Lizzie Prater - intended victim?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael.

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.

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.

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

No need, Astrachan is in the clear.
Kelly was back outside the Britannia by 3:00 am..

All the best, Jon S.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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