, we see a gradual increase in the killer's mutilations all throughout the killings with the exception of Stride (which if she is a Ripper victim, he was likely to be interrupted, same as Nichols).

                        Furthermore, the idea that there were no meaningless cuts is very far from the truth. Her neck was being cut the way it was is "unecessary", the killer also cut two third from the bladder for no reason, as well as the upper vagina. Apparently he cut through her colon, as well. IMO, if we're talking about skill, with Eddowes the killer displayed far more skill to do what he did with zero lighting and very little precious time to carry out his work.

                        Phillips may speculate whatever he wants, we do not know what the killer sought. If the goal was to seek an uterus, they were far more suitable victims, in far more suitable places and environments that the killer could take them from. It is 99% a trophy of his, it has nothing to do with anything else.

                        So when I say meaningless in room 13, you can have your pick. Almost all the was done to her was no so as to obtain her heart, which was the organ tken from Mary.
                        But that would suggest that Chapman's uterus was the sole goal for the killing, or that Eddowes killer only sought the kidney, etc. The goal was to murder and mutilate, pose the victims and take whatever organ as a trophy the killer wanted. This is the only thing we can say for certain about the situation. What use would Chapman's organ carry for her killer? Same use as Mary's heart, I would imagine.

                        As for prostitution, perhaps you forget that Mary didnt have a room to bring clients home to until Barnett was gone, then she had Maria there. In reality she had one or two days when she even could have done so, and not one account of someone there that saw her bring anyone in before Blotchy. You could say he represents a client, but that would only be true if what he was buying was a serenade for about and hour or so.
                        But here's the thing - witnesses describe Mary as a prostitute. So we know for a fact that even with Barnett and after him she slept with clients. Now I do not believe it was ever stated what location she used for her clients, but if everyone knows she is a prostitute, it's pretty clear to guess that at least sometimes she brought them home. Mary began prostituting again after Barnett lost his job which was a couple of months before her killing. There is also no recollection either or so that Mary brought clients. It is never mentioned and it doesn't appear to have been relevant to the investigation. She may have brought some, but nobody really mentions it one way or another.

                        As for the serenade and what not, Jack spent some time with at least 4 of the C5. And if Blotchy is not a client, then who is he? Nobody close to Kelly seems to have known him, including Barnett. The all too common in Ripper's killings "shabby genteel" springs out of nowhere and disappears, no-one the wiser. There is no conceivable sense for him to be a close friend of Kelly, so the only real conclusion we could come is that he is a client. If he isn't a client and is instead a friend of Kelly, as you would suggest, then it is almost impossible for him to not come forward and explain himself. You can't have it both ways.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Ive responded inside your post...

                          Originally posted by Mortis View Post
                          The murder of Eddowes did, too, as per the autopsy. Your only real thing to go on here is to say that Chapman wasn't butchered as much as Eddowes and while that may be true, we see a gradual increase in the killer's mutilations all throughout the killings with the exception of Stride (which if she is a Ripper victim, he was likely to be interrupted, same as Nichols).

                          As for Stride, the only logical way to include her is to suggest interruptions, yet none are indicated or present in the evidence.

                          Furthermore, the idea that there were no meaningless cuts is very far from the truth. Her neck was being cut the way it was is "unecessary", the killer also cut two third from the bladder for no reason, as well as the upper vagina. Apparently he cut through her colon, as well. IMO, if we're talking about skill, with Eddowes the killer displayed far more skill to do what he did with zero lighting and very little precious time to carry out his work.

                          I might also be inclined to see the near pitch black operation and possible short timing on Eddowes as limiting what we would see in terms of skills, but if he demonstrated medically trained skills sets in near dark on Hanbury, then I would expect similar standards in Mitre Square. There arent.

                          Phillips may speculate whatever he wants, we do not know what the killer sought. If the goal was to seek an uterus, they were far more suitable victims, in far more suitable places and environments that the killer could take them from. It is 99% a trophy of his, it has nothing to do with anything else.

