What body mechanics did Jack the Ripper employ while deconstructing Mary Kelly?

[markmorey5]

The mutilations to the abdomen and especially to the uterus and genitals indicate a sexual motive. As a generality, a man who devotes himself to murdering and mutilating the abdomens of stranger women has some sort of sexual compulsion which he is releasing through this act.

Beyond the mutilations, from the timings we know that no form of attempted sexual interaction between the murderer and the victims took place, with the possible exception of Mary Kelly.

At best any psychological profile is educated guess work and I studied psychology so I know, but on balance I consider it most likely that the serial killer was sexually dysfunctional or considered himself severly sexually inadequate in some way. As a society we tend to trivialise the importance of healthy sexual development and expression, and we also tend to underestimate the consequences of unhealthy sexual development and expression.

[GUT]

G'Day Mark

As you say any psychological profile is at best a guess.

[Beowulf]

Now, as for the mutilations? I feel it is safe to assume they were done when she was lying on the bed and he was above her. He may have moved the body; the legs and such. The arms were clearly placed.

Why do people look for things that are already clearly evident I do not know.

Damn. . .

For years I have assumed she was murdered lying in the bed on her back. It never occurred to me of thinking of another way, until I read the post by Wickerman and realized there actually could be possible things missed by not exploring that avenue of thought. If you work through some ideas from a different angle you may rule it out, or even find something you didn't think of.

People for years believed many things they accepted as 'clearly evident' and have been proved wrong. I'm sure even the police consider theories they want to immediately reject because they seem not to be the obvious answer, and then they find something sometimes. Sometimes they don't. It's a way of working a situation.

I really did feel it unlikely Mary's face was cut from behind but I thought to throw it out there and see if anyone had any other reasons why, besides the obvious, her yelling out.

I don't understand where the idea of a sheet being over her head comes from. She does not have one so where did that originate ?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It is possible the police view that Kelly's jacket and bonnet were burnt''Because they were bloodstained'' holds some clue.
People have been suggesting for years, that Hutchinson's version is a falsified account, so for that reason eliminate him from the case.
Mrs Prater ..states that at 9pm on the 8TH, she spoke to Mary at the court entrance when they were both going out..she was then wearing that jacket and bonnet, as no other remains of a bonnet were found , apart from the wire brim in the fireplace, and as Mrs Harvey stated ,that she left Kelly that item, on that very evening. it can be positively assumed that the bonnet was Harvey's..
We then come to the witness Mrs Cox..stating her encounter with Kelly and Blotchy some two and a half hours after Prater...and Kelly minus her jacket and bonnet.. Question...How reliable is she?.
So if we eliminate Cox and Hutchinson, we have Kelly returning home, with a unseen killer, wearing the clothing that was to become bloodstained, and burnt,..which could suggest. that the initial strike was when she was wearing those items.. or they were removed and placed on the bed by Kelly and were blood soaked..during the affray..
So why did the killer attempt to destroy these...?
Would it have given a clue on T.O.D.?
The police at least initially, believed that the murder happened in daylight, maybe the killer wanted the police to believe that.and burnt the clothing which might have suggested a earlier encounter.
Regards Richard.

[markmorey5]

Reports after her death state that Mary Kelly never wore a hat. We don't know why and perhaps it was the cost of buying a hat or perhaps she was self-conscious of her height (she would have been taller than many men of the time). Maria Harvey; friend, laundress and probably part-time prostutitute, said she left a number of articles of clothing at Millers Court including a woman's bonnet, which is probably the bonnet which was burned. Mary Kelly's clothing was folded neatly and placed on the chair and her boots were beside the fireplace. This is interesting because it shows a careful regard for her possessions, although it must be remembered that clothing was terrribly, terribly expensive at the time. I read a newspaper report of the time describing a Whitechapel High Street scene, and a salesman was selling men's trousers at two and six which was very expensive.

The other, known victims of the Ripper had their throats cut left to right with the killer standing behind, and he used his free, left hand to tilt the head to the left to apply pressure and minimise the spray of blood from the severed arteries (indeed there was no blood spray). The victims were lowered to the ground and blood soaked into the victims' clothing.

Mary Kelly's throat was cut front-on right to left indicating a left-handed cut, and blood sprayed onto the partition wall. Given her position on the right side of the bed when she was murdered, the killer could have employed the usual technique of a right-handed cut followed by tilting the head to minimise blood spray. Once the victim exsanguinated, mutilation would not have bloodied the killer terribly much (or as much as we would normally imagine).

There was a part-used candle available which Kelly purchased from McCarthy's Chandlery, so we do not know why clothing was burned in the grate. Perhaps to provide additional light or perhaps to dispose of bloodied clothing of the killer, although bloodied clothing would not have burned terribly well. Most of Kelly's blood soaked into her nightclothing (whatever it was, probably her chemise), the bedding and onto the floor.

If Kelly were asleep when she was murdered, then how many of us sleep on our backs? But even this is not straightforward because she had drunk a lot that night and may have fallen asleep in a part-drunken stupor. On the other hand she may have been awake and waiting for her client to join her for sex, and therefore she would have been on her back.

