|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 852
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 1:18 pm: | 
|
Hi Terry,
I really think that supporting an unconscious person in a standing position in order to cut her throat is a lot more difficult than you suggest. That's 100 plus pounds of sudden dead weight that would have to be held up with one hand and balanced properly so that the other hand could cut with the knife. Since we know they had to be on the ground to mutilate anyway, I don't see what point there would be to holding them up to do the knife slash when the bodies were going to go down anyway.
I would also say that the blood spatter evidence (or general lack of it) strongly indicates that the victims were on the ground at the time.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 550
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
I think that you have to be right on that .........Polly and Annie at least were quite large ladies and it would have been very hard to keep them from falling suddenly and knocking him off balance as well, And as you rightly pointed out, what would be the point?
Not only that but he was more vulnerable whilst holding them upright. If a killer were disturbed who would stand the best chance of getting away; a man holding up a dead woman or a man unencumbered who could sprint off or over a fence?
And despite Tel's really enlightening posts, which I found very compelling, there would still have to be more chance of him getting blood on him than if his victims were on the ground and I just wonder if he would take the risk if he didn't have to.
I think taking everything into account.....I would say that the throat had to have been cut whilst the victim was on the ground.
Jane
|
Terry Lane
Police Constable
Username: Tel
Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Just a couple of points here -
Dan, working upright & from behind you will not be subjected to a sudden 'slump' throwing all of the dead weight onto you suddenly, rather, the slump is a gradual thing taking place over several seconds.
Jane, ask yourself this, who is the more vulnerable - a man kneeling or stooped over his 'job' at ground level, or one who is upright (with his legs already in the running position) who could just release the body and bolt if danger threatened?
To me it just does not make sense that you would attack someone from the front under these circumstances, not only do you have greatly increased control from this position, but your victim has a greatly reduced capacity to fight back. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 551
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 8:17 pm: |
|
Hi Terry,
I have to agree that I think that it is very unlikely indeed that the assault was from the front, I have always thought looking at all the evidence that it had to have been from behind.
I do not however think that the evidence points to the victims being upright when their throats were cut. When I was doing the reconstructions I did try them from every angle within the crime scenes and the only way that I could get them to work was if the attacker came from behind, cut off their air supply, lowered them to the ground and then slit their throats.
The point about him being more vulnerable kneeling by the victim really can't be applied I don't think because in each case apart from Liz he spent some minutes kneeling beside them whilst performing the mutilations, so he obviously did not think he was at any greater risk there than holding up a dead weight. I have to say an extra 2 or 3 seconds, whilst she was on the ground could hardly make much difference.
What really swayed me against him cutting their throats from behind whilst upright was the following:
Annie Chapman was wearing not only a knotted tricorner scarf, but also a woollen scarf tied underneath. Now the larger of the two cuts that were made across her throat were quite high up and might conceivably have missed the scarves, but the lower one would definitely have been obstructed by one of the scarves if Jack could not see the path of the knife as he cut. That lower cut could not possibly have missed those scarves unless Jack purposely avoided them ergo, he could see what he was doing.
The blood on the fence and the wall at close proximity to her head also are good indicators that she was lying down when her throat was cut.
The fence in Hanbury street was very open and had breaks in it which would have brought a good chance that someone from number 27 could have seen him if standing, but far less chance if at ground level. (I'll leave Albert Cadosche out of this for the moment, as he'll only complicate things!)
With Catharine, her bonnet was still tied on, albeit it at the back of her head and she was wearing a scarf. If Jack had cut her throat from behind, what were the chances of not cutting through the ribbons holding the bonnet on and/ or the scarf. He had to have been able to see, where the bare flesh was. Kate was also wearing a coat with a fur collar on it........more to get in the way.
I just can't see him risking making a botch job of it, when he could so easily just lie her down and do it with hardly any chance of getting blood on him and with far less chance of it going wrong. And again, less chance of him being seen in the darkness at ground level.
The fact that there was so little blood on the victims and presumably on Jack really persuades me that they were either dead or unconscious when their throats were cut and lying on the ground.
Oooh I just noticed.......you have to make me a cup of tea.........
But I did think your posts were very thought provoking and I might have to do a few more reconstructions to see if there is any way that could work!
Jane
xxxxx |
Terry Lane
Police Constable
Username: Tel
Post Number: 3
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Milk & Sugar? You want biscuits with that? |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 552
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
Hi Tel,
Just a quick one, which I hope you can answer as it has been bugging me.
