|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 5, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Mary kelly:
Archive through April 5, 2000
Author: Jim Leen
Monday, 27 March 2000 - 04:17 am |        | Hello CMD,
Belated thanks for the kind words. Talmudic wisdom, indeed! A small glass of port shall be raised in your honour and waved in the general direction of the States tonight.
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 27 March 2000 - 04:56 am | | | Leanne , yes Mary Shelley kept Percy's heart on her desk - but she didn't cut it out of him personally after she had mutilated and disfigured him ! I don't think that the person who mutilated MJK could possibly have been in love with her , as he stripped the flesh off her thighs and cut her breasts off and placed one under her head. He wanted to utterly obliterate her. And thus the heart was probably thrown on the fire or fed to the murderer's dog. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 27 March 2000 - 06:10 am | | Hi Simon,
To your question what made JtR different from Bundy for example when mutilation concerned?
His individuality I presume. That was the thing he extremely revelled in, from the start. It was his focus.
Not all go to these extremes, but at the time Dutroux was caught in Belgium, some dump sacks were found in Mons with cut up remains. They had to count the minimum amount of victims by the number of feet. I would call this extreme mutilation too, although not to the organs but limbs (just like the Pinchin Street Murderer at the time JtR haunted Whitechapel).
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 27 March 2000 - 07:11 am | | G'day Simon,
Bruce Paley, who was a private detective, says that Barnett could have mutilated Kelly in such a way, to disguise her as the woman he knew and loved.
Her face being as it was found, indicates that her murderer knew his victim.
Paley says: "Even today, it is not uncommon to hear of men killing their wives or girlfriends in similar circumstances."
Leanne. |
Author: lee donovan
Monday, 27 March 2000 - 07:17 am | | Well for someone who was supposed to have loved MJK, JB really did no like her face or her body did he?
Although loving someone for who they are is different. |
Author: Neal Glass
Friday, 31 March 2000 - 02:04 pm | | Hello everybody, I have a question that I posted on one of the sub-category Mary Kelly boards and thought I would put it to anyone who might happen to read this board here as well. I have noticed that the idea of Mary Kelly having been pregnant has gone out of fashion. It was mentioned without controversy in the Seventies edition books, at least by Rumbelow, but now it seems to have gone to pasture. It's important to me to determine whether this is owing to the fact that Rumbelow was relying on a bad source or whether the new attitude is simply someone's logic that there was no sign of pregnancy at the autopsy.
I guess I should say that the fact that there was no sign of it at the autopsy is not for me an argument. She could have had an abortion or the body may have not been that of Mary Kelly. My concern is just to get to Rumbelow's source if anyone has any idea where he got the notion in the first place. He states that Barnett believed she was pregnant. Barnett is supposed to have told this to the authorities. So it was never so much that Kelly really was pregnant, but simply that Barnett said she was.
I guess I'll post this question at the Barnett board too. Searching!
Thanks, Neal |
Author: eastender
Friday, 31 March 2000 - 02:59 pm | | Neal:
Rumbelow seems to have been guilty of passing on an untrustworthy source.
The allegation that Kelly was pregnant at the time of her death seems to find it's origin in William Stewart, who apparently concocted the story to support his notorious "Jill the Ripper" theory. Stewart, not above inventing witnesses and testimony out of thin air, purports to quote Dr. George Bagster Phillips that Mary was "in the early stages of pregnancy." The 1987 discovery of the Mary Kelly post-mortem notes have put paid to this idea. |
Author: Neal Glass
Saturday, 01 April 2000 - 11:20 am | | | Thanks eastender. From another problem I had with Rumbelow I thought it might be as you say. As long as I'm sure it came out of nowhere, then that's where the idea belongs. |
Author: Neal Glass
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 10:10 pm | | One more question about the Kelly case for anyone who might have an answer or opinion. Would you say the killer was right-handed or left? I can find no conclusive documentation one way or another.
Any thoughts on that?
Regards, Neal |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 08:18 am | | G'day Neal,
Reading Dr. Bonds postmortem report on Kelly, he says:
"The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood....The wall by the right side of the bed...was marked by blood". (this was HER RIGHT!)
If her killer was standing over her as she lay on the bed, wouldn't this indicate a right-to-left slash? (HIS RIGHT).
However this doesn't prove if he was left or right handed. He could have slashed towards the wall to avoid getting blood on himself.
"The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long". This indicates that she tried to defend herself at the last minute.