On a slightly different tangent I have assumed that Kelly returned to prostitution when Barnett lost his job, although this didn't prevent rent arrears from growing. I have also assumed that she didn't work from her room, although it is possible that she did work from there and Barnett was forced to leave the room from time to time. Certainly she worked from her room on the night of November 8 but Barnett had left her by then. I find it awkward that she would have dragged strangers into the bed she shared with her partner, when those men would have been happy with the norm of sex in a laneway.

[Wickerman]

Reports after her death state that Mary Kelly never wore a hat. We don't know why and perhaps it was the cost of buying a hat or perhaps she was self-conscious of her height....

We don't know why, this is true.
The hatless woman was symbolic of a loose woman. It could have been her way of advertising herself.

The other, known victims of the Ripper had their throats cut left to right with the killer standing behind, and he used his free, left hand to tilt the head to the left to apply pressure and minimise the spray of blood from the severed arteries (indeed there was no blood spray). The victims were lowered to the ground and blood soaked into the victims' clothing.

I'd be interested to know how you arrived at this conclusion.

Mary Kelly's throat was cut front-on right to left indicating a left-handed cut, and blood sprayed onto the partition wall.

The throat was so severely cut that no direction could be determined.

[caz]

Maria Harvey; friend, laundress and probably part-time prostutitute, said she left a number of articles of clothing at Millers Court including a woman's bonnet, which is probably the bonnet which was burned. Mary Kelly's clothing was folded neatly and placed on the chair and her boots were beside the fireplace. This is interesting because it shows a careful regard for her possessions, although it must be remembered that clothing was terrribly, terribly expensive at the time.

Hi Mark,

Have you seen a contemporary report which established which clothing items were Harvey's, which were MJK's, and where they were actually found in the room?

I ask because a few years back there was some question about the first known source of MJK's clothing (ie what she owned and had been wearing earlier that same night) being 'folded neatly'. Someone - I don't recall who - suggested the earliest source for the 'folded neatly' bit was not until the 1950s, but I'd be interested to know if that was subsequently shown to be incorrect.

Incidentally, new clothing may have been expensive, but old clothes could be bought much more cheaply from the stalls in Petticoat Lane for example.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

For years I have assumed she was murdered lying in the bed on her back. It never occurred to me of thinking of another way, until I read the post by Wickerman and realized there actually could be possible things missed by not exploring that avenue of thought. If you work through some ideas from a different angle you may rule it out, or even find something you didn't think of.

People for years believed many things they accepted as 'clearly evident' and have been proved wrong. I'm sure even the police consider theories they want to immediately reject because they seem not to be the obvious answer, and then they find something sometimes. Sometimes they don't. It's a way of working a situation.

I really did feel it unlikely Mary's face was cut from behind but I thought to throw it out there and see if anyone had any other reasons why, besides the obvious, her yelling out.

I don't understand where the idea of a sheet being over her head comes from. She does not have one so where did that originate ?

her bed sheet had knife cuts through it at the top corner, so the assumption is it was over her head and the killer cut her through it or he placed it over her head and cut her through it.

to me it is another indication that mary knew her killer as it seems to me the most logical explanation is that he did not want her to see him as he was killing her so he raised the bed sheet over her eyes and cut her throat through it.

[Wickerman]

I ask because a few years back there was some question about the first known source of MJK's clothing (ie what she owned and had been wearing earlier that same night) being 'folded neatly'. Someone - I don't recall who - suggested the earliest source for the 'folded neatly' bit was not until the 1950s, but I'd be interested to know if that was subsequently shown to be incorrect.

Hi Caz.

I can't remember how many times I've read that myself, but I can't for the life of me recall where it came from.
I have a quote which appear to be from the Sunday Times, 11th Nov. which describes how the clothes were found.

"The clothes of the woman were lying by the side of the bed as though they had been taken off and laid down in the ordinary manner".

Oddly, Dew in his memoirs writes that her clothes were cut from her body.

[Wickerman]

..... it seems to me the most logical explanation is that he did not want her to see him as he was killing her so he raised the bed sheet over her eyes and cut her throat through it.

How many hands does this killer have?

[markmorey5]

We don't know why, this is true.
The hatless woman was symbolic of a loose woman. It could have been her way of advertising herself.

We don't know why she never wore a hat but the other victims wore hats or bonnets or shawls. In Kelly's case the lack of a hat could also be vanity because she had long, waist-length red (we assume from her nickname of ginger) hair, which in the Victorian tradition would have been braided and tied in some fashion. Nonetheless her hair would have been an attractive feature.

The normal time of operation for street prostitutes was evening given the men who had the money to pay for sex worked early to late (typically 10 hour shifts) Monday to Friday and also Saturday morning. Thus we have these women earning their thruppences and sixpences by prowling pubs and streets in the evening and onwards, always being careful to avoid soliciting a client (which would and did lead to arrest). The rest of the day seems to be free, and Kelly spent the afternoon of the 8th indoors with Louisa Albrook although Maria Harvey claimed the same thing (indoors with Kelly). Kelly was reported in two sources as never wearing a hat and often in the company of close friends, and she spoke with what some claimed to be a speach impediment but which may have been her Welsh accent getting in the way.

