Galloway and the Blotchy Faced Man

[perrymason]

surely if we are to believe Mary Cox's version(which is believeable) she states that blotchy went in MJK room at 11.45am,and after she went out again till 1.00am, MJK was still singing in her room.
This dont add up if blotchy is the killer(Jack) would he really wait at least 1hour 15 mins before doing the deed?


Please be gentle with me if i am way out of line,as i am a newbee to this.lol

Hi Dixon,

I think you make a very valid point there......I would think the odds of Jack the Ripper sitting still for 1 1/2 hours of song before killing a street prostitute he has been alone in the room with.....are reasonable speaking, quite long.

If Blotchy was really Jack the Scapegoat, he'd likely have surprised and choked her early on and we would never have heard singing at all. Jack did silence his women when alone with them. That doesnt mean Blotchy didnt or couldnt have killed her at all though.....he is still by far the only suspect in terms of evidence....hes the only one seen with her in her room that night after she may have gone indoors for the evening.

The line between the line suggests hes not Jack just because "Mary was killed by Jack"....because in fact, we dont know whether Mary was killed by the Ripper or not......only that she was killed, and Blotchy is the last man believed seen with her.

All the best.

[Jeff Leahy]

The line between the line suggests hes not Jack just because "Mary was killed by Jack"....because in fact, we dont know whether Mary was killed by the Ripper or not......only that she was killed, and Blotchy is the last man believed seen with her.

All the best.

Thats not really true is it Michael. We can look at the wounds inflicted on MJK and suggest that who ever perpetrated the attack did so with some similarity to Eddow's and Chapman.

It is the similarities in the method of attack that suggest a serial killer is at work.

Pirate

[perrymason]

Thats not really true is it Michael. We can look at the wounds inflicted on MJK and suggest that who ever perpetrated the attack did so with some similarity to Eddow's and Chapman.

It is the similarities in the method of attack that suggest a serial killer is at work.

Pirate

Hi Pirate,

Ill stick with my original wording mate as far as "known" goes....because no matter how many people, including many contemporary investigators, decide that Marys death looks to be in keeping with the deaths we can more readily attribute to the killer/mutilator that surfaced in August, there is an overwhelming case for the Kelly murder to be considered an anomaly in the Ripper profile. There are many, many circumstantial factors that suggest reading the last page as it were to decide how the story proceeded isnt the best approach here.

To decide that Kelly is a Ripper victim based on the mutilations is a mistake I believe, because clearly other men killed some of these women, and cutting up a woman indiscriminately is not what Jack the Ripper did. The attending medical experts for the cases of Polly and Annie suggested that the killer killed the women to obtain the objectives he achieved, and was likely foiled in Pollys case primarily due to the venue choice. He was skilled with a knife, and he cut where he takes things from, knowing how to extract a uterus complete.

Mary Kelly's killer in almost everyones opinion showed none of the skill or knowledge that Jack showed, (including Bonds), but repeated many acts that had been reported in the papers copiously in the months and weeks before the Kelly murder.

Most think that lack of prior focus is cause he "lost it" when presented with the opportunities to cut away indiscriminately for a longer period of time.

I think thats a weak bit of conjecture myself....kinda like linking Druitt to these cases cause he committed suicide not long after Marys murder.

Best regards PJ

[Garry Wroe]

Presumably, then, Mike, trusting to the above logic, Patricia Atkinson couldn't have been killed by Peter Sutcliffe.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[perrymason]

Presumably, then, Mike, trusting to the above logic, Patricia Atkinson couldn't have been killed by Peter Sutcliffe.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Hi Gary,

I dont read about other serial killing lore much, so Ill have to take your word that the woman mentioned was indeed killed by Sutcliffe.....youll notice though I didnt say specifically that Mary wasnt killed by Jack, just that a very real argument exists that suggests she wasnt killed by the same man that killed Polly or Annie. Based on skill shown, the decided and repetitive traits Jack showed in the 2 first murders..some carrying on through Kates, the circumstantial differences...some of which suggest a killer known to the victim, the known love triangle, the acts that defy any real explanation..like thigh stripping, and the fact that the facial mutilations, the abdominal flaps, the removal of organs which are left around...which do include the colon, but do not include a reasonable reason for the placement of them as in the cases of the women who had intestines removed so further access to the objectives could be enhanced.....were all in printed press articles prior to this death.