Some of the victims had two throat wounds, a smaller incision above or below the longer one which ran right across the neck. If I just post one of them here so you have a quick reference........why do you think he did that?
This isn't a trick question by the way.......... I really am interested to find out if that is something that is known in hunting or slaughtering circles, and why it is done etc., I have never found anyone that has really known before, so it would be very useful for everyone I think.
Jane
xxxxxx
The tea was cold by the way, pull your socks up Constable,
 |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 553
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Sorry Tel,
Would it have made any difference do you think in the length of time it took them to die as well?
xxxxxx |
Greg Hutton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Greg
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 9:52 am: |
|
What if the victims were on their knees at the time the knife made it's cut?
From behind the killer would have no weight to hold and with the body slightly back as the chin is pulled to stretch the neck with the left hand very little blood would flow down the front of the body as the knife is drawn across in the killers right hand keeping the clothes relatively clean.
Quite simple really. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 554
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Hi Greg,
I think that there would have to be a few problems attached to it.........I have a horrible feeling my poor daughter is going to get experimented on again......she is already suffering from trauma from all my experiments. I will have to start using a ruler instead of a real knife! 
I have a feeling though that it would be a bit of a cumbersome exercise.
First of all how did he get them on their knees?
He would have been either facing them or behind them.......in each case how did he get them down there?
If he were in front of his victim, the only scenario I can think of is if she was about to give him oral sex, but there are problems attached to that in it's own right, in the form of clothes being lifted after the victim was dead, so I think it unlikely,
If he was behind her, how did he force her onto her knees? True he could have got her down there, but the fuss and noise she would probably have made would have hardly helped his cause.
If he strangled them first and then lowered them to their knees we still have problems.
If he cut their throats whilst kneeling then he would still have had to lay them on their backs to do the mutilations.
Looking at the positions they were in when found, he would have had to manoevre a kneeling woman, onto her back which would mean dragging the body into a horizontal position from a kneeling one. Why would he
bother when he could just lie them on the ground and do it in one fell swoop?
Having said that the only way to get to the bottom on things is to have a look at everything from all angles, which is why my daughter and my cats avoid me when I have that glint in my eye! 
Jane
xxxxx |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 445
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Hi, Jane--
I don't have any references here with me but I think that he somehow stunned them first either by strangulation,pressure points or whatever then the smaller cuts were made first, just to exsanguinate, then the deep ear to ear cuts in which he seems to have wanted to remove the head.
I think that's a good scenario of why there are 2 cuts.
Best of luck to your daughter. If she wants to come stay in the US for a while she's welcome to bunk with me.
Mags
Mags
|
Terry Lane
Police Constable
Username: Tel
Post Number: 4
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Well Jane, I would suggest that if the cuts were made from behind (from the outside) then the lower cut would have probably been made while 'feeling' for the right position (the upper cut' with the blade. A knife used for this purpose would have to be very sharp and it would not take a lot of effort to produce the cut. In 1880 people still knew how to sharpen knives, unlike today when Jack would probably have used a Woolworth's serrated edge steak knife
Yeah, the tea got cold when I was pouring it into the modem - spilt quite a lot & had to mop it up with a piece of apron & squeeze it back in.
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 555
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Hi Diana and Tel,
Well, putting the two posts together.........
Someone suggested before I think that the first smaller cut was to let the blood flow out in a more controlled fashion so that it didn't gush everywhere, but if they were already dead then it wouldn't have gushed suddenly anyway.
I still don't go for the standing up throat cut I'm afraid, but it is interesting that Polly and Annie had the two cuts, but Liz (if she was killed by JtR, ) Kate and Mary it was only one. Did he get more proficient as he went on and only needed one cut?
Of course the two cut option would still work if the victim were lying down, so I don't think that makes much difference either way.
The point about the knife brought a memory back to me. My Grandad had a knife that had been his grandfather's and it was, I think orginally just a carving knife, but it had been sharpened and honed over so many years that it would have been a great knife for JtR to use.
The blade was so worn down by the stone that it was practically a stilleto. He used to take with him to the market every day, which again reinforces to me that carrying very sharp knives around was a way of life for the folks back then.
I might have a look in his old trunk for a diary!
Jane
xxxx |
Terry Lane
Police Constable
Username: Tel
Post Number: 5
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Well, I for one would be interested in a look at it Jane. As soon as I get a chance I will snap a picturegraph of my own killing knife (which is in a similar condition) & post it. |
Ms C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 8:43 pm: |
|
Jane -
You are so going to hate me............
Sorry. You can throw things at me if you like....
