Lizzie Prater - intended victim?

[Bridewell]

Taking (Or Not Taking) The Uterus

Yet Mary's uterus is intact, and left behind.

Hi Michael,

I would expect a copycat killer to take the uterus, so either this is a different killer who isn't a copycat, or this is a JtR who has decided not to take a uterus on this occasion. Why? Just running with a line of reasoning here (probably futile with an irrational killer, but what the heck):
He takes the womb from Chapman who is past child-bearing age.
He takes the womb from Eddowes who is past child-bearing age.
He has the opportunity to take the womb from Kelly who isn't past child-bearing age, but leaves it and (apparently) takes the heart instead.
If there was a single killer there seems to be a thought process here, but it's not one which I understand.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Robert]

Hi Michael

No frenzy or panic in the mutilations, but panic in the mode of despatch.

He had started doing faces and thighs with Eddowes.This is a natural progression.

[Michael W Richards]

I like this Michael. This logistical situation has convinced me more than any other argument that MJK's killer may in fact differ from the right handed killer of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.....

Now, was Astrakan's watch swinging from his left or right side? Ha Ha...

Greg

Thanks Greg, it obviously makes sense to me as well. If the man was left handed, then I think based on the statistical data that suggests less than 1% of any given population is ambidextrous, we have a different man here.

As for Astrakan's watch, you would have to explore the imagination of George Hutchinson for that answer.

Cheers Greg

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

I believe you are stating what I have always argued : unless you think that MJK was killed by a different person from the one who killed the others, this murder was botched. He had to cut her throat from the wrong side. Now, i don't believe for one moment that Jack accompanied Mary back to her room, went inside, waited for her to undress, possibly enjoyed a cabaret on the subject of mothers and violets, and then thought to himself "Oops, nearly forgot what i came to do. I'd better kill her." I think that if Jack got in that room with Mary, she'd have been dead within a minute of the door closing. Her clothes would not have been on a chair. Instead they'd have been shredded. He'd have punched her, applied some kind of strangulation, then laid her down on the bed with her head at the foot of the bed before he cut her throat. There'd have been no "Oh murder," no defensive wounds, no spurts of blood gushing up the partition, and it would be the left side of the throat that sustained most of the damage.

However, Jack had to make do with what he had. He had blundered into the room and now he panicked so had to kill her where he found her, with her in bed and awkwardly placed. After that, the only thing he could have done to make it more convenient, would have been to turn her round on the bed, after she was dead, so her head was at the foot. And maybe move the table. Turning the body round after she was dead might seem a bit wacky, especially as the cut throat would now be leaking at him, whereas before he'd always worked with the side of the throat that was cut the worst, pointing away from him. As for the table, well having it against the door would minimise the chance of his accidentally knocking it over.

Just my take on it.

Hi Robert,

On that line in bold, do you really see evidence that at any time in that room the killer was panicked or desperate? He took the time to methodically do what he did to Mary, particularly the right thigh stripping. I think the evidence indicates that the killer calmly proceeded to explore cutting a woman to bits.

Whereas Jack, if Jack is the appropriate name of the killer of Polly and Annie and even Kate, focused on accessing internal organs of the abdomen and taking one or 2 with him. The only organ taken 2 times is the uterus prior to Mary, and with very few cuts, excluding some on Kate, were superfluous. Yet Marys uterus is intact, and left behind. Most of what he cuts out he leaves, not so prior to Mary.

We dont have THE Ripper here, we have A ripper. One far less skilled and objective oriented.

Just my take.

[GregBaron]

Lefty lunatic...

Hi Robert,

Ok, Ill try it this way...when the person doing the mutilating is facing the corpse, the table is behind him to his right. If he is R/H, then he cuts with that hand and removes materials with the other. Unless of course you imagine the killer puts the knife down every time he moves things about. So lets say he extracts an organ, now in his left hand. How does that person have to move to place that organ behind him to his right while holding it with his left hand?

Be pragmatic about the logistics here. Twisting from the waist clockwise? Not probable. He would have to move from his position. Does he turn left, some 180 degrees plus, to place it on the nightstand? Not probable. Does he put the knife down and step back to his left while turning to face the nightstand? Perhaps. Do we have any comments about any stains on the bed or table that identified, in blood, the shape of a blade? Not to my knowledge.

Left handed knife man cuts the hypothetical organ out. He grabs it with his right hand, pivots, and places it on the table behind him. Easy Peasy. All the while his back is to the window. Remember, he is facing the partition wall while working on the body. He does not overly expose his face this way either, should someone peek in the window or move the curtains back where the latch access hole is. Another benefit for Mr L, although ancillary.

