Lizzie Prater - intended victim?

[The Rookie Detective]

Bump up for an interesting thread

[Michael W Richards]

By the by, what happens to threads is that they invariably lead to tangential discussion of other issues because it would seem that most people do not see an individual tree within the forest. Myself included.

There is inter-relationships with almost every aspect of each of the 5 crimes.

As for the actual target to have been Lizzie Prater;

1. Jack the Ripper was not thought to target anyone, he was believed to an opportunist.
2. We do not know that Lizzie even solicited regularly, although it seems a logical assumption.
3. She was on effectively the second floor of a house, only accessible by a tunnel from Dorset Street,...just how vulnerable do we intend to believe this killer left himself while working?
4. Most assume that the killer was led by the street worker, not that he followed them. A case in point is Annie Chapman, she didnt go to the backyard to be alone.

Thats a few reasons anyway.

Cheers

ps. As to the issue of overkill on the un-thread related tangent, when someone doesnt know what they are doing, as Marys killer clearly shows us, then he wouldnt know when, or why, to stop.

Check all the actions left incomplete on Mary....he was just trying too hard.

Best regards

[curious]

Hi Curious.

It would appear your ultimate conclusion is to see the Whitechapel murderer as a hired assassin?

The natural flow of logic might be.. that if we contemplate the killer is looking for a specific "Mary Kelly", and mistakes a 35 year old Nichols for her, then also mistakes a 46 year old Eddowes for his 24-25 year old Mary Kelly, then clearly the killer is only going by a name and does not know her personally.


Is that close?

Regards, Jon S.

It's a completely new thought, but ultimately -- that seems to be where that train would go. Doesn't seem to make much sense . . .

But isn't it a bizarre sort of pattern?

Of course, Jon, it would not necessarily be a hired assassin (my first foggy thought) but someone to whom the name Mary Kelly caused a major adverse reaction . . . ( I get that that is a major understatement)

[Wickerman]

Hi, Bridewell,
I agree with this thought.

Unfortunately, I have (very slowly) had another. For years, the fact that Katherine Edowes used the name Mary Kelly just hours before her death has raised many questions.

Recently, on some thread which I haven't located again, it was mentioned that Polly Nichols had also used the name "Kelly," and since her given name was "Mary Anne" . . . .

Hi Curious.

It would appear your ultimate conclusion is to see the Whitechapel murderer as a hired assassin?

The natural flow of logic might be.. that if we contemplate the killer is looking for a specific "Mary Kelly", and mistakes a 35 year old Nichols for her, then also mistakes a 46 year old Eddowes for his 24-25 year old Mary Kelly, then clearly the killer is only going by a name and does not know her personally.


Is that close?

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

Getting back to the subject of the thread:


I would have thought that anyone who intended to kill Elizabeth Prater specifically, and to do so in her own room, would ensure that he knew exactly where she lived, and how to get there, before striking.

Hi, Bridewell,
I agree with this thought.

Unfortunately, I have (very slowly) had another. For years, the fact that Katherine Edowes used the name Mary Kelly just hours before her death has raised many questions.

Recently, on some thread which I haven't located again, it was mentioned that Polly Nichols had also used the name "Kelly," and since her given name was "Mary Anne" . . . .

so, no, I don't think Elizabeth Prater was likely the intended victim.

I would love to know the source for Nichols ever using the name Kelly . . . and researchers looking for a Kelly connection for Chapman -- she was already Anne.

Is that really as big a coincidence as it feels like it is?

curious

[Steve S]

ATM,the dead-end subjects are in the majority....We need a really weird new book to dissect....Or something we can argue if it's a forgery......The nature of the beast is that all threads are a dead-end eventually...I was going to say,other than those which are a matter of historical fact,but even those can go round in circles................

[Wickerman]

Suffice to say, the name of the thread is pretty much a dead-end subject much the same as "Eyelashes".

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Getting back to the subject of the thread:

Lizzie Prater - intended victim?

I would have thought that anyone who intended to kill Elizabeth Prater specifically, and to do so in her own room, would ensure that he knew exactly where she lived, and how to get there, before striking.

[GregBaron]

Stalk and pounce...

Hi Greg,

To answer the above...had the killer entered uninvited through the door, light would have spilled in because of the gaslamp across the courtyard from Marys door. The windows were found locked, so its probable Mary did that, not the killer.

So...you have the door as the killer ingress point. If he manages to open the door on his own, because it was unlocked, then he still has to close it again, and get to Mary on the bed. Noise.

If he opens the door via the window breakage, then he knew the room.

To me its very difficult for those that would like this to be a random act or a fortuitous discovery. The evidence is contrary to it.

Cheers Greg

Thanks Michael, good stuff. The only thing I would like to add is that a stalker may have observed Mary previously and noticed the broken window entrance method. He may have then slipped in on the night in question and indeed drunken Mary was roused with her "Oh murder" exclamation just as the perp jumped on the bed and slit her throat. I see this as a possibility....

Stalking is a frequent strategy of modern serial killers....


Greg

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Here are the problems with the above;

-How does she sit on the bed with her back to him?
-There is no evidence that she was choked first
-She is attacked while on the extreme right-hand side of the bed, the blood evidence on the wall confirms that
-The wash basin is under her bed.

Your premise is that she was entertaining a client, youve said as much on other threads, and that is why you are missing a key ingredient here. How does a man standing in a 10 x 10 foot room sneak up on someone?

They have to be facing away, or at least semi sleeping.

Neither position fits a client encounter.

Cheers Jon

Hi Michael.