LOL - Here, Catch .....
It would have been a whole bouquet but you can't seem to find a decent all night florist on clipart ;-)
Really, thanks - that sketch makes the whole thing clear. I remember there was some question of whether John Richardson would have seen the body when he was paring his boots, and the only way I could figure there might have been some doubt is if he had only part opened the door and Annie had been far enough down the yard from the steps to be obscured by it. If she was behind the door that makes perfect sense. The space between the steps and fence didn't look wide enough to me on the photo and video clip for the body to be there , but my spatial judgement really is the pits. Much as I hate to live up to gender steryotypes, I regularly reduce grown men to tears armed with nothing but my map reading skills.
Tel -
Cutting the throats standing then lowering them might have required more balance than strength, but wouldn't the evidence they were strangled first mean that the killer would possibly have to support their dead weight while he turned them around to do the cutting, if the throttling was done from the front? Or is there an effective way of strangling from behind without a ligature? I don't think Nicholls was wearing a handy neck scarf. I'm not sure even if using something wide like a scarf/handkerchief that wouldn't cut into the flesh too much wouldn't have left marks even if he had brought something himself for the purpose - I don't think all the throats were so badly damaged by the knife wounds that ligature damage would necessaily have been obscured.
If you cut the throat in the 'bloodless' way you describe, would the blood then spray and mark the fence in the pattern found when the body was lowered to the ground?
And something else if I may pick your brains on it - the autopsy reports describe the wounds to the throat as jagged - would that be consistent with the kind of skill required to kill as you describe? I have an image this suggests hacking from 'outside in', as you put it, rather than from 'inside out' in a fluid movement with a very sharp knife. But never having tried it, I don't know.
Thanks
Cate
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 556
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Hi Cate,
Join the club! Those steps didn't look big enough to me either, until I started doing the reconstructions and then I realised that those steps and the door were actually bigger than they look. When you stand a figure up in the doorway, which we decided eventually was between 6ft and 6ft five high it is surprising how big those steps are.
Another point which I thought was interesting is that the door is a self closing sprung one, so that to stay open it has to be pushed right back and if it is only opened a little way then it shuts itself.
I have put a couple of pics on which I hope clarify's Annies position and how she could fit in between those steps.
I have to say because of the changes in Richardsons story that I have some doubts about what he might and might not have seen that morning. But that needs to be on a different thread.
Having looked at as much evidence as I could find that I still believe that all of the victims that were mutilated were dead when the mutilations began, or at least so close to clinical death that they would have known nothing about it, although each case has it's own uniqueness. I really think the weight of evidence points to their being either dead from strangulation or at least unconscious from lack of oxygen at the time their throats were cut, with the possible exception of poor Mary.
In Liz's and possibly Kate's case I think that the silk scarf could have been used to asphyxiate them as silk doesn't necessarily mark the flesh. With Polly his hand and arm across the wind pipe as she was wearing no scarf.....with Annie possibly the same.
I think the point about some of the wounds being jagged is a good one. To me that would indicate a sawing motion rather than one fluid sweep of the knife and would seem more consistent with the victims being on the ground when their throat was cut.
Anyway, hope these pictures help
Jane
xxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on August 27, 2005) |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 557
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Sorry, I posted the second picture from another machine over the network and it looked like a coal mine with the lights out,.....I think this panned out version gives a better idea of scale.......the shed at the bottom is literally just out of sight to the right, but that is the whole length of the yard in view there.
xxxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on August 27, 2005) |
Sandy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Hi.
I have some quesitons concerning whether or not the victims were already dead before the mutilations began. First of all, most of the victims were killed outside. Would JtR really care to take the time to ensure that these women were dead first? Also, even if the victim's scarf was used to strangle her, even if made out of silk, wouldn't there be some kind of sign of strangulation from the amount of pressure that would have been used? The other thing that bothers me is the fact that the cuts to the throat were jagged. It is a terrible thing to think that these poor women may have still been alive when the mutilations began, but when looking at the damage that had been inflicted on these women (and taking into account the jagged wounds), that it is possible that JtR attacked these women with such ferocity, malice, and speed, that he may not have taken the time to strangle them first. Again, I realize that this is a horrible thought, and I do hope that this is not the way it happened, but I have to admit that looking at the damage that had been done to these women, that JtR was in a blind, mad rage. Does this make any sense?
Sandy |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 558
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
HI Sandy,
How are you, haven't heard from you in a little while, everything okay I hope?
