Archive through April 10, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through April 10, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion: Mary kelly: Archive through April 10, 2000

Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 05:42 am
I agree with alex and Wolf , I think the cut to Kelly's neck was from HER right to HER left , cutting her right carteroid artery. This suggests to me , as I have always assumed , that the killer was right handed. The difference between Kelly and the other victims is that the killer stood over Kelly or on her left side , while for Stride , Chapman etc he stood on their right sides to cut the throat. The bed being against the wall made the difference in Kelly's case.
Author: Harry Mann Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 06:46 am
Are we all forgetting the situation in the room.It would have been pitch black,evidenced by witnesses,one of whom said there was no light showing at 3a.m.,and the other that the court was in complete darkness.Added to that the window was covered,so the killer would have some difficulty in seeing the position of the neck. Of course either the candle or the fire could have been lit,but in that case she would most likely have been aware of the killers intentions as there would be light to see.Would she then just have lain passive. Perhaps we can have writers views as to the situation prior to the attack.How did the killer gain entry,and what ensued after entry up to the moment of attack. The fascination with this case is the many small mysteries that abound and are unanswered.There may be a reasonable answer to some,although in most there will be no positive proof.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 11:15 am
Ah , but Harry you are presuming a time of death when the room was enshrouded in darkness. What if death occured between 5am-6am , when the early rays of the sun crept into the room through the window and under the door. My suspicion is that the killer placed the man's overcoat over the one window when he was mutilating the corpse ; before this light was coming into the room via the unblocked window. I see it like this : the killer has entered the room and has sat on Kelly's bed. The victim slowly awakes then reacts in shock as she sees the face of her murderer staring at her. She tries to fight him off , but her struggles are in vein and her throat is slashed from ear to ear.
Author: David M. Radka Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 12:46 pm
The wounds probably went like this: 1. Foreplay is beginning with MJ lying on the bed on her back, and the murderer lying on top of her. While fondling her breasts, he brings his hands upward and begins strangulation. She reacts by moving her hands upward as well, sustaining a few small scratches and bruises, but she can't hold him off and soon becomes unconscious. 2. The murderer then retrieves his knife from his coat and returns to the bed. Standing aside the bed facing the wall where the "FM" initials are supposed to be, he reaches over MJ with his left hand to grasp the edge of the bed sheet at the right, or wall-side of the bed. He draws this across and over MJ, making a kind of blintz of her. The edge winds up right next to his left knee where he's standing. 3. He feels around with his hand for the place where the bed sheet is covering MJ's carotid artery, then severs that artery with the knife in his right hand, cutting through the sheet. Blood is for the most part directed into the sheet, with a few splashes hitting the wall. 4. Then he replaces the sheet back into its original position, and begins the mutilations. David
Author: Neal Glass Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 02:27 pm
David, I think you might be missing a vital point here with your idea about strangulation. Of course, it is true that there is little doubt that in at least two of the previous murders strangulation must have taken place. I believe so. And that may be what you are going on. But the body in each of those previous cases was dead before it had been cut up. This was supported by the fact that there was so little blood. That's my point. Polly Nichols, for instance did not seem so seriously injured to the two men who first came upon her body in the dark. Then everyone realized the blood had been absorbed by her clothing and had left only a small puddle that was easily washed away by a bucket of water. This was simply because she had already been dead before she had been mutilated. Blood does not spurt when the heart is not pumping. It sort of leaks out slowly. Mary Kelly's body, as we all know, was a ghastly bloody mess. There was blood everywhere, and certainly the wound to the throat spurted out to the wall so near to her head at the fatal moment. The slit throat in the Kelly murder, as in the Stride murder, was most likely the cause of death. Regards, Neal
Author: Diana Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 09:37 pm
How about this? He is in the bed with her. He waits till she falls asleep (she has been drinking) and then slits her throat.
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 07 April 2000 - 06:00 am
G'day, If her killer placed the sheet over her face first, then it wouldn't need to have been light in the room first, before he sliced her throat! LEANNE!
