Lizzie Prater - intended victim?

[Ben]

I had always taken "further on" to mean "further down Dorset St."

Agreed, Robert.

This is precisely what Lewis was referring to when she described the couple. This is made very clear in her inquest testimony and police report. The couple in question clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with court - they simply passed it by, and since Lewis observed the couple "passing along" Dorset Street concurrently with her sighting of Wideawake man's vigil opposite the court, we can certainly dispense with the idea that the couple in question were Kelly and Astrakhan. Hutchinson did not claim to have installed himself opposite the court until after the K & A were inside the court, unlike the wideawake/Lewis couple trio, who were on Dorset Street together at the same time.

Now, Hutchinson's story was considered unreliable at the time and accordingly "discredited". We learn as much from reliable contemporary sources who obtained their information from the police, but those of us who are hell-bent on reviving his evidence as wholly accurate (for whatever interesting reason) should at least follow what he actually said, rather than fiddling with it in order to make it more compatible with Lewis' passing-along couple (which it definitely, definitely isn't). Jon is now hoping that if...if!...the church clocks were wrong, that might reconcile these completely unreconcilable timings and so turn the male half of Lewis' couple into Mr Astrakhan (which he definitely, definitely wasn't).

That extract from the Daily News is complete nonsense. Sarah Lewis did not see a couple pass up the court, nor did she see anyone loitering outside Kelly's door. On the contrary, in all other reliable versions of her account, Lewis makes it abundantly clear that she saw no-one in the court. The article is therefore in error - hardly surprising for the Daily News - and the "court" was confused with the "street" in this case.

Equally nonsensical is this transparently bogus claim, attributed to Mrs. McCarthy by an unknown source and wholly unverified, involving a "funny looking man" being seen up the court. No mention of this at all at the inquest, where it would have been a crucial evidence had it been true. It is a piece of press tattle, second-hand hearsay (or worse) that sank without trace along with all the other bogus offerings that appeared in the press in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder - Kennedy, Paumier, Roney spring to mind. All crap, all discredited before the inquest, and yet mysteriously revived by one or two misguided contributors who bypass all the genuine evidence provided at the inquest and in police reports. I spent most of last year highlighting the obvious folly of heading straight for the dross in order to gain a better understanding of the Kelly murder, and dross is what I find being regurgitated again.

Philip Sugden cautions his readers as follows:

"Our search for the facts about the murder of Mary Kelly must discount the unsupported tattle of the Victorian press"

I think his advice is well worth reiterating.

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man.

I wish we knew how tall "not tall" was! Such a subjective description. At least Elizabeth Long said her man was 'a little taller than' Chapman, who was about 5'.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Hi Robert,

I believe the better evidence of his "hand preference" is found on the night table, because its almost an acrobatic move for a right handed man, standing on the left side of the bed with the face up corpse, to cut viscera off and out of Mary and then place it behind him on the table. A left handed man would have to merely pivot from the waist.

The basis for my supposition on the left handed man doesnt start and end with the facts concerning the initial attack you know.

Cheers.

[Michael W Richards]

Ben,

Great to see you and a very good post.

HNY amigo

[Cogidubnus]

The tuck shop window was likely a door that allowed the top half to be opened to serve customers, people didnt browse tuck shops like a modern variety store. So Prater was probably partially blocking that archway while standing with McCarthy.

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

[Robert]

Hi Michael

Hmmm...we're talking minute percentages of convenience here....

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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