                          Philips saw the most Canonicals in death of any physician, and it would be his opinions that should carry the most weight. And in fact his comments suggest he did see what the killer ultimately wanted by the way and order the cuts were made, and again that there were "no meaningless cuts".

                          But that would suggest that Chapman's uterus was the sole goal for the killing, or that Eddowes killer only sought the kidney, etc. The goal was to murder and mutilate, pose the victims and take whatever organ as a trophy the killer wanted. This is the only thing we can say for certain about the situation. What use would Chapman's organ carry for her killer? Same use as Mary's heart, I would imagine.

                          Youve made assumptions about why he killed...maybe better to let the evidence tell you what he wanted. Like in Strides case, the evidence says he wanted her dead...thats it.

                          But here's the thing - witnesses describe Mary as a prostitute. So we know for a fact that even with Barnett and after him she slept with clients. Now I do not believe it was ever stated what location she used for her clients, but if everyone knows she is a prostitute, it's pretty clear to guess that at least sometimes she brought them home. Mary began prostituting again after Barnett lost his job which was a couple of months before her killing. There is also no recollection either or so that Mary brought clients. It is never mentioned and it doesn't appear to have been relevant to the investigation. She may have brought some, but nobody really mentions it one way or another.

                          There is no way to dispute Mary had sold herself, there is the matter of the arrears in her case, what she told Barnett about being afraid, and the fact that the only man we see her take into the room aside from Barnett she sang to for over an hour. The circumstances dictate what she was doing that night...and I dont see solicitation.

                          If he isn't a client and is instead a friend of Kelly, as you would suggest, then it is almost impossible for him to not come forward and explain himself. You can't have it both ways.

                          Not only did he not want to come forward, he may have run when spotted on a tram a few days later that week.
                          There are no broad strokes here....not all the women appear to have been soliciting, so its not an MO requirement.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Mortis View Post

                            There was bruising on Chapman's face, wasn't it? I remember thumb marks around her eyes....
                            Not on Chapman, I think there were a few bruises on her chest, three I think. And one beside her eye, but Phillips said they were old bruises, likely from the fight she had with another woman recently.


                            Stride was "controlled" via her handkerchief and Eddowes had no signs of being bruised anywhere. But it is possible for the Ripper to have placed his hands on her mouth without bruising them.
                            It's possible, only because we can't honestly say it's impossible. Pressure marks leave bruises in general, like we see (read), on Nichols face. One on the side of her jaw and the second on the opposite cheekbone, consistent with a thumb & fingers of the same hand spread across her face.


                            We have no evidence Mary was ever heard screaming. Lewis and Prater testimonies contradict each other, we do not even know where the "oh murder" even came from. Don't get me wrong, it is possible they heard the shout, but it most likely wasn't from Mary's room. As the people around that neighborhood say, "it was common".
                            The Daily News reports that shortly before the cry of "oh, murder" there had been a row in the court. Between who & why we are not told, and this is the only report of a row that I recall seeing. So perhaps the cry was connected with the row?
                            Whether Kelly was already dead by that time we can't be sure.


                            I'm not exactly sure if the police found food in her house, but I've never seen anything of that sort, so we'll presume she had zero food in the house. She must have eaten somewhere before going back to her room. For us to hit somewhere around her supposed death at 02:00 AM she must have eaten around 10:00-11:00 PM. This is highly likely given that Mary was drunk and coming home with the guy that probably brought her this stuff. Highly unlikely she had eaten before that given the time the food was in her stomach. This also completely discounts Hutchinson's testimony and other such sightings after because they'd push her time of death way after she was more than likely killed, even past 04:00 AM. The earliest she could have eaten to fit in the 04:00 AM scenario was 00:00 AM or 01:00 AM, give or take. We know she was in the house with Blotchy at the time and highly unlikely to have food at the house. So if we reconstruct the events:

                            Prater meets her somewhere around 20:00 PM, they exchange greetings and part ways, she leaves her house. Mary plies her trade and meets Blotchy somewhere, he charms her and they spend some time together (evidently the Ripper seemed to spend some time with the majority of his victims except Eddowes who he blitzed.), he probably buys her food and a drink, they have a good time and Blotchy suggests they find some desolate place to "try" her services, Kelly agrees and suggests her home to which he happily agrees and invites him to her own room (his other victims had lodgings, so he was at a serious disadvantage as to how to kill them and mutilate them fast in the open), but Kelly was perfect. Now he could do with her body whatever he always desired to do (probably why she is his last victim - he achieved everything he wanted. But that is my speculation). So they go back, Cox meets them and Mary starts to sing. Now obviously she signs for a hour and more and Blotchy doesn't kill her because that'd raise a lot of suspicions if she stops suddenly. Hell, maybe he enjoyed it. I don't remember anyone commenting how good Kelly's voice was. Anyway, somewhere after Cox leaves and Prater returns home at around 01:00 AM Kelly stops singing and Prater says there was no light on coming from the partition. It is likely that at this point they are getting ready for sex. Mary undresses herself, gets ready on the bed, Blotchy slits her throat and proceeds to mutilate her without a sound. This is the only scenario that fits with all the evidence gathered, unless some witnesses were completely off with their accounts of her.
                            Where I think you are in error is the part where Prater says there was no light in her room. That suggests to me Kelly was back out on the streets, that is also consistent with the press report that some residents saw her out after one o'clock. Then of course there's Mrs Kennedy....


                            Problem is Mrs. Kennedy didn't even know Mary.
                            I don't know where you get that from. Kennedy makes no claim to not knowing Kelly, she even lived opposite Kelly at No.2, so how could she not know her immediate neighbor 3-4 ft across the court?


                            Mary being the girl she saw is also highly unlikely given Bond's autopsy report and the last time Mary had eaten food.
                            I think we all know how inaccurate medical estimates have been in this ripper case, even the doctors don't agree with each other. Plus, Bond has a reputation for being contrary with his medical peers. Look at the Mylett case as a good example, how Bond disgreed with about 5 or 6 of his peers, even his own assistant Hibbert disagreed with him.

                            Some witnesses also say they saw Mary basically the next day which is not only highly unlikely, it is impossible. We have to be very careful when taking to account what every witness say he/she saw.
                            I don't buy that argument but some prefer to think it was possible. A clear case of mistaken identity in my view.


                            Yes, but only the part that is most believable - that he was probably there but concocted the story of meeting Kelly and Astrakhan man. Lewis only sees presumably him and no-one else.
                            More than that, Lewis saw a couple pass up the court ahead of her, she then noticed a man standing opposite (Hutchinson), so the couple Hutchinson was following (Astrachan & Kelly) must have been there. Lewis also described the woman as 'the worse for drink', which is just how Hutchinson described Kelly.

                            Kelly must have been murdered sometime between 3:00-4:00 in my view.
                            Kennedy saw her about 3:00am, so Kelly & Astrachan must have both left the court about the time Hutchinson walked away. Astrachan may have walked westward down Dorset St. in the opposite direction to Hutchinson, while Kelly walked eastward to the Britannia on the corner.
                            I suspect Astrachan was rattled by Hutchinson, first staring him in the face, then following on close behind, only to stand across the road the entire time he was with Kelly. Perhaps he thought he was going to get mugged by Hutchinson, and that may truly have been Hutchinson's initial intent.
                            He presents a different persona to the police in his interview, but that's only to be expected.