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 07 April 2000 - 06:19 am
Simon, From recollection the sun rises well after six in England in November,but as you will have read I did not rule out the fact that there may have been light.From the doctor's estimate death could have occured anytime after 2 a.m.I did not presume a time of death,I do not know when it occured,but the time when the cry of'Murder' was heard is suggestive.I was presuming the state of darkness from what witnesses had said. Like you I believe the murderer entered uninvited,that Kelly,already abed,became aware of his presence,and had time to cry out once. I think that by instinct she would have sat up in bed,thas strangulation may still have been possible. You may correctly say'well that is a lot of speculation',and so it is,but many things happened in that room that night,and to speculate on those things is all we can do.Perhaps someone will come up with a reasonable explanation that will satisfy most. My theoretical murderer is George Hutchinson,at least he can be put at the scene of a crime,and in peculiar circumstances.
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 07 April 2000 - 06:20 am
G'day Leanne ! You've lost me on this one I'm afraid , can you explain ? Surely the killer would have to find the end of the sheet amidst the bedclothes , then pull it up which might have dislodged the blanket , or the sheet might not have pulled up in the first place. Then the victim might have woken up and struggled due to being disturbed , or screamed or something. Then the killer would have to find the neck under the sheet etc. This all seems very complicated or am I totally off track here ? Mary's death certificate by the way lists cause of death as being : " Severance of right carteroid artery ; Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown ; Violent ". Since the blood splatted up against the wall , I don't think MJK was strangled first , the killer didn't seem to care about making a mess in this case. Walter Dew also recalled that the floor in the room was covered in an ' awfulness ' - blood , fluid etc - which he slipped on upon entry to the chamber.
Author: David M. Radka Friday, 07 April 2000 - 11:55 am
Why can't people grasp this simple observation? There was massive blood flow in the Eddowes murder, and she was strangled. The pavement was very bloody. Nichols and Chapman were strangled, and there was plenty of blood in their clothes and on the ground. You don't need heavy arterial out-pumping to get a great amount of blood on the ground and on the clothing. You can get this following strangulation as well, if there is a good-enough sized hole made in the body and adequate time for the blood to exit. What is more the fact: In Kelly's case, the murder perpetrated a massive set of mutilations, opening the abdomen, chest, and pelvic areas just about completely, and this would account for the draining out from the body of virtually all the blood it had in it. You certainly wouldn't need arterial splashing to account for the amount of blood outside the body in Kelly's case. And there weren't, I say weren't, a lot of blood splashes on Kelly's wall. There was a moderate amount of blood spattering. The hugeness of human myth-making in the face of contrary evidence truly gives pause to reflect. Please don't put immature posts here and expect not to be challenged. David
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 07 April 2000 - 07:07 pm
David, OOOOOH! Who are you accusing of making 'immature posts'? LEANNE!
Author: Diana Friday, 07 April 2000 - 09:50 pm
I can only think of one thing that would be worse than Radka's unknown theory being wrong: Radka's unknown theory being right! Imagine what his posts would be like if he solved it! (-:
Author: David M. Radka Friday, 07 April 2000 - 10:20 pm
Diana, You already know, because I have solved it. Ladies, This is what I mean about the way my name is used here. Nobody ever is referred to by their last name. It would seem to be a sign of contempt or disrespect, used here in that context. And believe me, I know when I'm dealing with lesbians. I am not afraid of lesbians. David
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 08 April 2000 - 06:50 am
DAVID!!!!!!!!! I HOPE YOU WEREN'T ACCUSING ME OF BEING ONE OF THOSE!!!!!! TALK ABOUT 'IMMATURE POSTS'! IT SAYS ALOT ABOUT YOUR SKILLS OF DETECTION!!!!! Leanne Perry!
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 08 April 2000 - 07:43 am
BACK TO MORE INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION.... When Doctor Phillips entered Kelly's room, the door: 'knocked against a table, which was close to the left hand side of the bedstead'. So the door opened inwards! Then how did her killer exit the room, once he'd finished mutilating her? Once he squeezed through, he could have walked around to the broken window, reached through to cover the view of the latch/catch, by moving the table and the mess on top. This would explain why all those intelligent men, viewing her body through the window on that morning, couldn't see Kelly's alternative mode of entry. Does anyone else have any suggestions? Leanne (straight-as-an-arrow) Perry!