I believe she could have been asleep, was wakened by someone who pulled back her door latch, knew the person well and didn't bother getting up.
Leanne! |
Author: Neal Glass
Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 12:20 pm | | Very good, Leanne. I came across something you once said about tailor's chalk in a discussion of the alleged Ripper graffiti. Very instructive.
What I play with is not an unexpected intruder. But I did miss the detail about the right thumb showing a small superficial incision.
It does seem to me that the splash of blood on the wall to her right suggests that the knife went from the killer's right as he faced the victim. My only reservation is that the head was not turned in that direction. But then the body was moved away from the wall for some reason. That is clear enough from what is said of it. And I think the killer wanted the head to be facing away from the wall so that the person who stepped into the room would see the job that had been done to her face.
So the pose was not in that instance natural and can be ignored.
Now, you say that a slicing motion starting from the killer's right does not necessarily suggest anything, but here I think we need not be that cautious. Logically the splash of blood on the wall, which had certainly come from the wound to the throat, indicates that the victim had not been strangled beforehand (as some of the previous victims had probably been). I say that because if she had already been dead before her throat was slit, then there would have been no pumping heart to create the spurt of blood that comes of having one's throat slit. So this was the wound that did kill her, I think. The killer wanted to silence her immediately with an attack that she was not expecting. And short of strangling her or placing a pillow over her face, a slit throat is really the only sure bet. So this is very significant. The killer is dealing her the wound that will insure that he will be able do what he has come there to do without dealing with a cry for help. And however we look at it, everyone seems to agree she was lying on her back on the bed when she was murdered.
So the cut came at her as the killer faced her.
To my way of thinking then, if the wound was inflicted from his right to his left, it indicates that he was probably left-handed. A back-handed thrust is the most powerful when the attacker is facing the victim.
If anyone else has other thoughts on it, I would love to hear them because this is one of those very important details.
Good talking to you, Neal |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 12:03 am | | I’m sorry Neal and Leanne, but as I see it the blood splashes on the wall to Kelly’s right indicate that her throat was cut from her right to left. Which, if she were lying on her back and the killer facing her, would mean the killer cutting from his left. So, if you favour a backhanded cutting motion, this would suggest a right-handed killer.
In addition to the nature of this attack indicating that Kelly was not throttled, the most significant factor is, I think, that a right to left cut is contrary to other canonical victims. Now of course this could have been dictated by prevailing circumstances and positioning, but it clearly suggests a different approach.
If previous victims were murdered by the same killer as Kelly, and if those victims had their throats cut from left to right by a killer positioned above their right shoulder as they lay at least semi-recumbent on the ground, yet Kelly, in a face-on attack, had her throat cut from right to left, in a back-handed fashion, would it not suggest a right-handed killer?
I apologise if this isn’t too clear. I know what I mean, but it is rather late here.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 06:19 am | | G'day Neal and Alex
I fail to see how the blood on the wall to Kellys right, indicates her throat was cut from HER right to HER left. I see them as blood splashing off the killers knife, not as splashes from her wound. That might suggest why it was easy to assume they were letters, left on purpose by her killer,(FM).
Not only did Marys right thumb show signs of defence, but 'there were several abrasions on the back of the hand' (I assume that was her right hand).
'The axis of the body inclined to the left....The head was turned on the left cheek'. If she turned to HER left and used her right hand to defend herself, this suggests to me that the knife came at her from HER right side (ie The killers left hand).
Leanne! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 10:13 am | | | ...which would require him to be in between the bed and the wall? |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 11:59 am | | | The final position of the victim on the bed when found probably bore little resemblance to the position during the initial attack and subsequent mutilation. |
Author: Neal Glass
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 02:54 pm | | Well, it seems to me everyone is correct. My head is so full of other issues that this business of the right hand got past me. The wounds on her right hand would seem to me conclusive. I was originally going on the trajectory of the knife, but then I am not a medical person and more than the sweep of the knife is just the spurt of blood from so deep and savage a cut. And I do believe it was a back-handed thrust, so that does put it where Alex puts it. It's really the only view of this that fits what everyone is saying. As for the position of the body, yes, it is secondary. It is not only possible that it was moved, there was no doubt in the doctor involved in the case that it had been. Originally she had been laying on her back very close to the wall. We know she must have died very quickly to have not made much of a sound. She had only a moment to scream once before it was over.
