Lizzie Prater - intended victim?

[Wickerman]

Yes Jon. Can't be sure of course but that's what I'd bet on.

Interesting, I wasn't aware anyone had considered that possibility (except those who use Maxwell's argument, I'm not thinking that late).

My only clue to a post-Astrachan murder is Mrs Kennedy's story about seeing Kelly outside the Britannia at about 3:00 am.
As we have nothing to the contrary (Hutch was just leaving by then), it raises an interesting alternate scenario.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Hi Jon

Bob Hinton considered it. He has Mr A as really existing, and not just a downright lie by Hutchinson, but he has Mr A's description as heavily fabricated by Hutchinson. Then he has Hutchinson entering Kelly's room after Mr A's departure, and killing Kelly (it's an obsessive stalker theory). I'm not saying that the killer was Hutchinson, just that if Bob is right about the key, anyone could have let himself into that room and killed Kelly.

The way I see it, if the Ripper was a punter whom Mary had taken home, why on earth would he kill her in such a ridiculous manner (I'll just let you get undressed and lie down, and then I'll cut your throat on the opposite side from the one that I'm used to, and in such a way that blood spurts up the partition in several splashes").

[Wickerman]

Hi Robert.

Ah yes, of course. Two of my books that seem to have vanished into thin air were Bruce Paley's and Bob Hinton's, I have not seen them in years.

I do think Bob had the lock correct, he posted a number of pics of it years ago, it seems to fit the bill, but having a burglar reach through and unlock the catch is a little too contrived for me.
This is someone who could not wait to kill her out on the street but risked a rusty hinge on a creaking door waking her up, and then her screaming blue murder to boot.

.....why on earth would he kill her in such a ridiculous manner..

Dare I ask, ....do you expect rational thinking from an irrational mind?

The method we think we see can only suggest a change in M.O., Whether that was because the killer consciously approached her differently, or the killer was not the Ripper, can only be guessed.

Remember Sutcliffe did not always use the same approach, or the same weapons, or lay the body the same way, and sometimes hiding the body, on other occasions leaving it exposed.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Remember Sutcliffe did not always use the same approach, or the same weapons, or lay the body the same way, and sometimes hiding the body, on other occasions leaving it exposed.

Regards, Jon S.

M.O.s do evolve depending upon need.

What doesn't tend to change is the reason for the murder.

It would be almost unthinkable that the person who killed Mary in order to spend time carving her up in such a manner, had not carved someone up prior to Mary's murder.

[Wickerman]

c. 3.55 am. Lizzie (and one other witness in the court) hear a cry of 'murder' from Mary Kelly's room below Lizzie's.

Good that you worded it that way, I mean the direction from whence the cry came.
Nowhere does Prater claim the cry came from the Court.

What Prater does say is that, she pays no attention to screams because she frequently hears them from the court - that, is not saying the "oh, murder" came from the court.
Prater also says, "it came from close by", whether she meant within the house or not we do not know.

Note - I'm going by the testimony of Sarah Lewis who heard the Christchurch clock striking 4 very shortly after the alarming cry.

Ok, but lets not forget that Prater did correct herself by adding..
"...I noticed the lodging-house light was out, so it was after 4 probably..."

So, Lewis said before 4:00am and Prater thought it after 4:00am, given the inexact ways they determined the time without a timepiece of their own we can make allowances for an approximation either way.

Was it Lizzie Prater the killer was after?

Actually, I wondered if it was Sarah Lewis he was originally after, assuming the man Bowyer saw in the court on Wednesday night was the same man who Lewis complained about in Bethnal Green Rd.
Or, maybe it wasn't...

Did he mount the stairs to her room and find himself unable to enter because of the baricade? Did the minimal noise he made reach sensitive feline ears but not weaker human ones?

That might get the cats attention...

Was the killer meanwhile returning downstairs and finding MJK the nearest viable alternative to vent his thwarted rage upon?

But he would have to somehow make another entry into a room which could have been empty, or occupied by six 250 lb dockers who wouldn't appreciate him disturbing them..


Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Hi Jon

All my Ripper books are still packed away as a result of a house move, but if I remember correctly, Bob's idea wasn't that the murderer would reach in through the window, but simply open the door. It was the kind of door that will close if it's pushed to, but will otherwise be on the latch - hope I've got that right. I think Bob said something about a lock system dating from the 18th century.