If Jack the Ripper killed Polly and Annie, then they are the basis for comparisons with other murders....setting aside rampant speculation that he likely changed approach, victim profile, objectives and methodology...much of which is based upon studies of modern serial killers through interviews with them and is therefore not immediately applicable resource materials....

The "guesses" that he just slit one artery of one womans throat because he got sloppy or impetuous, and that he performed a broad range of dissection curiosities that he discovered he desired once he had more privacy are just that.... guesses. For my money the profile of the man that killed Polly and Annie need not have changed 1 iota, because we have medical opinion that he achieved what he wanted with Annie. That his cuts were to achieve objectives that resulted in "trophies", or whatever they represented....and with Polly, that removal and "trophy" taking may simply have been the result of a poor choice to kill in front of houses on the street....an issue which he successfully addressed within 10 days.

Jack the Ripper isnt known to be a bloodthirsty serial killer who just wants to cut women to pieces....he is suspected of being such.

I personally dont see the hands of the man that killed C1 and C2 in many other murders.

Cheers Gary

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry Mike. Originally posted this to the wrong thread!

Anyway ...

... Whilst you make a number of perfectly sensible points, I would contend that sadosexual serialists do not operate on a painting-by-numbers basis. Lying at the core of their behaviour is a fantasy in which the sexual imperative has become intertwined with savage violence. But the fantasy that inspires specific offence behaviour evolves over time, which is one reason why the crimes of an individual offender become increasingly more brutal as the series progresses. In this context, I see a clear progression through Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. I would also be extremely surprised if the Ripper's first attack on a woman took place in Buck's Row. In all likelihood, the rage that was so apparent in the Whitechapel Murders would have been manifested in earlier incidents – physical assaults on women, possibly involving robbery and humiliation. Again, this relates to the evolution of behaviour.

It has been argued that the murder of Kelly is unlikely to have been part of the series because it occurred indoors – the assumption, presumably, being that the Ripper preferred to kill outdoors. But this, in my view, is to misunderstand the mindset of such men. Peter Sutcliffe committed almost all of his attacks outdoors, but when he chanced upon Patricia Atkinson he was presented with the rare opportunity of a streetwalker offering indoor sex. He could, had he been so inclined, have waylaid Patricia on the way to her flat. Instead he chose to go indoors before commencing the attack. Interestingly enough, the injuries that were inflicted upon Patricia Atkinson were unique in context of the series as a whole. Apart from using a knife to inflict the customary sharp-force injuries, Sutcliffe also used the claw end of his hammer to rip away portions of flesh from the body.

In the Patricia Atkinson case, therefore, we have a clear echo of the events that occurred in Miller's Court a century earlier – an indoor killing as part of a predominantly outdoor series that produced injuries that were inflicted on none of the other victims. No mystery. No contradiction. Just the overkill that one might expect from an offender accorded the opportunity to give full expression to his rage against women.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[perrymason]

Sorry Mike. Originally posted this to the wrong thread!

Anyway ...

... Whilst you make a number of perfectly sensible points, I would contend that sadosexual serialists do not operate on a painting-by-numbers basis. Lying at the core of their behaviour is a fantasy in which the sexual imperative has become intertwined with savage violence. But the fantasy that inspires specific offence behaviour evolves over time, which is one reason why the crimes of an individual offender become increasingly more brutal as the series progresses. In this context, I see a clear progression through Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. I would also be extremely surprised if the Ripper's first attack on a woman took place in Buck's Row. In all likelihood, the rage that was so apparent in the Whitechapel Murders would have been manifested in earlier incidents – physical assaults on women, possibly involving robbery and humiliation. Again, this relates to the evolution of behaviour.

It has been argued that the murder of Kelly is unlikely to have been part of the series because it occurred indoors – the assumption, presumably, being that the Ripper preferred to kill outdoors. But this, in my view, is to misunderstand the mindset of such men. Peter Sutcliffe committed almost all of his attacks outdoors, but when he chanced upon Patricia Atkinson he was presented with the rare opportunity of a streetwalker offering indoor sex. He could, had he been so inclined, have waylaid Patricia on the way to her flat. Instead he chose to go indoors before commencing the attack. Interestingly enough, the injuries that were inflicted upon Patricia Atkinson were unique in context of the series as a whole. Apart from using a knife to inflict the customary sharp-force injuries, Sutcliffe also used the claw end of his hammer to rip away portions of flesh from the body.