I'd be interested to know how you arrived at this conclusion.

There was no reported arterial blood spray with the other victims and indeed it was reported that there was an absence of blood other than in the victims clothing or under the body. The killer struck suddenly so that a cry was not uttered or the packet of cachous was dripped. The killer did not wrestle the women to the ground and cut their throats because noise would have been uttered or the cachous dropped while the women struggled to rip the killer's fingers from her throats. They were killed on the way to the place for sex or at that place, and sex was upright with the woman standing with her back to the wall and skirts raised. They were not about to lie in the dirt and mud.

Dr Llewellyn cocked-up the investigation of Nichols, nontheless the bruising and the cuts are consistent with the killer grasping her mouth with the left hand and inflicting two cuts from left to right and then lowering her to the ground. The description of the bruising is inconsistent with the killer grasping her mouth from front-on. Chapman partially strangled so the attack was front-on, Blackwell felt that Stride was grabbed by her scarf from behind and her throat was cut once while she was being pulled to the ground. Eddowes had one, deep cut which like Stride's would not have been possible to deliver front-on, so she was attacked from behind. In all cases the lack of arterial blood spray indicates a technique of supression for the first 10 to 20 seconds when there is still blood pressure, such as tilting the head.

The throat was so severely cut that no direction could be determined.

The direction of the cut can be determined by the blood spray against the wall. A cut left to right would not have sprayed against the wall to her right. Kelly had one or two cuts across her neck, deeper on the right side which is also consistent of a cut from right to left.

Maria Harvey left 2 dirty men's shirts, a boy's shirt, a black overcoat, a black crepe bonnet, a little girl's white petticoat and a pawn ticket for a grey shawl. The black crepe bonnet seems to be the bonnet which was burned. I know that contemporary newspaper reports had Kelly's clothes folded on a chair but I don't know the whereabouts of Harvey's clothing. Memoirs like Dew's were written many decades after the event, and in any case the crime scene photos show Kelly apparently naked but the nightdress or chemise has been cut away during mutilation and a portion of the sleeve is visible. Indeed this one aspect, the cutting of the nightdress or chemise, is interesting because the ripper never cut the other victims' clothing. It is another, small anomaly in comparison to the other murders.

[Hunter]

There is no indication that any of these women's throats were cut while standing. There was evidence of arterial spray in Chapman's case.

[Wickerman]

The direction of the cuts to the throat with Kelly cannot be determined from the sparse evidence available to us.

Dr Phillips assumed the body had been moved from the position it had been in at the point of the murder. He cannot say in what position the body was originally in; face down, facing the wall, or on her back.
Therefore he assumes the victim was murdered in the pose in which she was found, all the while admitting that she had been moved.

There is no medical evidence to allow us to solve this problem.

[GUT]

G'day Jon

Agree totally.

[markmorey5]

Chapman was partially strangled so she was attacked front on. I have not read of blood spray in relation to Chapman's murder although I must admit to being more cursory to all the murders apart from Kelly's. In my novel the two characters read of the series of murders starting with Tabram, so I obtained newspaper archive reports from the time and paraphrased them as appropriate. Of course the first day's reports were inaccurate to varying degrees, so my story includes mis-identifications and other inaccuracies which is why I had to work from archive sources. I also had to deal with the Leather Apron character, the publication of some of the letters and general reports of the discontent at the time.

I went further than that with my research because I wanted to reassure myself that Kelly was probably not killed by the same man. This is how I determined the handedness of the cut, whether it was front-on or back-on and details such as folding the victim's clothing back but never cutting it for access (again a difference with the murder of Kelly). The lack of blood spray was also highlighted in the medical reports or newspaper articles of lost medical reports (fortunately journalists of the time went into extraordinary detail). I ran the reports, articles and mortuary photos of Eddowes and Stride (which show the cuts) past surgeons at my place of work at the time (a public hospital), and the consensus was what I posted. The throat was cut from behind and pressure on the head was used to stem blood flow until blood pressure dropped. The other consensus from the surgeons was the degree of anatomical knowlege. To quickly excise and remove a uterus or kidney, in one case in very poor light, they thought was extraordinary.

The consensus regarding the mutilation of Kelly was different. It didn't have the anatomical precision.

If Chapman was attacked front on which was riskier, the only reason I can think of is that she backed herself into a corner, against the fence or against the building, and could not be attacked from behind. Perhaps she got very close to having sex with the killer, and the usual method of the time would be to lean against a wall and lift her skirts. Than in itself seems unecessarily difficult because leaning forward against the wall with the man behind is much simpler, but they didn't do that as a rule.

Kelly had one or two cuts across her neck, deeper on the right side, which is consistent of a cut from right to left.