Lizzie Prater - intended victim?

[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]

Hi Michael

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

[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

[Michael W Richards]

Ben,

Great to see you and a very good post.

HNY amigo

[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.

[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.

[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

[Wickerman]

If so, then both McCarthy and Lewis must have forgotten to mention it was her, not Prater.

Yes, we do have Prater admitting to going into the shop, but at the time she did there was no suggestion of a "funny" man within the court, so its unlikely the customer was Prater. Besides, Mrs McCarthy is also unlikely to forget the name of her tenant Mrs Prater, the visitor was a customer, not a tenant she knew by name.

If you allow Hutchinson to be what he is historically, someone whom the police determined wasnt truthful, you have fewer problems with any witness who saw Mary out of her room after 11:45pm Thursday.

We have yet to see any suggestion that the police determined Hutchinson was being untruthful, this is an invention of modern readers.

Regards, Jon S.

[Suzi]

Exactly!!!!! lets go with Abberline 'eh

[Suzi]

I think we're going around in circles here and getting nowhere-

[Robert]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

A bit more awkward, sure, but if thats where she was lying, by her position it sounds like waiting for someone to get into the 2/3 of the bed she left free, then it allowed the killer a sneak attack from behind. Awkward, but far less struggle and noise. Which the evidence shows is lacking at this scene.

Whomever killed her had to know noise was a huge factor here.

Cheers Robert

If the man was left handed, which it appears he was, it makes sense for him to start from behind the victim.


Cheers Robert

[Robert]

Hi Michael

But Abberline said he believed Hutchinson's story.

I don't know whether the police tried to test the story, say by asking Lewis to take a look at Hutchinson. Maybe they found a man's red handkerchief in the room?

We do know that Hutchinson wasn't an inveterate time waster. If he did insert himself into the investigation for non-forensic reasons, then he ejected himself from it fairly quickly. We do not hear from him again.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

Interesting, but didn't Prater say that she spent a little time in the shop talking to McCarthy, and would it not, therefore, be possible for MJK to exit the passiageway unseen whilst both Prater and McCarthy were distracted? Especially if she turned left....

Just a thought

All the best

Dave

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.

Mary arrived with a flourish, according to Cox, then sang for more than an hour. She was hammered at the time. Rather than assuming she silently tiptoed past Prater and McCarthy, Im more comfortable not adding events into this mix that have zero provenance. Like Marys exit from that room that night.

Cheers Dave, all the best.

[Cogidubnus]

This bloke with the dodgy eyes seems to be getting around a bit doesn't he?

All the best

Dave