In the Patricia Atkinson case, therefore, we have a clear echo of the events that occurred in Miller's Court a century earlier – an indoor killing as part of a predominantly outdoor series that produced injuries that were inflicted on none of the other victims. No mystery. No contradiction. Just the overkill that one might expect from an offender accorded the opportunity to give full expression to his rage against women.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Hi Gary,

Thanks for taking the time to answer... twice
I put that last part in bold because that again, in my opinion, is making assumptions about the killer that are not warranted by the evidence in all the respective and alleged Ripper cases.

I dont see any anger or realized emotions myself in any Canonical victims wounds prior to the facial wounds Kate gets,... aside from raw anger likely provoking the Stride single slash. If anything, Cold, Clinical and Dispassionate is how I would describe both Polly and Annies murders. Someone who was emotionally flat at the time he was cutting, because either he had a learned skill that taught him how to dehumanize the human form, or because he was intent on his work and the time he had to do it.

I think that the fact only weak, desperately poor women were victims really only says 2 things about him and women.....1, that they had inside them things he wanted, and secondly, that he felt they were the least contentious prey. He didnt attack women generally....just Unfortunates. That tells me he likely saw little value in their being alive at all, as did most of greater London....they were not seen as important lives, more as lost souls.... but perhaps he saw some value in their parts. Either financially, or as something to covet.

All the best Gary

[caz]

Hi Perry,

Are you not making assumptions about the killer of each victim that are not warranted by the evidence?

Where do your assumptions come from, concerning the emotions felt by whoever was doing the cutting and/or ripping in each case? How do you tell burning rage from coldness, just by looking at the damage inflicted? How do you tell personal from impersonal?

What makes you say that everything Mary's killer did to her body was 'indiscriminate', while the damage done to certain previous victims was not for its own sake, but to achieve some sort of goal? How can you make any such distinction using the evidence? Could organs not have been removed from some of the bodies "just because he could", and taken away for souvenirs, on occasions when he needed something to remind him because his quality time with the victim had been so very fleeting?

I can't think of anything less 'indiscriminate' than the killer of Polly, Annie and Kate finding himself at last in a situation where he could really go to town without looking over his shoulder for the next passer-by or worrying about the next police beat, and filling his boots in exactly the way Mary's killer chose to fill his. What would have been indiscriminate about wanting to repeat the experience of inflicting facial mutilations; choosing to cut off breasts and try his hand at stripping flesh from limb, while he had this body that was lying naked - or as good as - on a raised surface; being able to remove even more organs, including the heart?

Why do you think the ripper would have turned his nose up at such an opportunity for quality time?

Why do you think he would not have done any or all of those things given half a chance?

What evidence do you have for saying that Kate's killer would have done things very differently if Mary had approached him on Commercial Street and said "Hey Big Spender, do yourself a favour and spend a little time with me back at my place - and bring beer"?

And what's emotion got to do with it?

Jack was only a man after all - with 'needs' that Mary could supply well enough.

Love,

Caz
X

PS And oh my goodness, what has anything in your post got to do with Galloway and Blotchy???

[perrymason]

Hi Caz,

Due to the multitude of questions there, Ill address them in your post.....

Are you not making assumptions about the killer of each victim that are not warranted by the evidence?

The main assumptions I made are about Kates face "nicks" revealing emotions by the killer and the lack of superfluous cutting on Polly and Annie. I would think they are as I portrayed them, based on the evidence.

Where do your assumptions come from, concerning the emotions felt by whoever was doing the cutting and/or ripping in each case? How do you tell burning rage from coldness, just by looking at the damage inflicted? How do you tell personal from impersonal?

Personal/Emotional....in Marys case, just about all the circumstantial evidence says that. Impersonal/Flat emotionally...murders that have acts committed hastily and specifically with superfluous random cutting.

What makes you say that everything Mary's killer did to her body was 'indiscriminate', while the damage done to certain previous victims was not for its own sake, but to achieve some sort of goal? How can you make any such distinction using the evidence? Could organs not have been removed from some of the bodies "just because he could", and taken away for souvenirs, on occasions when he needed something to remind him because his quality time with the victim had been so very fleeting?