                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              Ive responded inside your post...
                              As for Stride, the only logical way to include her is to suggest interruptions, yet none are indicated or present in the evidence.
                              True, but then again that's also why you'd include Nichols, as well. You have a woman who is actively soliciting, described as a prostitute, who is killed in a very lively and risky place. A woman that was dispatched very easily without a sound or alerting anybody, in a very similar manner to the rest of the killings. A very short distance later that would almost perfectly coincide with the walking distance, the Ripper operates on Eddowes. Murders happen very rarely, and for a murder of a similar capacity to the Ripper's killings to happen on the same night within walking distance of another killing is a pretty big coincidence, to be sure.

                              I might also be inclined to see the near pitch black operation and possible short timing on Eddowes as limiting what we would see in terms of skills, but if he demonstrated medically trained skills sets in near dark on Hanbury, then I would expect similar standards in Mitre Square. There arent.
                              Hanbury wasn't near dark, it was probably becoming fairly bright at the time Chapman was killed. Certainly not as dark as Eddowes would have been. And how did he not display similar skills? Brown suggested that the killer had considerable knowledge in regards to organs and where they are situated. He was also operating under a very limited time and apparently even despite that was effective in doing what he wanted with Eddowes aside from stealing the kidney. This showcases more skill than anything. I don't know why you place Chapman's killer as having been more skillful just because he didn't do anything other than steal the uterus. Both Chapman and Eddowes' killer achieved what they wanted to achieve, only Eddowes' killer took his time to do other things, as well.

                              Philips saw the most Canonicals in death of any physician, and it would be his opinions that should carry the most weight. And in fact his comments suggest he did see what the killer ultimately wanted by the way and order the cuts were made, and again that there were "no meaningless cuts".
                              Philips also believed all the C5 were killed by one man, yet you conveniently ignore that. Why? We've also discussed the "meaningless cuts" statement.

                              Youve made assumptions about why he killed...maybe better to let the evidence tell you what he wanted. Like in Strides case, the evidence says he wanted her dead...thats it.
                              True, but you also have to take into account the fact that there are easier ways to kill someone than doing it so brazenly. Her killer was also not an amateur, that's for certain. He knew perfectly well how to incapacitate her. I know that's Whitechapel but even in Whitechapel there weren't many of those.

                              There is no way to dispute Mary had sold herself, there is the matter of the arrears in her case, what she told Barnett about being afraid, and the fact that the only man we see her take into the room aside from Barnett she sang to for over an hour. The circumstances dictate what she was doing that night...and I dont see solicitation.
                              What other purpose would she have to invite a stranger in her house, undress herself and get ready for bed or sex (given the position her neck was cut from) if he wasn't a client? And is there any set procedure as to what should be done with a client? 4 of the 5 C5 spent some time with the Ripper.

                              Not only did he not want to come forward, he may have run when spotted on a tram a few days later that week.
                              Hm?

                              There are no broad strokes here....not all the women appear to have been soliciting, so its not an MO requirement.
                              Annie and Nichols definitely were. Stride went out her way to make herself very presentable and was said to have been seen with clients. Very unlikely she would be doing anything else around midnight. Eddowes wasn't a prostitute, but her situation at that point was very desperate and she had no money for her room. Kelly was a known prostitute who Barnett left because she was "back to her old ways". What would any of these women be doing with other men around midnight?


                              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Not on Chapman, I think there were a few bruises on her chest, three I think. And one beside her eye, but Phillips said they were old bruises, likely from the fight she had with another woman recently.
                              "The injuries were certainly not self-inflicted. The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and side of the jaw, but the bruises in front of the chest and temple were of longer standing -- probably of days"

                              Evidently he controlled her in some way.

                              It's possible, only because we can't honestly say it's impossible. Pressure marks leave bruises in general, like we see (read), on Nichols face. One on the side of her jaw and the second on the opposite cheekbone, consistent with a thumb & fingers of the same hand spread across her face.
                              No killer does a murder or a crime in the same way always. My point was that the killer obviously slashed their throats first. How he went about it is up to speculation. If he strangled them with bare hands, that would leave a lot more bruising than any of the victims have showcased except Mary whose face was butchered and there's no way to tell.

