the last one

[Ben]

It would have been mighty cold for Mary, lying there naked or in a thin chemise in that freezing room with holes in the window panes had she been alone and not stripped for business purposes.

Unless the killer himself was responsible for removing her clothes, Rosella.

There is no "certainty" at all that Kelly ever wedged a chair in front of her door when sleeping alone, and in her inebriated state on the morning of her murder, it is more than likely that she overlooked such precautions. It is possible that Blotchy left the room after Kelly fell into a sozzled slumber, leaving the door "on the latch", and enabling her murderer to creep in at some point thereafter without creating a disturbance. Even if the killer found a locked door, he may have remedied the situation by reaching through the broken window and unlocking it from the inside, as both Kelly and Barnett had been accustomed to doing.

but I don't believe Jack was a burglar

But up until this point, he hadn't murdered women in their own homes either.

If we’re prepared to make allowances for change when it came to the type of venue targeted by the killer (as opposed to assuming that a different killer was responsible), it is only fair and logical to make similar allowances for the type of pre-crime approach he adopted. Ted Bundy altered his approach to suit different circumstances. When out and about, he adopted a false guise to inveigle them into this company, but when it came to the indoor Tallahassee murders he simply broke into the girls' rooms after monitoring the building from a vantage point, just as Robert Napper and Dannis Rader did.

Regards,
Ben

[Michael W Richards]

I believe Ben that your explanation that Mary undressed herself is likely the most probable, but as for the egress of the murderer sometime later that night, I think the evidence of the womans voice provide by 2 witneses indicates that its possible Mary was woken by someone and answered her door. If that is the case, then the killer was allowed to enter by Mary, and is therefore someone she knew intimately. There are 2 Joes in her life at this time as you recall..and who knows if there were others. Maybe she was seeing Blotchy.

The point though, for me anyway, is that with that call out being unassigned it could easily have been Marys call...which means her killer was known. Not a stranger.

The only issue with an idea that she would let clients in is that there is no record of her ever doing so, and Barnett had only been gone a few days, I see no justification to assume her habits suddenly changed. No witness recorded Mary regularly bringing men home other than Mary Ann Cox that one night, and it seems reasonable to assume that a young woman on her own, with her own room during that Fall of Terror might relish a private, safe space.

As for whether Mary was the last Ripper victim...well, if she knew him that sort of puts a major shift in what we can assume is his MO...at least the one he showed us in C1 and C2 murders. The only 2 that we can say with some comfort were likely stranger kills.

Cheers Ben

[Michael W Richards]

I just popped back to review what I said...and I actually meant to say ingress. Never post from work.

[Robert St Devil]

...

The body of a severely mutilated man is found in a poorly lit street. His spleen is missing, his liver is lying next to him, his testes have been cut off, the throat is slit, the nose is missing and worst of all,half the beard is cut Is this a Ripper victim? I am going to hazard a guess and say you would think no, probably not. And why wouldn't you think him a Ripper victim? Would it not be because the victim did not fit the usual victim profile?

NURSE: Didya see, doc? They brought in 5 victims of a shark attack.
DOCTOR: yes. But only 4 were attacked by a shark. The 5th wasn't.
NURSE: i don't understand. They all had the same bite marks.
DOCTOR: yes but the first four were americans and the last one was canadien.
NURSE: duh?

>however there's also this...

NURSE: doctor, they just brought in 5 victims of a shark attack.
DOCTOR: i know. I deduced that the shark was attracted to a perfume invredient used in their sunscreen.
NURSE: oh doctor. You are so clever.
DOCTOR: gimme some sugar, baby.

Sorry. Army of Darkness is on in another room.

HEllo KARL.
I considered your assertion from the vantage that you are right and i am wrong. I searched victimology, victim profiling, offender profiling and victim typology. However i wasnt able to draw many conclusions since it seemed an abstract of behaviorism and psychology which did not seem a fair representation of your idea regarding her height. Shaggyrand's prior post didn't clean the lens as much as provide me with a better one to see the case. Long story short, i created vulnerabilities to resolve my own ignorance. They are:

Physical Appearance
Physical Condition
Mannerism
Occupation
Status

Physical Aappearance is as it sounds. Physical Condition is the state of her body. Mannerisms is how she created herself. Occupation is how she occupies her space-time. Status is her relationship with the world.