I think Bob's idea was that Hutchinson would have gone round to see her, rather than sneaking in. But imagine someone like "David Cohen," whose mind had clearly gone by the end of 1888. If he wanted to go through a door, he'd have gone through, without any cautious window-peering.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

All my Ripper books are still packed away as a result of a house move, but if I remember correctly, Bob's idea wasn't that the murderer would reach in through the window, but simply open the door.

Thankyou Robert.
I only remember Bob being very particular, dimension wise, about a mock-up he made of the window and the location of the lock in the door with respect to the broken glass. He needed to demonstrate the reach was possible, or not.

It was the kind of door that will close if it's pushed to, but will otherwise be on the latch - hope I've got that right. I think Bob said something about a lock system dating from the 18th century.

Yes, but its because Kelly was home, presumably already retired by this time?, that the lock should have been 'on'.
The tradition, if I recall was, that tenants only locked the door when they were home, but when they were out they left it on the latch.

I think Bob's idea was that Hutchinson would have gone round to see her, rather than sneaking in.

Lewis did claim to see a man at Kelly's door, and he had claimed to walk up the court to stand at her door..
"...I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

Seems an awfully honest admission for a murderer to make.
Even if he saw Lewis watching him, its a hell of a dubious defense to adopt

But imagine someone like "David Cohen," whose mind had clearly gone by the end of 1888. If he wanted to go through a door, he'd have gone through, without any cautious window-peering.

Ah, David Cohen?, but likely have woken the neighbourhood in the process...

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Hi Jon

Maybe Mary assumed Mr A had closed the door properly, or maybe she couldn't be bothered to get out of bed to close it. I imagine under normal circs she'd have kept her boots by her bed, so she could slip into them and avoid treading on the filthy floor. But on this occasion she'd felt compelled to put her boots to dry by the fire. I don't suppose she wanted to tread on the floor if she could avoid it.

I didn't know Lewis saw Hutch outside Kelly's door. I thought she saw him standing outside the lodging house.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

Maybe Mary assumed Mr A had closed the door properly, or maybe she couldn't be bothered to get out of bed to close it. I imagine under normal circs she'd have kept her boots by her bed, so she could slip into them and avoid treading on the filthy floor. But on this occasion she'd felt compelled to put her boots to dry by the fire. I don't suppose she wanted to tread on the floor if she could avoid it.

Where are her boots mentioned?

I didn't know Lewis saw Hutch outside Kelly's door. I thought she saw him standing outside the lodging house.

"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one."
Daily News, 13 Nov. 1888.

I originally took it as a typo for lodging-house door, meaning the one across the street. But, as Hutchinson claimed to do precisely that, stand at her door, there's no grounds for disputing the meaning.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Hi Jon

I was going by a sketch (was it Reynold's News?). It might not be accurate of course.

Well, that's very odd about Lewis. We can't suppose that she saw the same man in two different positions. If it was indeed outside Kelly's door then that affects Bob's case. Bob said that the reason Hutchinson came forward on 12th was that he heard of Lewis's inquest testimony and knew he'd been spotted, so he launched a pre-emptive strike. If he was spotted outside Kelly's door, then presumably he'd have known already that he'd been seen.

[Michael W Richards]

This is not a new idea. But it hasn't been covered in depth and it intrigues me very much.

c. 1.30 am. Lizzie Prater retires to her room after an unsuccessful wait for her toy boy. She baricades her door with some furniture. She then falls down into a drink-induced sleep at once. Diddles curls up on her mattress.

c. 3.45 am. Lizzie is woken by Diddles who walks on her neck.

c. 3.55 am. Lizzie (and one other witness in the court) hear a cry of 'murder' from Mary Kelly's room below Lizzie's. Note - I'm going by the testimony of Sarah Lewis who heard the Christchurch clock striking 4 very shortly after the alarming cry.

Two things are very striking to me:
1. Lizzie would have been a more typical Ripper victim than MJK because of her more matronly age.
2. Pussycats do not wake in the night unless some noise or someone has disturbed them.

Was it Lizzie Prater the killer was after? Did he mount the stairs to her room and find himself unable to enter because of the baricade? Did the minimal noise he made reach sensitive feline ears but not weaker human ones? Was the killer meanwhile returning downstairs and finding MJK the nearest viable alternative to vent his thwarted rage upon?

Hi Nell,

Just a few comments, Elizabeth stated she heard the sound around 3:45, or between 3:30 and 4:00am, so best to use her words instead of Ms Lewis's for this thread.