                              The Daily News reports that shortly before the cry of "oh, murder" there had been a row in the court. Between who & why we are not told, and this is the only report of a row that I recall seeing. So perhaps the cry was connected with the row?
                              Whether Kelly was already dead by that time we can't be sure.
                              Or perhaps it was nothing? First time hearing about it. And what would a "row" imply? A row would cause some sort of commotion. And we know McCarthy was around the vicinity. Nobody of the witnesses seem to report it, so I don't believe it.

                              Nobody can be sure at what time Mary died because of the state of her body, but we can make a pretty reasonable guess. Anything past 02:00 AM is very suspect because the traces of food remaining would push her time of death way before she was even discovered. It's not about opinion anymore but about the fact that she must have eaten somewhat close to her time of death. This is based on everything we know about the digestion process.

                              Where I think you are in error is the part where Prater says there was no light in her room. That suggests to me Kelly was back out on the streets, that is also consistent with the press report that some residents saw her out after one o'clock. Then of course there's Mrs Kennedy....
                              Why? Per Cox's statements Mary was already drunk with even more alcohol in the hand of Blotchy that is highly likely they drank to the bottom. Mary's neighbor Pickett and her husband confirm that up until 12:30 AM Mary is still singing, Cox returns home somewhere around 01:00 AM, she attests that Mary is still singing, but curiously enough when she leaves back out again whether she continued singing or not isn't mentioned. Prater comes back home after the man she is waiting for doesn't come home. She comes home around 01:30. Her testimony is that she waited outside the Court, even conversed with McCarthy. Nor Blotchy or MJK are seen leaving her room. When Prater returns home no glimmer of light is seen and apparently the singing has stopped. At this point, whatever happened, even if Mary is still alive, Blotchy is in her room, unless he is a ghost. It would be impossible for Mary to leave without her being noticed or the witnesses being incredibly wrong or outright lying.

                              She is supposedly seen around 02:00 AM by Hutchinson, asking him for money (but why would she ask him for money when Blotchy should have given her money? Plus, apparently she ate and drank. Maybe for her room?). Then the most absurd thing happens. As she is walking by, a man approaches her from out of nowhere and they both suddenly, like they know each other, go back to her room. Here's my problem with this - Astrakhan, by the dialogue Hutchinson gave him, seems like a client. But a client doesn't just stop a random woman on the street and talk her into ******* him. It makes no sense. Hutchinson's testimony also never mentions Kelly as drunk, in fact she appears quite sober, capable of conversing with him freely while Cox said Kelly could hardly reply reply to her. Then we're supposed to believe that Kelly went out again before getting another man back in the house. What's more is that Hutchinson never described Kelly or what she was wearing. I'm sorry, but this simply makes no sense whatsoever. You'd have to suspend your disbelief quite a lot to go with this scenario. Even if we presume Cox is lying and we discount the whole event from earlier, it still doesn't make any sense.

                              I don't know where you get that from. Kennedy makes no claim to not knowing Kelly, she even lived opposite Kelly at No.2, so how could she not know her immediate neighbor 3-4 ft across the court?
                              It is a pretty easy conclusion to make given that Kennedy was not a resident at Miller's Court but was simply visiting her parents that night. Even if she knew Kelly by her previous visits, she probably did only vaguely. How much trust you can put in her recognizing Kelly at 03:00 AM pitch black?

                              I think we all know how inaccurate medical estimates have been in this ripper case, even the doctors don't agree with each other. Plus, Bond has a reputation for being contrary with his medical peers. Look at the Mylett case as a good example, how Bond disgreed with about 5 or 6 of his peers, even his own assistant Hibbert disagreed with him.
                              But we're not talking on opinions here, but on Kelly's digestion system which is the same as any other human. Even if he was slightly off, it doesn't make sense for her to be killed much after 02:00 regardless.