PA - All were white females. Age ranged from 25 to 45 with a +|- factor of 10 years. Height ranged from 5'0 to 5'7. Weight ??? Most had darkhair, and none had any major handicap.
PC - malnourished, one case of Brights disease, some were intoxicated, some were epileptics
M - All spoke English, two spoke foreign languages. All dressed in contemporary fashion(?) with exception that some did not wear a bonnet. Kept loose items in pockets. Personality types varied and characterized as pest, unfortunate, bad drunks. most were alcoholics. Some smoked.
O - residents of WC after 1881, prostitutes, maid labour, field labour, bar maids, lodgers, street walkers, hobbyists
S - none were shut-ins. All had local friends. All were poverty stricken. Most were divorced or widowed. Involved in questionable relationships with longtime boyfriend. None lived with their children. One had a known enemy.

{Height and weight are proportions that should be presented in tandem. Turnabout is fairplay. He may be 11 to 13 stone of sinew and muscle who is a teetotaler. She may be 95 to 110 pounds of bone and muscle-fat who drinks and smokes.}

I agree that the eye can have a mind of its own, and makes decisions even before we have time to register the event. He may have had a vague idea of the physical appearance that he wanted - white female. His signature suggests insatiability so physical appearance would have been low priority. However that still leaves four vulnerabilities that he could register. But, be warned, it would be a vulnerability that he can register in less than an hour (or, from the time Catherine Eddowes leaves jail until she is murdered).

ps. Jack the Barber is a lousier name than Jack the Ripper

[DJA]

Yeah,but Canadians taste funny!

[Karl]

NURSE: Didya see, doc? They brought in 5 victims of a shark attack.
DOCTOR: yes. But only 4 were attacked by a shark. The 5th wasn't.
NURSE: i don't understand. They all had the same bite marks.
DOCTOR: yes but the first four were americans and the last one was canadien.
NURSE: duh?


>however there's also this...

NURSE: doctor, they just brought in 5 victims of a shark attack.
DOCTOR: i know. I deduced that the shark was attracted to a perfume invredient used in their sunscreen.
NURSE: oh doctor. You are so clever.
DOCTOR: gimme some sugar, baby.

I really do not see how either analogy fits (after all, no one is arguing that only four of the victims were killed by a human), but be that as it may...

PA - All were white females. Age ranged from 25 to 45 with a +|- factor of 10 years. Height ranged from 5'0 to 5'7. Weight ??? Most had darkhair, and none had any major handicap.

The problem with this is that it renders all information about the victim completely moot. After all, if one of the victims were 7, you'd simply change the range to 7-47 (Chapman was 47). You see the problem with this? It takes no account of distribution. This way of gathering evidence does not help us at all, and using this methodology one might as well include every single of the non-canonical victims as well. The first four victims were all within a range of 44-47 years of age, although Nichols allegedly looked ten years younger. Still, all of these victims had left youth some time ago. No matter how you cut it, Mary Jean Kelly is the odd one out with regards to age and appearance.

{Height and weight are proportions that should be presented in tandem. Turnabout is fairplay. He may be 11 to 13 stone of sinew and muscle who is a teetotaler. She may be 95 to 110 pounds of bone and muscle-fat who drinks and smokes.}

I agree that the eye can have a mind of its own, and makes decisions even before we have time to register the event. He may have had a vague idea of the physical appearance that he wanted - white female. His signature suggests insatiability so physical appearance would have been low priority. However that still leaves four vulnerabilities that he could register. But, be warned, it would be a vulnerability that he can register in less than an hour (or, from the time Catherine Eddowes leaves jail until she is murdered).

Height is the very first thing you notice in a person. Well, in competition with circumference, one might say. It is very possible that the killer really wasn't intimidated by MJK's height; that size really didn't matter to him. But simply deciding that this is the case just because it would otherwise contradict the theory that she was another Ripper-victim, is no good. Any discrepancy in comparison to the other victims is evidence, either of a different killer, or of a wider target group than previously considered. Either way, this is evidence which must be taken into consideration the same as MO. Consider the following dialogues, both of which are fallacious:

"We know it's the same killer because of the MO."
"But this victim is like none of the others."
"That doesn't matter, because we know it's the same killer."

"We know it's a different killer because the victimology is different."
"But the MO matches closely that of the others."
"That doesn't matter, because we know it's a different killer."

ps. Jack the Barber is a lousier name than Jack the Ripper

So is Benny the Butcher.

