Lizzie Prater - intended victim?

[Michael W Richards]

Not much of a signal, was it, Michael? Surely the unambiguous way to suggest "keep quiet" would be to cut off the lips or cut out the tongue? But to cut off the tip of the nose, while carving other patterns on the face which would compete with the nose for attention? That doesn't sound like a very clear signal to me.

My theory Robert is that the marks under the eyes were also deliberate, not collateral damage from the nose cut...I think the killer went for a clown like look with the message I suggested. If the victim had a clenched mouth from the immediate reaction to the attack, since this murder seems to have ground speed records....acquistion, movement to murder location, murder then mutilations in about 8 minutes total...the killer may not have even been able to access the tongue.

I think Kate was a chatty Katey and her inebriated state late that last afternoon might have led to lip slips that precipitated her demise.

What if....the people she drank with, who it would appear likely bought her drinks as well, were sussing out what she actually knew about the recent crimes? They determined she was a risk, and arranged to meet her at midnight. She is told to meet someone wearing a red kerchief. She doesnt show because of her incarceration, but they know about that, so the man waits in the area to meet her. When she finally arrives she is relieved he didnt leave and she places a hand on his chest uttering.."blimey, I thought sure Id missed you".

Cheers Robert

[GregBaron]

Blood splatter analysis...

Interesting line of thought here.

I tend to suspect he did not move the furniture around as that would have made noise and might have attracted attention.

But unless the killer was frail, I suspect the body was hauled into a position that made it easier for him to work.

The smearing of the blood if he had brushed against the wall is an interesting thought.

curious

I also find it curious, curious. Though we can't know for sure, it seems like
the horrifying result in that room would be more easily executed by a left
hander. C's 1 through 4 were almost certainly offed by a right hander. Obvious implication...

Now can someone go find out if Fleming or Barnett were left handed?


Greg

[Ben]

Thanks Mike, and happy new year to you too!

Hi Richard,

Philip Sugden's advice concerning the press, is a praiseworthy comment, however we should not discount every report

Not every report, no. Sugden was referring specifically to the splurge of nonsense that appeared in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder. His advice was to heed the evidence that was taken seriously and treated as genuine at the time, such as the inquest evidence and the police reports, as opposed to the unverified "my mate saw a scary man with a black bag and silk top hat" cack, of which there was quite a wealth in the early press reports.

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.

With respect, Richard, I'd not sure that's quite the best way to go about things. We can all apply our subjective opinions as to what pieces of eyewitness testimony "seem" to have a "ring of truth" about them, but ultimately the best method of assessment is to look for independent verification if it exists, or at the very least, consider the circumstances under which the evidence was imparted, as well as the police treatment of it. In Hutchinson's case, we have no verification, the extreme unlikelihood that a small red object could be discerned in darkness from that distance (and the potentiality that it was invented to establish a bogus link with the red neckerchief from Lawende's description), a three-day late post-inquest appearance, and the reality that the police came to attach a "very reduced importance" to his story.

All the best,
Ben

[curious]

This could be true Bridewell but it seems he had a lot of work to do without moving bodies and beds in addition. It seems unlikely to me he would be moving furniture around, precision wasn't exactly his forte. You can slice and dice from any number of positions. If he did move the bed for easier carving I would think blood smears and other things might have indicated as much. Would they have noticed such things in 1888? I don't know.

Greg

Interesting line of thought here.

I tend to suspect he did not move the furniture around as that would have made noise and might have attracted attention.

But unless the killer was frail, I suspect the body was hauled into a position that made it easier for him to work.

The smearing of the blood if he had brushed against the wall is an interesting thought.

curious

[Robert]

If the killer moved the bed, then he must have returned it pretty much to its exact original position, because the doctors would have noticed if the pool of blood under the bed didn't correspond with the saturated portion of the paliasse. This seems unlikely.

He must also have taken care not to brush against the blood splashes on the partition, as the police and doctors would presumably have noticed if these had been smeared out.

[GregBaron]

An American Southpaw perhaps...

Is there any reason why, if it made things easier for him, the killer couldn't have pulled the bed away from the partition wall, done what he needed to do and then pushed the bed back to its original position? That would make sense to me because otherwise his own body would have cast a shadow across the bed. He would get a better view of the scene if he was working from the side of the bed closest to the partition wall. The fact that the bed was against the wall when it was found, doesn't necessarily mean that is where it had been all through the night.

Regards, Bridewell.

This could be true Bridewell but it seems he had a lot of work to do without moving bodies and beds in addition. It seems unlikely to me he would be moving furniture around, precision wasn't exactly his forte. You can slice and dice from any number of positions. If he did move the bed for easier carving I would think blood smears and other things might have indicated as much. Would they have noticed such things in 1888? I don't know.

What I like about Michael' s (and whomever else's) idea is that if we can even determine with some degree of probability that the killer was left handed then we know we have a new perp and the whole case changes into a Lynn Cates spy thriller. I know this is unlikely (discovering his handedness) but I'm wondering if any evidence at the scene tends to suggest a left handed assailant. I find this a very intriguing avenue of inquiry although I know resolution is unlikely. My intuition is that a Sherlock Holmes on the scene may have been able to deduce such a scenario. I know I'm dreaming but I think this an interesting point to debate, like everything else, I expect no consensus.


