Oh, murder!

[Wickerman]

why do people think she was killed when not already in bed asleep/passed out?

I think she was killed by the Ripper, if she was killed by someone else then my explanation wouldn't work.

The Ripper is not killing just for the sake of killing, he likely gets pleasure from the encounter. It seems the Ripper was first a strangler, it is known that stranglers receive a certain amount of gratification from watching their victim gasp for breath.
If, as I believe, the Ripper killed Kelly, he wouldn't want her to be asleep, he won't get any satisfaction in killing a sleeping victim, he wants her awake, scared and struggling.
If the Ripper killed Kelly, he was not a burglar, he was her client.

[Varqm]

If the killer/client was inside Kelly's room, I would think Kelly would not have been given a chance to say a word just like in the other cases.I think it was an intruder.

[Varqm]

and that man would be hutch correct?

No.I believe Hutch has nothing to do with the case.There was no law then for false witnesses.There's no proof Hutch knew Kelly, not even a rumor.

Just to add to my previous post the killer would not have want to wake up the neighbors,just like in Chapman's case,etc.

[Abby Normal]

If the killer/client was inside Kelly's room, I would think Kelly would not have been given a chance to say a word just like in the other cases.I think it was an intruder.

Hi varq
Yes

[Abby Normal]

No.I believe Hutch has nothing to do with the case.There was no law then for false witnesses.There's no proof Hutch knew Kelly, not even a rumor.

Just to add to my previous post the killer would not have want to wake up the neighbors,just like in Chapman's case,etc.

Hi vvarq
You lost me here.

If it was waiting man, it was most certainly hutch.

[Harry D]

Strangulation would be noisy. There'd be struggling and scuffling. Somehow the Ripper incapacitated Eddowes in Mitre Square without the nearby watchman or anyone else hearing so much as a pin drop. Same goes for other victims. Unless he was inhumanly strong, I don't think the killer straight-up strangled his victims.

[Michael W Richards]

Strangulation would be noisy. There'd be struggling and scuffling. Somehow the Ripper incapacitated Eddowes in Mitre Square without the nearby watchman or anyone else hearing so much as a pin drop. Same goes for other victims. Unless he was inhumanly strong, I don't think the killer straight-up strangled his victims.

Polly showed signs of possible strangulation including the protruding tongue, as did Annie....impossible to be sure what method was used because of the severity of the throat damage by knife.

Liz Strides scarf was knotted and twisted, also nicked in that twisted shape, she may well have been choked using her scarf by a grab from behind.

I'm not sure of what evidence there may have been with Kate, but Mary was likely cut while semi conscious, and the resulting defense wounds suggest she was resisting, so there isn't an argument for subduing via strangulation before the cut.

Of course Mary didn't have to be placed on the ground quietly either, she was already lying down.

[Sam Flynn]

Well there's some that say [Hutch and Fleming] were the same!

I once thought so, Abby, but now I know that's not the case.

[Varqm]

Hi vvarq
You lost me here.

If it was waiting man, it was most certainly hutch.

I do not want to turn this into a Hutch thread but to me his testimony was bogus just like a lot during the duration of the murders.There was no punishment for that at that time.There was no tidbit he was seen with Kelly let alone a friend.


--------

What appears to be defensive wounds,as pointed by the above post, also points to an intruder.These does not appear in the other cases.
But it could also have been done during the mutilation of Kelly's body.But this belong to another thread.If an intruder he must have also known Barnett stopped living in Kelly's room, or a recent client/acquaintance - who knew Kelly was alone, aside from the latch.

[Abby Normal]

I do not want to turn this into a Hutch thread but to me his testimony was bogus just like a lot during the duration of the murders.There was no punishment for that at that time.There was no tidbit he was seen with Kelly let alone a friend.


--------

What appears to be defensive wounds,as pointed by the above post, also points to an intruder.These does not appear in the other cases.
But it could also have been done during the mutilation of Kelly's body.But this belong to another thread.If an intruder he must have also known Barnett stopped living in Kelly's room, or a recent client/acquaintance - who knew Kelly was alone, aside from the latch.

I agree with your last statement and yes I think it was an intruder.
In terms of defensive wounds-I think it shows, if anything, that she was not already completely incapacitated when he started to cut her throat-ie. strangled to death or unconsciousness. It may point to an intruder who snuck in while she was passed out and attacked her without strangling first or it could have been someone who she invited in-Blotchy who waited till she passed out and did the same.
Don't see how defensive wounds exclusively points to an intruder.

[Abby Normal]

I once thought so, Abby, but now I know that's not the case.

I don't think so either, but still a possibility-why do you know they weren't?

[John G]

I think she was killed by the Ripper, if she was killed by someone else then my explanation wouldn't work.

The Ripper is not killing just for the sake of killing, he likely gets pleasure from the encounter. It seems the Ripper was first a strangler, it is known that stranglers receive a certain amount of gratification from watching their victim gasp for breath.
If, as I believe, the Ripper killed Kelly, he wouldn't want her to be asleep, he won't get any satisfaction in killing a sleeping victim, he wants her awake, scared and struggling.
If the Ripper killed Kelly, he was not a burglar, he was her client.

I think of you look at the C5 victims as a whole the absolute opposite is true. The evidence suggests that the killer quickly overpowered his victims, taking them completely by surprise before quickly slitting their throat, and thereby giving them no opportunity to resist or call out.

[John G]

Hi John.
I don't think it does, what I think is that you are confusing our modern more luxurious tendencies to undress for bed in something light and comfortable, because our bedrooms are warm and cozy.
This was the East end John, the poor and destitute living in drafty hovels.

We have firsthand accounts from a couple of witnesses that they went to sleep fully dressed. These houses were cold and drafty, these poor women did not waste precious kindling on a fire unless it was to earn some money.
Kelly was dressed in her nightdress because she was entertaining. If she had been alone she would have gone to bed clothed, like the other women of her class.

Michael makes some good points in post 390. And I seriously doubt that she would have neatly folded her clothes if she was entertaining a client.

[John G]

John, what's to say he didn't. Indeed have not some suggested that he may have undressed to prevent his clothes being covered in blood.

Not something I think myself, but a possibility.

Steve

Except that would suggest a organised offend, whereas in respect of the other victims there is no evidence the perpetrator took any precautions at all

[Elamarna]

Except that would suggest a organised offend, whereas in respect of the other victims there is no evidence the perpetrator took any precautions at all

I tend to agree, however it could be argued that as Kelly took longer he may have this time as he had time to think.

Just a possability.


Steve