[elmore 77]

people who turn other people inside out are as rare as rocking horse shut,.what are the odds of having more than one in the same square mile within a few weeks of each other?

[c.d.]

Maybe we should look at their astrological signs as well. One with Jupiter rising could definitely be ruled out as a Ripper victim. But I think that could be trumped by favorite color so I am not sure.

c.d.

[Robert St Devil]

...

So is Benny the Butcher.

{half his beard cut off, Jack the Barber, ha ha. Eh fuhgeddabouttit}

Hello Karl.
My first respone was 'Polly Nichols' - plain & simple.
My second response was 'Annie Chapman' - a 'start' but still had loose ends
My third response was 'Lizzie Stride' - good presentation but unsatisfying
Now
My fourth response to this discussion was 'Kate Eddowes' - a concession but still an indulgence
However
My fifth response i prefer to do behind closed doors bc i can already tell you that its going to be a bloody mess.

[Karl]

{half his beard cut off, Jack the Barber, ha ha. Eh fuhgeddabouttit}

Ah - I had forgotten about the beard-joke I made.

Hello Karl.
My first respone was 'Polly Nichols' - plain & simple.
My second response was 'Annie Chapman' - a 'start' but still had loose ends
My third response was 'Lizzie Stride' - good presentation but unsatisfying
Now
My fourth response to this discussion was 'Kate Eddowes' - a concession but still an indulgence
However
My fifth response i prefer to do behind closed doors bc i can already tell you that its going to be a bloody mess.

All fine and good, but what exactly is this a response to? I was talking about how one piece of evidence does not cancel out another.

[Michael W Richards]

people who turn other people inside out are as rare as rocking horse shut,.what are the odds of having more than one in the same square mile within a few weeks of each other?

The Torsos indicate at least 2 serial killers in that area at that time, and Liz Strides murder was, by the physical evidence, killed by a simple horse, not a Unicorn.

The square mile/Autumn of Terror argument isn't anywhere near enough reason to group all violent crimes under 1 person.

[Robert St Devil]

Any thoughts why Mary Jane did not yell out "Jack the Ripper!" instead of "murder."? That seemed to grab the crowds attention better.

[Karl]

Any thoughts why Mary Jane did not yell out "Jack the Ripper!" instead of "murder."? That seemed to grab the crowds attention better.

"Murder" is the classic cry, but at any rate there is little to suggest that the scream heard was uttered by Mary. It could just be a coincidence.

At any rate, cries of "murder" has rarely done the victim any good. For the most part, people's instinct is to stay out of trouble, and they'd be content thinking "someone else will probably help; I don't have to get involved". If you want people to do something, yell "fire!"

[elmore 77]

The Torsos indicate at least 2 serial killers in that area at that time, and Liz Strides murder was, by the physical evidence, killed by a simple horse, not a Unicorn.

The square mile/Autumn of Terror argument isn't anywhere near enough reason to group all violent crimes under 1 person.

As far as I'm aware the only torso found in the area was in Pinchin Street,if you take Stride and Tabram out of the list the rest make a good argument for one man to me,.so still technically a serial killer hoperating in a very small area within a short space of time and doing things that are beyond most peoples capability or desire.Considering Hanbury to Millers is about 300yards it seems pretty clear to me

[Robert St Devil]

Hello KARL and ALL

I am still considering the height aspect except from a different angle. It may be that he chose any woman at random[debatable] but that doesnt mean it was a good practice.

Ive been considering specifying my MO from strangulation to garroting. I am searching for as much as I can find on the "garroting terror" that struck in the 50s. So far victorianlondon.org has provided the best information [a good read] on the MO of incapacitating a person within seconds.

Train of thought led me to those scarves tied round their necks [even Mary Jane's last words concern a handkerchief or neckerchief]. But also the silent cries of "murder" that might be muffled by having a cloth cinched tightly about the neck.

Train of thought led me to Elizabeth Stride and her cries for "help!" If Iscrael Schwartz testimony be fact: then we know a woman who is possibly Elizabeth Stride put up resistance, maybe while being garroted. In her case, maybe her height worked against him.

However we learn two things about the killer: 1) he is accompliced, and 2) he is adapatable.

Re: #2, he doesn't freak out or truck it out of there. He adapts his attack. But he goes further: in a matter of seconds, he sizes up Schwartz, estimates the threat and resolves the situation. For me this may speak on his criminal background.