She was woken by Diddles and heard the cry immediately, so Diddles did hear something that caused him to stir first...the sound of footsteps in the court, someone knocking on a window or door, some voices before Prater wakes perhaps. The person belonging to that cry didnt just appear there.

If we are assuming Jack for the murderer, (Im not sure that is your belief), then entering a house and then moving further into a court with only a 20 foot tunnel of stone to use for an escape sounds particularly uncharacteristic. Polly, on the street, Annie in a backyard, (granted with a similar issue of egress to a public street), Liz...her feet were almost touching the gate, and Catharine, in a public square with 3 routes to use for escape. To suggest Jack would try entering buildings and private rooms to me is looking way to hard for a Ripper.

And I do wish people would quit suggesting that "oh-murder" signaled the commencement of her attack, in short...IT DIDNT. NO sounds were heard following that cry by 2 women who could hear noice from the court and one from inside the house, and both women were awake listening intently for further sounds to see if "oh-murder" signified what it "literally" may be suggesting.

Its possible the cry was from Mary, it is not possible at all that she was in her bed lying on her side facing the wall when she may have made that cry.....which IS where the attack began.

Cheers

[Robert]

Michael, why must she be facing the wall?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

I was going by a sketch (was it Reynold's News?). It might not be accurate of course.

Well, that's very odd about Lewis. We can't suppose that she saw the same man in two different positions.

Hi Robert.

Sarah did walk passed Hutchinson who was standing in the street on the opposite side of the road at the time.
We know she was visiting her friends at No.2, which was upstairs. I can only assume it was while she was in the room upstairs that she later looked down into the yard and saw the same man standing at Kelly's door.

Sadly Hutchinson does not make it clear whether he went up the court immediately behind the couple, before his 30 minute vigil in Dorset St. or, whether his vigil came first, then just prior to 3:00 am he walked up the passage to look/listen at her door.
It could be either.

If it was indeed outside Kelly's door then that affects Bob's case. Bob said that the reason Hutchinson came forward on 12th was that he heard of Lewis's inquest testimony and knew he'd been spotted, so he launched a pre-emptive strike. If he was spotted outside Kelly's door, then presumably he'd have known already that he'd been seen.

Well, we can only go by what we read and as both sources agree, then there's no reason to dismiss one or the other, their stories are mutually supportive with respect to this small detail.

Now Bob may be right that Hutchinson elaborated the way Astrachan looked, but the man existed. Lewis seems to acknowledge that a couple did pass up the court while this man (Hutchinson) with the wideawake hat stood watching. This couple must have been MJK with Astrachan.

Lewis said:
"...He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
Daily News, 13 Nov. 1888.

Sarah Lewis did not know Mary, and she did not see where this couple went, she could only say that there was no-one in the court. I would presume she said that to explain that she did not see any people making illicit manouvers in the dark.
This couple obviously went indoors, but Lewis could not say into which tenement.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Hi Jon

I don't know what to make of Lewis's statements. Here is her inquest testimony from the Casebook offcial documents section (Daily Telegraph) :



Sarah Lewis deposed: I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress. I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house. I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock. When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court. I dozed in a chair at Mrs. Keyler's, and woke at about half- past three. I heard the clock strike.

Now, she arrived at the Court around 2.30. Hutchinson says he saw MJK and Mr A around 2, or just after. That's OK as far as it goes, but for Lewis to have seen MJK and Mr A, would mean that they still hadn't got inside Mary's room. This would mean that they'd been hanging around talking for close on half an hour. I had always taken "further on" to mean "further down Dorset St." Also she doesn't mention looking out of a window. She says she just dozed and awoke at 3.30.

If she saw the man and woman actually in the court, wouldn't she have been pressed to describe them? After all, she described the man who was waiting (the "Hutchinson" man).

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, why must she be facing the wall?

Hi Robert,

The first medical man to examine her while still in the room, Phillips, said;

"The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner."

If she was lying with her back to her killer, on the right 1/3 of the bed, the sheet somewhat covering her face, that evidence coupled with the splash or arterial spray on the wall indicates she was most likely on her side, facing the wall. The killer attacked from her rear and the knife was placed at the furthest point from the killer by reach before being drawn across, his left hand pulling the knife back toward him.

Generally speaking, throats arent cut using a stroke that is pushing away from the knife user.

Best regards Robert