Oh, murder!

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;413403]

But then what would be the motive to commit such an horrific murder?/QUOTE]

To construct a scene of desecration to change things.

Can you elaborate?

[John G]

I suspect that he was compelled to get a move-on with it with the others purely due to the exposed locations and time-pressure. Under better circumstances, who's to say he wouldn't have let Annie/Kate live a minute or two longer - that's all we're talking about - in order to prolong his kicks?I doubt that would work if he were in there on the pretext of obtaining a sexual service. She'd have got pretty suspicious if he just stood there waiting for her to nod off.

But in respect of the other murders the actual assault was only delayed until a suitable location was reached, although as all of the locations were exposed it still implies a degree of recklessness.

In respect of Kelly, the amount of destruction wrought upon the body doesn't suggest to me a perpetrator who was in the mood to be restrained about anything. On the contrary, it's indicative of someone in the throes of an absolute frenzy.

[Abby Normal]

I think the key to what went down with Mary's murder is the cuts through the corner/ edge of the sheet?

Now why would a killer do something like that?

[Joshua Rogan]

I suspect that he was compelled to get a move-on with it with the others purely due to the exposed locations and time-pressure. Under better circumstances, who's to say he wouldn't have let Annie/Kate live a minute or two longer - that's all we're talking about - in order to prolong his kicks?I doubt that would work if he were in there on the pretext of obtaining a sexual service. She'd have got pretty suspicious if he just stood there waiting for her to nod off.

Yes, it's easy to imagine that in all cases things had progressed to the point where negotiations were concluded, a suitable location had been sought, skirts had been lifted or clothes shed, and now some form of action was required on his part. If he was unwilling, or unable, to perform the expected action, perhaps it was time to reach for the knife.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;413396]But then what would be the motive to commit such an horrific murder?/QUOTE]

To construct a scene of desecration to change things.

[Sam Flynn]

Well, in respect of the other victims restraint was shown until they reached the murder location; this was unnecessary with Kelly as she was killed indoors.

I suspect that he was compelled to get a move-on with it with the others purely due to the exposed locations and time-pressure. Under better circumstances, who's to say he wouldn't have let Annie/Kate live a minute or two longer - that's all we're talking about - in order to prolong his kicks?

Moreover, if the killer was waiting for the ideal moment, as your argument implies, why not wait until she's asleep?

I doubt that would work if he were in there on the pretext of obtaining a sexual service. She'd have got pretty suspicious if he just stood there waiting for her to nod off.

[John G]

I really can't see why that should militate against the idea of her being in the process of undressing when she was killed.

Besides, did not Eddowes' apparent killer show restraint by chatting to her outside Church Passage, then walking with her into Mitre Square? Did not Chapman's killer show restraint by soliciting his victim on Hanbury Street, before walking with her (presumably quietly) through the lobby of No 29 and out into the back yard?But not as off-guard as when she was, say, preparing to lift her chemise over her head, or turning her back to drape a sock nearby.

Well, in respect of the other victims restraint was shown until they reached the murder location; this was unnecessary with Kelly as she was killed indoors. Moreover, if the killer was waiting for the ideal moment, as your argument implies, why not wait until she's asleep? I mean, to use your own argument, waiting until she was undressing is not as idea as waiting until she's asleep.

[Sam Flynn]

When you consider the extent of the injuries I very much doubt the killer would have been able to restrain themselves to such an extent.

I really can't see why that should militate against the idea of her being in the process of undressing when she was killed.

Besides, did not Eddowes' apparent killer show restraint by chatting to her outside Church Passage, then walking with her into Mitre Square? Did not Chapman's killer show restraint by soliciting his victim on Hanbury Street, before walking with her (presumably quietly) through the lobby of No 29 and out into the back yard?

If Kelly was comfortable with the man she was with, as suggested by your scenario she'd have been off-guard anyway

But not as off-guard as when she was, say, preparing to lift her chemise over her head, or turning her back to drape a sock nearby.

[John G]

I don't see why her being in the act of undressing should have anything to do with her killer's motive, but it might say much about the opportunity that was presented to her killer. If Mary was sitting on the bed in the process of undressing, or at least "making herself comfortable", she'd have been pretty relaxed and off her guard.

When you consider the extent of the injuries I very much doubt the killer would have been able to restrain themselves to such an extent. And if murder was the original motive, why would they need to? If Kelly was comfortable with the man she was with, as suggested by your scenario, she would have been off guard anyway, just as, say, Nichols, Stride, Eddowes and Chapman were.

[Sam Flynn]

But then what would be the motive to commit such an horrific murder?

I don't see why her being in the act of undressing should have anything to do with her killer's motive, but it might say much about the opportunity that was presented to her killer. If Mary was sitting on the bed in the process of undressing, or at least "making herself comfortable", she'd have been pretty relaxed and off her guard.

[John G]

I agree, because I'm still pretty convinced that she was still wearing one stocking on her right leg when she was killed, with what might be the other draped over the rolled-up blanket, or whatever it is, alongside the bed.

But then what would be the motive to commit such an horrific murder? What could possibly have provoked the killer who, according to this scenario, would have originally been preparing to engage in intimacy with Kelly?

[John G]

Hi John.

No-one claimed Mary was killed while asleep, she was killed in/on the bed, but whether awake or asleep is not possible to say.

I'm not suggesting her client returned some time later. I think she brought the client back with her and it was he who killed her as she/they were preparing for a bit of hanky-panky on the bed.

I think the burglar theory is impractical, it seems to be based in part on the expectation that such an old door will open silently, I very much doubt it.

Plus, it strikes me as unconventional for her to leave the door unlocked and go to bed, when we know it was a spring-lock, meaning when you push it closed it automatically locks.
So how is this burglar supposed to get in without making a noise?

We know 'they' reached through the broken window, but we do not know if it was common knowledge. McCarthy didn't seem to know.

Hi Jon,

She was found in bed and wearing a nightdress which, as I noted earlier, indicates she'd retired for the night. Moreover, Dr Bond took the view that she'd been asleep when attacked, i.e. because the sheet had been pulled up over her neck.

I also doubt burglary was the the initial motive: burglars rarely strike when someone is at home, and a burglary gone wrong doesn't remotely explain the horrific extent of the injuries: whoever was responsible must have been seriously disturbed.

It's possible, however, that the perpetrator was looking for a suitable victim and just got lucky when he noticed the broken window, realising that this could gain him access. Alternatively, he may have been aware of this fact; and John McCarthy certainly can't be excluded as a suspect, particularly when you consider the subsequent Ripper-like murder of Austin, which appears to have been covered up, coupled with the fact that Kelly was allowed to get into serious arrears,and Harding's reference to him as a "bully", which at the time was East End slang for a pimp.

[Sam Flynn]

I think she brought the client back with her and it was he who killed her as she/they were preparing for a bit of hanky-panky on the bed.

I agree, because I'm still pretty convinced that she was still wearing one stocking on her right leg when she was killed, with what might be the other draped over the rolled-up blanket, or whatever it is, alongside the bed.

[David Orsam]

You have postulated a false dichotomy.

My dear boy, there is no explanation in this post so, while utterly charming and delightful as usual, it is also not valid.

[David Orsam]

Contradiction, is that all you are capable of? Because you have everything unaccountably wrong. If you ignore that you are wrong you have a problem.

(This is the type of post everyone gets when discussing meaningless issues with David).

My dear boy, there is no explanation in this post so, while utterly charming and delightful as usual, it is not valid.