The only way I found I could sort through things was to deal with each victim as a seperate case, because what is true for one will not necessarily be true for another.
In Polly's case for instance her eyes were open in death which usually indicates a very sudden and quick death.
Annie's tongue was protruding and swollen which is indicative of strangulation usually. Dr Bagster Phillips was of the opinion that the mutilations happened subsequently to Annie's throat being cut and the amount of blood from the neck wound would seem to confirm that it was a quick death.
Liz is a bit different. Her silk scarf was knotted very tightly and pulled to the left very tight, which would certainly have cut off Liz's air supply and her throat cut subsequently,
With Kate Dr Brown again gave the cause of death as haemorrage from the throat. He said that the throat was instantly severed.
Mary I think was perhaps slightly different. It would appear that she was aware of what was going to happen and that possibly the sheet was pulled over her face and she was attacked then. The wounds on her forearms could well confirm that she tried to defend herself .
I personally think the most likely scenario is that he put the sheet over her face and tried to smother her and that she did lose consciousness, then he pulled the sheet down and cut her throat. However because of the wounds on her arms, she might well have revived enough to realise what was happening and tried to fight him off. The blood spray on the wall by the side of the bed would seem to indicate that might have been the case.
How much damage was actually done before she died though is really impossible to say I think, but the fact that she almost certainly knew what was going to happen is almost as bad.
Just thinking about it logically and trying to place myself in her killer's position, I would want to ensure that death was quick so that the victim had no chance to scream or fight back. The most effective way to do this would be to strangle them into silence and/or cut their throat.
Even if they were unconscious, there would be a good chance of the pain waking them up and their screaming. So I have to say that I think it highly unlikely that any killer whatever his state of mind would want to take that risk.
The throat wounds were so severe that death would have been almost instantaneous, according to the doctors reports and if they were aware of anything then I really think that it would have only been for seconds.
I have read the posts which suggest that the person is aware for some tiny amount of time after the throat has been cut, but I really think that their killer's primary concern was to kill them as quickly and cleanly as possible (for his sake probably and not theirs) and then get on with the mutilations.
Really though, I don't think we will ever know what actually happened in the last few moments of those poor women's lives.
Jane
xxxx |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 4:14 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
I too believe the killer of Mjk covered her face at the time of the attack possibly for two reasons.
a] for fear of his image may have remained on her retina .
b] so that he did not see the sadness in her face as well as the horror.
I Would have thought if one of those two scenerios did not apply why did he not simply grasp her mouth with his hand to prevent any verbal reaction?.
Scenerio [a] shows a reasonable knowledge of medical or photographic possibilties.
Scenerio [b] shows at least to me a possibility that her killer was showing a form of cowardice as if he did not want to see her reaction giving me the impression that he knew her extremely well..
Regards Richard. |
Terry Lane
Police Constable
Username: Tel
Post Number: 6
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 7:07 am: |
|
Well Sandy, I should think that an effectively done cut throat would actually be a considerably quicker & less painful death than strangulation, which is, at best, comparitively slow and the victim would be well aware of what was happening while she engaged in a futile struggle to draw a breath. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 559
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
Actually, I had never even stopped to think that deeply about why he might have covered Mary's face for some reason, although it should have been one of the first things to come into my mind.
Thinking about it now though, you are right, he would not have covered her face so that she couldn't identify him, because he was going to kill her and not just assault her.......
It would appear that he never bothered with any of the other woman to do the same, although of course presumably he could have thrown their skirts over their faces so that they did not 'have sight' of him.
I am not too sure how likely it would have been that he was concerned about the retina retaining his image, because he didn't bother to do that with any of the other women, although granted it was much darker in their cases and he may have taken the light in Mary's room into consideration, but I just don't feel right about that one somehow........a bit too 'creative' although that is just a personal doubt.
The second reason though, that he did not want to see her face as he killed her does feel much more reasonable......that coupled with the facial mutilations, might well suggest a personal relationship with Mary...........or of course if she recognised him, she might have called out his name instead of the cry of 'Oh murder' which might have given the game away a bit!
Some interesting thoughts there to mull over Richard!
Jane
xxxx |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 9:39 am: |
|
Yes they we're on the ground when their throats we're cut.
Yes the mutilations we're performed after death
If you read the police/inquest reports the evidence is there.
As in Kellys case the doctor states that the cause of death was the severence of the right carotid artery done while she was on the right side of the bed.