For the attack, if Mary was as I described, using the Inquest medical opinion on her location at the time of the throat slit, and logic that tells me if she is that far over to the right side of a small bed, she is on her right side..awaiting a spooning perhaps. Another indicator if so of her connection with her killer....along with the room, her manner of dress, the lack of noise, be in conversational or whatnot, at the time of her attack. A left handed knivesman can reach around and access the right hand side of her neck while pulling the knife back across toward himself....

Suggesting this killer was left handed didnt start with me Robert, it was suggested in contemporary times.

Cheers mate

I like this Michael. This logistical situation has convinced me more than any other argument that MJK's killer may in fact differ from the right handed killer of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.....

Now, was Astrakan's watch swinging from his left or right side? Ha Ha...



Greg

[Robert]

Hi Michael

I believe you are stating what I have always argued : unless you think that MJK was killed by a different person from the one who killed the others, this murder was botched. He had to cut her throat from the wrong side. Now, i don't believe for one moment that Jack accompanied Mary back to her room, went inside, waited for her to undress, possibly enjoyed a cabaret on the subject of mothers and violets, and then thought to himself "Oops, nearly forgot what i came to do. I'd better kill her." I think that if Jack got in that room with Mary, she'd have been dead within a minute of the door closing. Her clothes would not have been on a chair. Instead they'd have been shredded. He'd have punched her, applied some kind of strangulation, then laid her down on the bed with her head at the foot of the bed before he cut her throat. There'd have been no "Oh murder," no defensive wounds, no spurts of blood gushing up the partition, and it would be the left side of the throat that sustained most of the damage.

However, Jack had to make do with what he had. He had blundered into the room and now he panicked so had to kill her where he found her, with her in bed and awkwardly placed. After that, the only thing he could have done to make it more convenient, would have been to turn her round on the bed, after she was dead, so her head was at the foot. And maybe move the table. Turning the body round after she was dead might seem a bit wacky, especially as the cut throat would now be leaking at him, whereas before he'd always worked with the side of the throat that was cut the worst, pointing away from him. As for the table, well having it against the door would minimise the chance of his accidentally knocking it over.

Just my take on it.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm sorry, Michael, I don't follow.The table isn't behind the murderer, it's beside him, just to his right (I'm assuming the table wasn't moved at any point). And how can a left-handed man turn to his left to place objects behind him? What was he going to place them on?

Hi Robert,

Ok, Ill try it this way...when the person doing the mutilating is facing the corpse, the table is behind him to his right. If he is R/H, then he cuts with that hand and removes materials with the other. Unless of course you imagine the killer puts the knife down every time he moves things about. So lets say he extracts an organ, now in his left hand. How does that person have to move to place that organ behind him to his right while holding it with his left hand?

Be pragmatic about the logistics here. Twisting from the waist clockwise? Not probable. He would have to move from his position. Does he turn left, some 180 degrees plus, to place it on the nightstand? Not probable. Does he put the knife down and step back to his left while turning to face the nightstand? Perhaps. Do we have any comments about any stains on the bed or table that identified, in blood, the shape of a blade? Not to my knowledge.

Left handed knife man cuts the hypothetical organ out. He grabs it with his right hand, pivots, and places it on the table behind him. Easy Peasy. All the while his back is to the window. Remember, he is facing the partition wall while working on the body. He does not overly expose his face this way either, should someone peek in the window or move the curtains back where the latch access hole is. Another benefit for Mr L, although ancillary.

For the attack, if Mary was as I described, using the Inquest medical opinion on her location at the time of the throat slit, and logic that tells me if she is that far over to the right side of a small bed, she is on her right side..awaiting a spooning perhaps. Another indicator if so of her connection with her killer....along with the room, her manner of dress, the lack of noise, be in conversational or whatnot, at the time of her attack. A left handed knivesman can reach around and access the right hand side of her neck while pulling the knife back across toward himself....

Suggesting this killer was left handed didnt start with me Robert, it was suggested in contemporary times.

Cheers mate

[Robert]

I'm sorry, Michael, I don't follow.The table isn't behind the murderer, it's beside him, just to his right (I'm assuming the table wasn't moved at any point). And how can a left-handed man turn to his left to place objects behind him? What was he going to place them on?

I think that Jack would have moved the body over to the near side of the bed before he started the mutilations. I don't think it was a last minute thing. I reckon he took a bit of time to recover his poise and to check that no one was coming to investigate.But I don't know how long it takes blood to drain from a body so I can't be sure.

Anyway, at some point he stood with his back to the window and the table to his right, and got to work. If he needed to raise anything, he could easily drop the knife on the bed. It wasn't going to get any bloodier than it already was.

[Michael W Richards]

To Jon and Rob,

Regarding the nature of some of the wounds, I would agree with Robert that some of that work seems to me to be simply exploration. However, there is emotion in slashes. There are wounds that could be defense wounds on Marys arm, and her face was slashed back and forth. Someone tried to eradicate her face. Thats powerful and not just exploration.