I can say as the medical experts did, that Polly was likely killed for the same reason as Annie,...to obtain female internal organs, and in fact, thats exactly what the evidence indicates. Dont tell me you believe what happened to Mary was so he could take only her heart?

I can't think of anything less 'indiscriminate' than the killer of Polly, Annie and Kate finding himself at last in a situation where he could really go to town without looking over his shoulder for the next passer-by or worrying about the next police beat, and filling his boots in exactly the way Mary's killer chose to fill his.

Perhaps you should Caz, since only you seem to feel with certainty that doing what was done to Mary was what Jack "really" wanted all along. As I said, the doctors suggested strongly that Annie was killed for her uterus....thats why the abdominal flaps and cuts, and that why he left after he had it. Again, if Marys killer wanted her heart,...or just to cut indiscriminately, how exactly is he like Annies killer? Annies killer showed skill and knowledge....Marys killer showed that he had time and a knife.

What would have been indiscriminate about wanting to repeat the experience of inflicting facial mutilations; choosing to cut off breasts and try his hand at stripping flesh from limb, while he had this body that was lying naked - or as good as - on a raised surface; being able to remove even more organs, including the heart?

Again....he doesnt randomly excise organs to leave behind Caz...he never did in the first 4 victims....unless of course you include Mary as a 5th. He cuts out what he takes....in Marys case he cuts everything out and takes a single non-gender specific organ...again, unlike Jack.

Why do you think the ripper would have turned his nose up at such an opportunity for quality time?

If he kills women to extract their abdominal organs, why would a venue change that...for that matter, since he has worked so well and effectively doing what he did, why would he risk being trapped in a 10 x 10 room?

Why do you think he would not have done any or all of those things given half a chance?

Because the ONLY evidence that exists that says he wanted to just cut a woman up is the Canonical inclusion of Mary Kelly. Without her.....he is what he showed us.

What evidence do you have for saying that Kate's killer would have done things very differently if Mary had approached him on Commercial Street and said "Hey Big Spender, do yourself a favour and spend a little time with me back at my place - and bring beer"?

I never said that Caz.

And what's emotion got to do with it?

In my opinion......EVERYTHING.

Jack was only a man after all - with 'needs' that Mary could supply well enough.

Jack was a sick man with specific goals that are shown in the first 2 new style kills that Fall. His needs I believe were being met.....why would he continue if not?

PS And oh my goodness, what has anything in your post got to do with Galloway and Blotchy???

Nothing....but it is the address of some points that were being made, and follow up questions like these.

All the best Caz

[perrymason]

After reviewing the post, I should correct my answer for the second question, It should have read "without"....

Best regards

[caz]

Art or Science?

Hi Perry,

Are you using art or science to determine what emotions a killer was feeling from the nature of the damage he inflicted? How are you judging what damage would have been ‘superfluous’ to the ripper’s requirements or right up his alley?

If you are excluding all victims who don’t conform exactly to your narrow and subjective view of what the ripper was all about, based on just two or three of a series of murders, it’s a circular argument. You may as well conclude that the ripper would not have gone for women called Liz or Mary Jane because he only killed a Mary Ann, an Annie and a Kate, therefore you can safely exclude Stride and Kelly. It’s nonsense isn’t it, without any evidence at all of what he wouldn’t do, and only evidence of what he did do to certain victims, and may have done to others.

I’m not talking about your circumstantial evidence in Mary’s case, but your insistence that her mutilations indicate a personal/emotional motive, while Kate’s apparently do not. Kate’s womb and kidney were whipped out on the street and taken away, and her face mutilated. Mary’s organs were removed indoors and her heart apparently taken away, and her face mutilated. You talk about acts committed ‘hastily’, so you are well aware that the outdoor murders had a tighter time factor attached. Take Kate indoors, strip her and put her on a bed and loosen that time factor a notch, then tell me why her killer would not have done a Mary Kelly on her. Or take Mary to Mitre Square, put her in several layers of clothing and add a policeman on his beat and at least three passers-by then tell me why her killer would not have done a Kate Eddowes on her. You can’t do that because you have already decided on the killer’s motive in each case and determined a difference.