The killer then moved her body to the center of the bed in order to mutilate, therefore Mary Kelly did NOT pull anything over her own face because she was already dead. |
Sandy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Terry,
I wasn't trying to suggest that strangulation would have been less painful, but you did bring up a very good point...if these women were strangled first, wouldn't there be more signs of a stuggle? More defensive wounds perhaps?
Sandy |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
I agree with you regarding the 'Retaining of a image on the retina'that is of course if the killer of kelly killed the others.
On reflection i would proberly scrap scenerio [a] and put more emphesis on scenerio [2]
Unless we believe that Marys killer crept into her room quietly, one would persume that she was in a position to yell out her attackers name[ if known ] at the point of the assault and as a hand over her mouth would suffice i feel that the sheet was used simply as a smothering effect, but more importantly to enable the killer to not witness the trauma that the victim would obviously show this strongly implies that her murderer was extremely close to Mary, and actually was in a state of remorse even though his actions were intended to be horrific.
I feel the answer to all the whitechapel murders lies with Mary Kelly it is a question of working backwards from there[ easier said then done].
Richard.
|
Terry Lane
Police Constable
Username: Tel
Post Number: 8
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
if these women were strangled first, wouldn't there be more signs of a stuggle? More defensive wounds perhaps?
Sandy
I should have thought so. Remember the rule of three's?
Three weeks without food
Three days without water
Three minutes without air
Three minutes is a loooong time when you are fighting for life.
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 560
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Hi Terry,
I seem to remember seeing a suggestion a few times on the board that there are certain pressure points that caused almost instantaneous unconsciousness.....no I haven't been watching too much Star trek...... apparently it is possible to render someone unconscious if it is done skillfully enough where the struggle is quite minimal and the victim more or less incapacitated.
I was thinking particularly of Polly Nichols when death was so quick........
I think it was James Kent, that said that Annie Chapman's hands were in such a position that it suggested she had been struggling for her life, but as he was not a medical man, that could have merely been a laymans misinterpretation of the scene. I am a trifle suspicious of Cadosche's testimony and there is a time discrepency between the word 'No' and the bump against the fence. I suppose it is possible that she did put up a bit of a struggle, but she was extremely ill anyway, so I do wonder how much of a struggle she at least would have been able to put up.
All of them were drunk or had been drinking or were ill, which would lessen any struggle, even when fighting for their lives, especially as Jack was obviously at least moderately fit and strong.
I still do think that they were at least partly deprived of air and then their throats cut afterwards........sorry.....going to take a lot of persuading to change my mind on this one!
Jane
xxxxx |
Terry Lane
Police Constable
Username: Tel
Post Number: 10
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 9:45 pm: |
|
no I haven't been watching too much Star trek......
More like Austin Powers mate
Seriously, I have heard of these pressure points, but whether they work or are Urban Rumours is another question (perhaps we should call the Myth Busters in?)
You could well be right about the deprivation of air for a period, but, if so, I think this would be more for the sake of Jacky getting his jollies rather than aiming for a quick silencing. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Richard, Jane (and everybody!)
Surely it is only conjecture that Mary's face was covered by her killer at all? I can't remember any testimony saying she was found with the cloth draped over her face like one of Magritte's models. Even if she had been thus found, who could have said that she hadn't cowered under the sheet herself? From what I recall, there were some cuts observed in the sheets, but they could simply have been slashed in the frenzy of the attack. Somewhat less likely, but not improbably so, is the possibility that the torn bed linen may even have been there already - this was 13 Miller's Court, not the Ritz, remember.
I see none of this as even slightly supportive of the hypothesis that she was known to her killer, still less that he covered her face because she was known to him. If that had been the case, and he was so "sensitive", why then did he lose it so completely with the rest of her body, not to mention her (then-uncovered) face, later on in his assault?
Cowering behind the sheets is a likely explanation, and would have been a natural reaction, I'd have thought. It might in itself also explain the "defensive" wounds to Mary's left forearm and the fact that the axis of Mary's torso seems to have been twisted away from the diagonal after death. If you look at the axis of her legs/abodomen, it would appear that her body was once pointing towards the top right-hand edge of the bed, nearest the corner of the room where the infamous "F" and "M" were splashed onto the wall. This suggests to me that she could have been inching her way backwards just before her killer strangled (or smothered) her and/or cut her throat with the knife.
Once the abdominal atrocities were committed, the killer may then have swivelled her thorax and head closer to the left side of the bed to start work on Mary's upper body mutilations without having to lean over the carnage occupying the lower half of the bed.
Sorry, that was my most gruesome post ever, but a reasonable sequence of events IMO. Poor Mary.
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page