Strangulation is out of the question. The spurt of blood was a splash from a severed artery. It must have simply burst like a opened fire hydrant.
If the man who killed Liz Stride was left-handed, he did not kill Mary Kelly. I believe he killed Stride in a very hurried fashion, forestalling his previous strangling technique because the street was busier than he had thought and the whole thing was not going the usual way. The thrill being cutting of the throat he went for that straightaway and then wasted no time getting out of sight as a wagon came rolling round the corner.
I know this is not Stride's board, but if anyone has any thoughts about her in relation to this question, please speak up.
Mary Kelly could have been killed by her boyfriend.
Later, Neal |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 04:12 pm | | Neal, I can't quite see what your envisaging here with the wound to Mary Kelly's throat. You state:
"So the cut came at her as the killer faced her. To my way of thinking then, if the wound was inflicted from his right to his left, it indicates that he was probably left-handed. A back-handed thrust is the most powerful when the attacker is facing the victim."
In order for him to be facing her, he would have to be lying on top of her. The wound to the throat went from her right to her left, thus, from his left to his right. This is evident from the arterial blood spray on the wall next to the bed, the spray was away from the killer who was positioned on the left side of the bed (when looking from the headboard down). The probability therefore, is of a right handed killer.
Although the idea of the killers left handedness was brought up early in the murders, Dr. Llewellyn stated at the Nichols inquest that the killer might have been left handed, this idea was never proven to anyone's satisfaction and there is evidence that Llewellyn was wrong about it.
As for the cut on Mary Kelly's right thumb, "a small superficial incision about 1 in. long..."does not a defensive wound make.
Wolf. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 10:30 pm | | G'day All,
Wolf: You've lost me. You say 'The wound to the throat went from HER right to HER left. This is evident from the arterial blood spray on the wall'. Would blood, from a fatal cut to her neck, spray out and hit the wall with force? The blood: '...had struck it in a number of separate splashes'.
'The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood'. I'd say that this was her 'arterial blood' and the spray on the wall was caused by his thrust from HER left to HER right. This indicates a left-handed, backward thrust from him.
About the 'small superficial incision' on her right thumb, plus the 'several abrasions on the back of the hand': Her other hand appears to be intact and resting on her belly. There are large slices on her left arm, but not on the back of her left hand. Jack didn't appear to be targeting hands!
LEANNE! |
Author: Neal Glass
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 11:13 pm | | Yes, what Leanne is saying is what I toy with when I think about this. And, as I said (actually as she said), the injuries to the right hand are not just the finger, which is intriguing. It's true in an earlier message I said left hand for Kelly, but after hearing Leanne I decided that it would have to have been someone right-handed.
The Stride killing was left to right according to the report. Again these were in both cases most likely (especially with Stride)the cause of death. They were very deep. And the back-handed thrust is the more powerful. So the hypothesis is simply IF we're looking at a back-handed thrust; and IF the killer was facing the victim (which is not in any real serious doubt with Kelly), then Kelly was killed with the right hand. And UNLESS Stride was killed from behind, which may have well been the case with Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes (a strong possibility), then we might be looking at two different killers.
The boyfriend was known to read newspaper accounts of the murders to Kelly. There is ample reason to believe their separation was not as amicable as Barnett made out to the police. If it was cold-blooded murder then he might have even wanted to give the appearance that they were working things out. It might also explain the ferocity of the mutilation. If it was a crime of passion or a premeditated murder born of a calculating sort of passion, then the killer who is just a copycat going on lurid newspaper accounts slashes the throat to shreds. Because he only knows a general description of what the Ripper does he maybe goes crazy and overboard so he covers all his bases, so to speak.
There are problems with this. What paper was Barnett reading to Mary in those days? What kind of articles were read? Did they go overboard on their descriptions to a point that he may have just thought this was what was expected? Problems. But I've always wondered at all kinds of little things going on with this.
The Kelly murder is unique.
Neal |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 11:33 pm | | Hi Leanne
I agree with you regarding the indications of defensive wounds, but I’m afraid I must demur on the direction of severance. If Kelly was lying on her back, with her head in the top right hand corner of the bed, and the killer in front or to her left. While blood flow and splashes were concentrated on her right, indicating that the severance of her right carotid artery was the immediate cause of death. All of which is attested to by medical evidence. I can’t see how Kelly’s throat could have been cut in any other direction but from her right to left.
Best Wishes
alex |
|
|
|
|