I'm not sure why you can't envisage Kelly sitting on the bed, what else was there to sit on (not the chairs) assuming they are both preparing for sex? I could probably draw this but I didn't think it was necessary.

Her throat was cut so completely that it would destroy any evidence of a ligature, but ecchymosis (bruising) was noticeable, which is not normally associated with a clean knife wound. I'm aware this is not proof, but it is consistent with strangulation.

Given the bed was not that wide, "extreme right" is deceptive, her throat was cut while she was on her right side facing the partition, that is not to say she was in this position when the attack commenced.

Washbasin?, there are drawings of a vertical washstand in the room, I wasn't talking about that tub under her bed.

How does a man standing in a 10 x 10 foot room sneak up on someone?

He doesn't "sneak up", just like when Sutcliffe was walking and talking with Josephine Whitaker, to get her to turn her head away from him he asked her the time on the Town hall clock.
Trust me , it is not difficult to get someone to turn their head for a moment.

"Oh Mary, my hands are wet, could you just reach me my bag...."


All the best, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

One question I have for you all is...How dark would it have been if a stranger snuck into the room in the middle of the night? I believe there was a gaslamp across the way but I'm wondering if a stranger could even locate the bed or victim?

Sorry we're bumping Lizzie Prater again...


Greg

Hi Greg,

To answer the above...had the killer entered uninvited through the door, light would have spilled in because of the gaslamp across the courtyard from Marys door. The windows were found locked, so its probable Mary did that, not the killer.

So...you have the door as the killer ingress point. If he manages to open the door on his own, because it was unlocked, then he still has to close it again, and get to Mary on the bed. Noise.

If he opens the door via the window breakage, then he knew the room.

To me its very difficult for those that would like this to be a random act or a fortuitous discovery. The evidence is contrary to it.

Cheers Greg

[GregBaron]

Stranger in the night...

Jon,

Here are the problems with the above;

-How does she sit on the bed with her back to him?
-There is no evidence that she was choked first
-She is attacked while on the extreme right-hand side of the bed, the blood evidence on the wall confirms that
-The wash basin is under her bed.

Your premise is that she was entertaining a client, youve said as much on other threads, and that is why you are missing a key ingredient here. How does a man standing in a 10 x 10 foot room sneak up on someone?

They have to be facing away, or at least semi sleeping.

Neither position fits a client encounter.

Cheers Jon

I agree with you Michael. I don't think any of the C5 were garrotted as I believe it would show in the victim's fingers.

One question I have for you all is...How dark would it have been if a stranger snuck into the room in the middle of the night? I believe there was a gaslamp across the way but I'm wondering if a stranger could even locate the bed or victim?

Sorry we're bumping Lizzie Prater again...


Greg

[Michael W Richards]

Ok, the image I had (for what its worth) was that she let him in or brought him in with her.
Kelly undresses while the man goes to the washbasin. While Kelly is sat on the bed fixing her chemise with her back to him he flips a cord over her head and pulls tight, garotting her. When she collapsed backwards onto the pillow he pulls a knife and sliced her throat.

Jon,

Here are the problems with the above;

-How does she sit on the bed with her back to him?
-There is no evidence that she was choked first
-She is attacked while on the extreme right-hand side of the bed, the blood evidence on the wall confirms that
-The wash basin is under her bed.

Your premise is that she was entertaining a client, youve said as much on other threads, and that is why you are missing a key ingredient here. How does a man standing in a 10 x 10 foot room sneak up on someone?

They have to be facing away, or at least semi sleeping.

Neither position fits a client encounter.

Cheers Jon

[Wickerman]

The cry of "Oh murder" doesn't make sense to me as something MJK would have said when confronted by the realization she was facing a killer.

A bloodcurdling scream, maybe.

Hi Curious.

Well thats my take too, but if we look at the comments Prater made on that point its not consistent.

".....and just then I heard screams of murder about two or three times in a female voice."

Then she says:

"...I heard a cry of oh! Murder! .......... – I did not hear it a second time. I heard nothing else whatever "

Why did she change her story?

I wonder if Prater felt obliged to explain to the Coroner why, if hearing several screams, she would still think it unnecessary to investigate?
(Fear?)
Maybe it was guilt? - so she revised her story? - they were afterall friends.

It is strange, but we maybe wrong to simply accept the second version when the first version makes more sense, and, is more consistent with the defensive wounds on Kelly (assuming thats what they were).

Regards, Jon S.
(hey we've actually come back to Prater, imagine that! )

[curious]

Hi Curious.

I'm just as fascinated as anyone might be that the cut on the thumb was a defensive wound but, if she had the where withall to grab his knife then why did she not holler sufficiently loud enough to waken the dead?

Defensive actions suggest a time factor, if she had time to defend herself she also had time to yell, scream and raise hell.

Somehow, "oh murder" doesn't quite cut it for a defensive scream.

Or did the killer just cut her thumb by accident?, there appears to be overcuts across her forearm, maybe the thumb cut is just another example?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi, Jon,
I can the hand injuries as perhaps extra or extended slices.

The cry of "Oh murder" doesn't make sense to me as something MJK would have said when confronted by the realization she was facing a killer.

A bloodcurdling scream, maybe.

Since we have reports that lead us to believe she was drunk at the time, and perhaps sleeping, I wonder that even if she did wake up and had the time to think, she might have been silent trying to process what was happening -- even long enough for her killer to shut her up permanently.

When I'm surprised by something, I tend to take a few seconds "to get the lay of the land" and a few seconds could have been the difference between silence and a scream and actually life and death in her situation.

Too early and not enough coffee to think straight.

Long day today. Will get back later.

curious