Author: David M. Radka Saturday, 08 April 2000 - 11:33 am
I believe that Leanne opens up a good point concerning the room. I have my doubts concerning the way the layout of the room has been interpreted, especially by Sugden in his diagram. Based upon photo # 2, the door seems to me to open toward the bed, not toward the fireplace. Don't have time for more now, but will discuss this again later. David Radka
Author: David M. Radka Saturday, 08 April 2000 - 11:49 am
Women and fish, women and fish, as Abberline noted. If my posts were immature and if I lacked skill of detection as you imply, why don't the people who I responded to above come back at me right away? Did you consider that my post might have been a perceptive one, based on a reasonable understanding of the evidence, and mature in terms of its judgement? I make clear, reasonable posts which take a position. I am not afraid of doing so because I know I am a bright, well-educated individual, who knows how to read and think. I can take it when I'm wrong, have been wrong before, and will likely be wrong at times again. This doesn't stop me from exercising my right of free speech here. With respect to my maturity, there wouldn't be a whole lot of free speech here, for all to enjoy, if it hadn't been for me having the maturity to stand up to anonymous bullies and sycophants like Yazoo and "Ivor Q.U. Estion," among others. This is fully documented in the archives of this web site. What I did I did on my own initiative, with few or none standing beside me, for the benefit of all. And I say again: I am not afraid. David
Author: The Viper Saturday, 08 April 2000 - 02:04 pm
The door certainly opened inwards. The entrance faced the relatively narrow space between nos. 26 and 27 Dorset Street, (which was once divided back yards, but by then Miller�s Court), so it wouldn�t have been very practicable to design it to open outwards, or for the landlord to alter it to do so subsequently. Furthermore, that door must have opened in the manner depicted in the plans printed in Sudgen and Tully, i.e. when standing outside and facing it, the hinges were to the right so that the door swung back towards the bed and the adjacent table. This we know from Inspector Abberline�s confirmation, (gleaned from Joe Barnett), that it was possible to lean through the broken window and open the door. Had the hinges been on the left side, that operation would have been impossible. Abberline said he�d made a full inventory of the room's contents, but unfortunately we don�t have it. Presumably a plan was drawn at the same time? The plan we see shows that there was plenty of space to enter and leave the room. The door would hit the table behind it if opened too far, (such as might have happened when forced open by McCarthy or if pushed too hard by someone unfamiliar with the layout). Since the table was not large, it could be moved by the murderer if necessary by lifting it, without making much noise. As to the layout of the room on the plan, questioned by David:- We know the positions of the door and two windows from a surviving photograph (in Rumbelow) and from contemporary illustrations. We know that the door opened onto the table. Using the best-known photograph, we know that this table was positioned in front of the bed. The bed is plainly visible against the partition with the main part of the house. The position of the chimney against the adjoining property (no. 25) is logical. Doesn�t this cover all the features of the room relevant to the murder? For anybody without a room plan to hand try:- http://www.casebook-productions.org/sitemap.htm Select �Dorset Street � Detail� from the Maps section. Two virtual impressions of the room can also be called up from the same page. Thanks to Dave Yost! Regards, V.
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 10 April 2000 - 11:47 am
David , I'm perfectly willing to accept MJK could have been strangled before having her throat slashed , seems logical enough and consistent with the other murders. However you would be wrong if you thought I was a lesbian. I am not even female ! Since the door banged into the table when it opened , what about the possibility that the killer put the bedside table in front of the door while mutilating the victim ; this would certainly hinder entry and would explain , if it was pushed back incorrectly , why the door banged into the table afterwards. The bedside table could even have been left blocking the door and the kiler could have left via the window , bolting the door behind him via the broken pane. To the Viper : I think I read somewhere that there was a small wall alcove in the room with some stale bread in it : do you know where this was in relation to the room layout ? Did Kelly's room have a stove as well , if not where was the kettle positioned ? Perhaps it hung on a spit over the fire or was put on a stand for it to boil. Harry , I think you are right about the daylight : it would probably have been semi-dark around 6.30-7am on that November morning , with full daylight by about 7.30am or a bit later. It rained until nearly 11am in the morning as well , this might have been why Bowyer popped round for the rent about this time.
Author: Scott Nelson Monday, 10 April 2000 - 03:27 pm
There's no way the Ripper could have left the room via the window. The windows weren't hinged nor did they slide. Examination of the contemporary photo taken outside in the court shows jagged sections of shattered glass, something no human could pass through without breaking the pane out completely.