On the L/H vs R/H issue Robert, I would imagine youve pictured the dilemma the killer would have had by my most recent comments, but Im not sure that you really grasped the whole of my argument. Back to window and door, left side of bed, corpse face up on bed. Now look at where the materials are placed. Under her head. On the night table. Between her legs. R/H man has to turn toward the door and window to place items literally behind him on the night table. He has to lift her head with his left hand then somehow get her breast under her head while his left holds the knife.

L/H man has his back to the door and window at all times, he turns from the waist to his left to place objects behind him, although he does have a similar problem with the lifting of the head and placing the breast underneath....while still holding the knife in his left hand. Perhaps it was excised and set aside until he later decided where to put what.

The attack and the mutilations suggest a L/H man, although only my opinion of course, I believe its well supported by the physical data.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

Do we know this for sure?

I'm sorry but I'm puzzled...

OK so they're forty years on, but the Leonard Matters photos of Dorset Street, don't suggest this. There is clearly present what looks like the original front door of No 27, (at least it appears a pretty good match for the front door of No 26) and if any window half-opens it's the only one shown, fronting on to Dorset Street itself.

Do we know for sure that there is a door or window in the passageway itself, and if so, where from? As far as I can see there is no mention in the evidence of a door leading off the left of the passage...

If one didn't enter the chandlers through the front door, then bartering for goods, or conversing with the shopkeeper through the half-open front window would not obstruct the passage in any way.

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

I cannot recall at the moment which source provides the statement, but I do recall that it stated that the tuck shop window was located inside the archway, before the door on the opposite wall which lead to the upper floor of #26. The term is still used today and it describes in modern terms a small variety style shop with a window used for commerce. Similar in respects to the window feature in the left hand wooden gate at 40 Berner Street, from which the members sold access to "see the spot".

Best Regards

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben.
Philip Sugden's advice concerning the press, is a praiseworthy comment, however we should not discount every report , for obvious reasons . the majority of authors on the subject get their research from them, as official file are thin on the ground.
Its a question of reading between the lines, and using witnesses statements[ as an example] that appear accurate from the oral content.
Take Mrs Prater's account of meeting Kelly at 9,pm on the 8th.
''She wore a jacket and hat''..I do not own one''
The last five words depict honesty..especially as Mrs Harvey's remark that very evening to MJK were 'I shall be leaving my bonnet then'', making that item only in Kelly's procession a couple of hours previous.
Hutchinson's statement ''she then said she had lost her handkerchief, he then pulled out his handkerchief a red one , and gave it to her'' shows signs that depict a truthful account..actually I would say his whole statement does.
We must disagree on that one Ben I feel.
There are dozen's of more apparent truthful accounts made to the press, but it all boils down to each individuals interpretation.
Regards and happy new year
Richard.

[Robert]

Hi Jon

I can't really say what was going on in his mind, but if I had to choose something I'd say it was childlike curiosity.

[Wickerman]

Yes Jon. I don't know...I don't get a feeling of frenzy from the actual mutilations, for everything seems to be laid out in an orderly manner like a man disassembling a watch. But the stabbing through the sheet does suggest some kind of state of high excitement, which I'm tempted to call panic. Either he came upon her out of the blue, or if it was planned, it all went horribly wrong.

Ok Robert, so you seem to detect a frenzy in the initial stabbing through the sheet, but then he calms down and methodically disects her body piece by piece. The frenzy has passed off, his mellow disposition takes control through the mutilation phase?

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Yes Jon. I don't know...I don't get a feeling of frenzy from the actual mutilations, for everything seems to be laid out in an orderly manner like a man disassembling a watch. But the stabbing through the sheet does suggest some kind of state of high excitement, which I'm tempted to call panic. Either he came upon her out of the blue, or if it was planned, it all went horribly wrong.

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael

I think he was right-handed, and he here cuts the opposite side of the throat from the side that he's used to. I don't think she had her back to him. I think she was shrinking into the far right corner, in an instinctive attempt to get away from him. I think there was a struggle, but it was brief. Her throat was cut and she was stabbed through the sheet which was placed over her face. She may have caught a hefty punch in the face to stun her.

If he delivered a solid punch to start with she may have been stunned senseless for a second allowing him time to jump on top of her to slice her throat.
The sheet would still be pulled over her face to offer a degree of protection against the spray from the carotid artery, when being sliced.
It is hard to imagine no struggle, given she was young and strong and known for her temper.

Alternately, he could have strangled her, when she collapsed he throws her down on the bed but she comes too gasping, ".....oh, murder!", then punched her in the face knocking her out, then he cuts her throat....

There are so many different ways we can roll the dice...

Regards, Jon S.