Greg

[Robert]

Not much of a signal, was it, Michael? Surely the unambiguous way to suggest "keep quiet" would be to cut off the lips or cut out the tongue? But to cut off the tip of the nose, while carving other patterns on the face which would compete with the nose for attention? That doesn't sound like a very clear signal to me.

[Michael W Richards]

Is there any reason why, if it made things easier for him, the killer couldn't have pulled the bed away from the partition wall, done what he needed to do and then pushed the bed back to its original position? That would make sense to me because otherwise his own body would have cast a shadow across the bed. He would get a better view of the scene if he was working from the side of the bed closest to the partition wall. The fact that the bed was against the wall when it was found, doesn't necessarily mean that is where it had been all through the night.

Regards, Bridewell.

There is one I can think of. The bedding stuck between the bed and the partition wall. If he moved the bed to work, then the bedding was shoved there after he returned the bed to its original placement. Why do that then? If he shoved the bedding there when he commenced his mutilations, then its probable the bed remained where it was.

As it is we know he moved Mary to the middle of the bed to do his dirty work. Why would he also need to move the bed?

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, well then you have to assume that the killer of Eddowes knew her, since her face was mutilated, and then that the (different) killer of Kelly knew her, because of the facial mutilations.

I do actually Robert, or more accurately, I believe her killer knew her by sight. I think in Kates case though the facial mutilations refer to a possible perceived status as a "songbird". Cutting the nose, to me, seems to me a statement....keep your nose out of other peoples business. Obviously not intended to teach the deceased anything...but maybe send a message to anyone like minded.

You see, I believe the story that Kate told her ex landlady that she intended to collect the reward for the Ripper. I think thats why she was killed.

All the best

[Robert]

Michael, well then you have to assume that the killer of Eddowes knew her, since her face was mutilated, and then that the (different) killer of Kelly knew her, because of the facial mutilations.

[Bridewell]

Accessing the Body Without Blocking the Light

Yes Wickerman but it does seem Michael has a point. If the killer is right handed it would appear he was straddling MJK from below as he eviscerated. He would then have to grab viscera and throw it to his right with either his cutting hand or over his right arm with his left. Not ideal. It would make more sense if he was straddling her face and dumping innards with his left hand.

Is there any reason why, if it made things easier for him, the killer couldn't have pulled the bed away from the partition wall, done what he needed to do and then pushed the bed back to its original position? That would make sense to me because otherwise his own body would have cast a shadow across the bed. He would get a better view of the scene if he was working from the side of the bed closest to the partition wall. The fact that the bed was against the wall when it was found, doesn't necessarily mean that is where it had been all through the night.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Again I would contest that Robert. I believe Anger in the mode of dispatch. The facial mutilations, coupled with the fact the killer only takes her heart, to address another contentious point, may well have symbolic inference. We know from years of study that facial mutilations often suggest a connection between predator and prey. Maybe the heart was in effect a confirmation of that.

I think that response sort of addresses your question Bridewell. This wasnt an homage to the prior mutilator or an attempt to replicate his motivation...which we have medical testimony to use in support of. Just because the killer took the uterus doesnt mean any later killer understood that was a target organ. Everyone just heard and read about women cut open with their insides cut or pulled out. And thats what happened in room 13. The killer in room 13 took full advantage of the hysteria concerning the rash of murders and sought to insert his own act of depravity in with the others.

If they catch the guy who did the first 2 they will automatically look to him for the others, including Mary. If the man was mentally ill, which I believe he was, then he may not be able to defend himself against the charges.

If the killer in room 13 gets caught, maybe because he knows he can prove he was elsewhere when the first 2 were killed. So they will assume he cant be the killer....because they felt the murders were connected to a single killer.

That my 2 cents.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Yes Wickerman but it does seem Michael has a point.

Oh certainly Michael makes a good point, I was really meaning that the killer could make any of the cuts with either hand but could still only write with his right hand.

If the killer moved around, which I see no reason to assume otherwise, then that makes the killer's "handedness" difficult to establish.
Michael's analysis appeared to be dependent on the killer standing in one place.

Regards, Jon S.

[GregBaron]

Sherlock would surely know...

Being able to make simple cuts does not require him to be ambidexter.
I can make simple cuts with my left hand but finiky cuts like separating he neck bones of a cow I need my right hand for that, for both strength and dexterity.
Ambidexter suggests equal dexterity in both hands, I would suggest that was not necessary.

Yes Wickerman but it does seem Michael has a point. If the killer is right handed it would appear he was straddling MJK from below as he eviscerated. He would then have to grab viscera and throw it to his right with either his cutting hand or over his right arm with his left. Not ideal. It would make more sense if he was straddling her face and dumping innards with his left hand. Rather ungainly though and facing the window/door. It also seems unlikely he would stand throughout the ordeal. I wonder if anything about the crime scene might indicate the position or handedness of the perp? I find this idea interesting because a left handed murderer would almost certainly be a different person than the left to right cutter of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and even Stride.

Perhaps someone can reenact with their wives........? (heh-heh)



Greg

[Cogidubnus]

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.

Sorry Mike, I've searched everywhere I can think of, and can't find a source for this...Could you check please?

Many thanks

Dave