What you can’t know is the killer’s motive for removing/taking away organs, whether it was done on the street to Kate or indoors to Mary. The medical experts who examined the bodies could only give their opinions on the mechanics of what was done to each victim. They could have had no more idea than you or anyone else why Kate’s kidney was taken, or Mary’s heart, let alone conclude that the reasons were different. Of course the evidence will indicate to you that the ripper set out every time to obtain female internal organs, if you are only obtaining your evidence from victims who were missing a female internal organ. One could equally argue that the ripper set out to obtain organs for his supper, found wombs too tough but knew that a kidney or heart would be very nise and edible.

Gosh, I’m the ‘only’ poster now who still believes it was Jack who filled his boots in Mary’s room? Are you sure about that? And I thought it was only you claiming to know instinctively what Jack’s ‘to do’ list would never have included.

A naughty kid in a sweetshop will fill his pockets and scarper quick while the shopkeeper is not looking. He’ll go for anything in reach and won’t hang around examining the spoils and only taking the best to eat later. The same kid locked in another sweetshop with nobody else around is quite likely to make such a pig of himself at the scene that he won’t feel like stuffing his pockets at the end of it with all the leftover sweets he can grab. He is likely to be more discriminating and only take something he really fancied saving for later - like the biggest Easter egg in the shop from the top shelf. In either case he’ll be in trouble if the shopkeeper catches him. But I doubt the kid will stop to weigh up the sweets, let alone the risks of being trapped in the shop.

Why do you keep saying that Mary’s killer ‘just’ wanted to cut her up? He took organs out, cut off her breasts, mutilated her face and apparently took her heart away with him (in his quart pot perhaps?), among various other indignities. I presume he did all those things because he wanted to. Why he wanted to is another matter, but for all you know it was the same reason Kate’s killer wanted to do what he did. The naughty kid in both sweetshops ‘just’ wanted to steal as many sweets as possible without anyone stopping him. Only the circumstances and his appetite dictated how much he could get away with in each shop and what he would take with him to enjoy later.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

Hello Caz,

What I have been saying with the various arguments on this murder and other Canonicals, is that the reasons for the killings isnt necessarily a mystery for all 5 murders..... in the first 2 cases, it was apparently to obtain the organ only successfully extracted and taken from the 2nd victim, in the opinions of the physicians charged with making those determinations. In those 2 killings both "surgeon" quality knife skills and knowledge of anatomy were bestowed upon the killer, again, by the same physicians. The ones that examined the women first hand.

There is no Canonical murder beyond Annies that suggested the killer or killers possessed the same qualities as the man who killed the first 2 women....or that he or they had the same objectives. The only suggestion would be the removal of Kates kidney....that required similar traits, but still didnt have to be the same man as the murderer of C1 and C2. Her throat cuts however are very much like her predecessors, as is the abdominal "work", so Im on the fence with Kate.

If the Rippers ultimate objectives are not merely killing, ( and as an aside I regard C1 and C2 as almost positively "Jacks" work), or the opportunity to "cut and place" at will, then what we might well have is women being murdered for different reasons. But maybe even being killed in Ripper fashion, to meet whatever objectives they may have had.

To bring this home, Blotchy Faced Man could well have killed Mary Kelly. That is not to say that he was Jack, only that by the evidence available, he is the man who was on scene after Mary stopped singing, and our best bet so far. So despite what the corpse looks like later on, meaning "Ripped" up, its still just Blotchy Man at this point....not Jack by default.

You can see emotions in some of these crimes, like the anger in Marthas murder, and Mary Kelly experienced her killers anger as well.

I dont see that Polly or Annie received punishment per se, I see them as cadaver donors, and I think he did too.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

The naughty kid in both sweetshops ‘just’ wanted to steal as many sweets as possible without anyone stopping him. Only the circumstances and his appetite dictated how much he could get away with in each shop and what he would take with him to enjoy later.

Splendid analogy, Caz.

[perrymason]

Splendid analogy, Caz.

Depending on your personal perceptions regarding the murders and evidence Sam.

I think its mostly just a means of justification for a Canonical Group in the first place, a speculated series that includes incompatible acts... its not a product of sieved evidence from 5 individual murders.

But to each his own.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Depending on your personal perceptions regarding the murders and evidence Sam.

It's a good analogy irrespective of that, Mike - at least in terms of pointing out what naughty boys might do if the circumstances were right. A naughty boy would not walk into a poorly-supervised sweetshop only to walk out with a single stick of gum... and Jack was decidedly a naughty boy. I can't imagine for one second that he'd have hesitated to "treat" himself, if confronted with an opportunity like Miller's Court.