                              I don't buy that argument but some prefer to think it was possible. A clear case of mistaken identity in my view.
                              Which is exactly why you shouldn't believe every witness that says something, especially dubious witness descriptions.

                              More than that, Lewis saw a couple pass up the court ahead of her, she then noticed a man standing opposite (Hutchinson), so the couple Hutchinson was following (Astrachan & Kelly) must have been there. Lewis also described the woman as 'the worse for drink', which is just how Hutchinson described Kelly.
                              But the couple Lewis saw directly contradicts Hutchinson's testimony. For one, Hutchinson's whole testimony is that he followed Kelly and Astrakhan back to her place. Kelly and Astrakhan stopped at the entrace to the Court, exchanged kissing and sweet words for some time. Then they went in Kelly's room with Hutchinson overlooking them and waiting for them for some time. Not only is Lewis location wrong, but the couple couldn't be Kelly and Astrakhan per Hutchinson's description because they'd be passing him while he was looking for Kelly in the court.

                              Kelly must have been murdered sometime between 3:00-4:00 in my view.
                              Kennedy saw her about 3:00am, so Kelly & Astrachan must have both left the court about the time Hutchinson walked away. Astrachan may have walked westward down Dorset St. in the opposite direction to Hutchinson, while Kelly walked eastward to the Britannia on the corner.
                              I suspect Astrachan was rattled by Hutchinson, first staring him in the face, then following on close behind, only to stand across the road the entire time he was with Kelly. Perhaps he thought he was going to get mugged by Hutchinson, and that may truly have been Hutchinson's initial intent.
                              He presents a different persona to the police in his interview, but that's only to be expected.
                              But are we supposed to believe that a very drunk Kelly just went through 3 clients in the space of 4 hours? That's very, very unlikely.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                ... As for Stride, the only logical way to include her is to suggest interruptions, yet none are indicated or present in the evidence...
                                You know, the more I've thought about that line (whoever wrote it: it's hard to unpack the attibutions at this point...), the better do I grasp the enormous difference Lechmere makes to the way these events look...

                                Most argument still occupies the space between 'the Ripper was interrupted, probably by Diemschutz' and 'Different knife and cut, besides the lack of mutilations: it wasn't the Ripper who killed Stride...'

                                But with Lechmere slotted in as our perpetrator, we get to run this another way: an imaginary scenario in which it *was* the Ripper, and he *wasn't* interrupted...

                                The obvious differences observed in relation to his lashing out at Stride for whatever reason (and not for a moment do I believe he was seen) are to do with the uniqueness of the situation, socio-geographically speaking. His mum, current stepfather and eldest daughter live in a house literally streets away; he'd grown up in numerous houses in that area and lived there until mere months before; he's likely been close by for hours before the murder, possibly talking and drinking with people who knew him; it's not impossible that he had 'history' with Stride, who might have known or recognised him as a local; and there were old acquaintances of the family living literally in sight of Dutfield's Yard in the Marshall household. If he'd been visiting his mum or walking her back home in the dark, he probably didn't have his usual knife on him; and he'd probably downed a few pints by closing time -- very much unlike his 'armed and alert' workday morning killings.

                                With all this in mind, it seems to me that the one thing we *shouldn't* expect to be seeing in Berner Street is a 'normal' Ripper killing.

                                And, finally, if -- as we are constantly being told -- Lechmere 'really was known as Charles Cross', the one thing he -- as the official, named discoverer of Nichols' body -- couldn't afford to do was be remembered by a load of former neighbours as having been visibly present in the area where another obvious Ripper victim was then immediately found.

                                You want to argue that Stride doesn't look like a Ripper victim? That's exactly what Lechmere wanted you to argue -- and exactly what Mitre Square was intended to confirm!

                                Get my drift, esteemed fellow detectives...?

                                -- Oo-er... Is this off-topic for the thread?? Apologies if so...

                                Bests,

                                Mark D.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X