|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
JamesMoses
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 9:15 pm: |       |
I’ve not been able to find a discussion on the subject of the physical and economic differences between Mary Kelly and the other canonical victims. Leaving aside, for the moment, the departure from the typical JtR venue and the increased mutilation, Mary Kelly just doesn’t seem to fit the profile of his other victims. Yes she lived in the right neighborhood, was known to drink to excess and was believed to occasionally turn a trick, but so did literally thousands of other women whom he did not “rip”. After those items all similarity stops cold.
Mary had the luxury of owing a month’s back rent on a full room. If you’ve ever tried to get a loan, you know you must be able to earn money to owe money. She was apparently 22 or 25 years old and described in Philip Sugden’s book The Complete History of Jack the Ripper as “young and evidently quite attractive”, “5 feet 7 inches in height” and “ tall and pretty, and as fair as a lily”. Five foot 7 inches is on the tall side of average today, in her time; Mary would have been a virtual amazon. She was also it seems in quite good health
On the other hand, the other 4 canonical victims were so desperately poor and unlikely to earn any sum of money that no one would stake them to half a bed for one night. They were all well over 40 (Catherine Eddows 47 or 48) very hard years old and had lived in Whitechapel for many years. The tallest stood 5”2” and nowhere do I remember the words “attractive” or “pretty” being used in one of their descriptions. However “malnourished” or “recently ill” do appear in such a discussion.
For many reasons, I personally, at least for now, would be surprised if more than two of the canonical victims were actually killed by the same hand. However, if they were all killed by JtR, what caused the move from 4 small, old, tired, easily overpowered (almost carbon copy) street prostitutes to a large, young, healthy (could have put up quite a fight!) callgirl?
} |
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 9:18 am: | |
I don't think Jack premeditated the selection of his victims, James. The fact that on this particular night he happened on a pretty one was a stroke of luck. I don't think he would have passed up the chance to rip Kelly just because of her looks.
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 890
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Hi James,
There is a famous quotation, that says'The answer lies with Kelly'
I have always believed there was a lot of truth, in the nuns quotation'If it was not for the kelly woman, none of the murders would have happened'
As this quotation came from the convent just a few yards from Millers court, from a resident nun who was there at the time, I for one would take note.
The simple fact is the victim kelly lived in Dorset street, Tabrams friend pearly poll resided there, annie chapman left there on the night of her death, Eddowes slept there, infact all roads lead to that street.
I believe that it was directly her past, and present lifestyle, that contributed to these murders, and when she was no more , the murders ceased.
This either points suspicion to someone close to her, or some sinister doings previously.
I feel strongly that if her life can be accuratly analyzed, then the puzzle will fit.
Regards Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 291
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
Hi James,
Like Kelly, I don’t think Jack premeditated the selection of his victims either. However, I think he may have done some premeditating in the case of Mary Kelly. One possible scenario, one that I find quite plausible, is that, due to the increased police activity in the area after the ‘double event’, the Ripper was forced to find alternative places to kill, as the streets were becoming too risky. So, during the six weeks that he didn’t kill, he may well have tried to find a prostitute with lodgings of her own.
If this is what actually happened, it would explain the departure from the typical JtR venue, the increased mutilations and the fact that, physically, Mary Kelly was so different from the other canonicals.
All the best,
Frank
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 120
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 1:20 pm: | |
Hello all,
As to Jack premeditating his choice of victims, it could go either way. There's evidence he selected the murder sites well in advance, but no hard evidence to suggest this about victims. As for Kelly having been a Ripper victim, of course she was. She was laid out on her back with one arm arched over her front, and organ missing, other organs removed. A couple of organs were laid at her feet, and one at her head, just as Chapman's personal items were laid out at her death site. Nobody but the Ripper could have done this.
Richard,
A lot of people have followed the notion that 'the answer lies with Kelly', and if it does, it hasn't been found. I've always believed that the answer lies on the night of the 'double event'.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
One theory.The week of her death Kelly had a prostitute staying with her by the name of Julia Venturney, age 47 (this is from memory but if not exact is close). Julia would have been seen going in and out of that room off and on almost up until the day Mary died. Julia would have fit Jack's victimology to a T. When he crept into that darkened room, all he saw on the bed was a silhuette. By the time Jack was able to see that he had the wrong woman Mary was dead. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 894
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
Hello Diana,
I agree if the killer was indeed after only middle aged women, then your scenerio is very plausible, but there is no evidence that the killer crept into any room, and as Julia was not availabe to use Kellys room that night, I cannot accept that a mistake was made.
Good point made Diana.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 805
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
Hi all
I tend..... IMHO.. to agree with Richard on the 'Kelly woman thing' also on Mrs Maxwell and her plates etc etc... cos women dont forget these things even if they want to! (Wasn't meant to sound all sort of feminist there cos thats not me!!) Just can't believe that a) Liz wasn't a domestic no doubkle events here just a very angry Mr Kidney (!).. and that b) Martha wasnt No 1!!(although not poor old Emma!)as to Julia Van T.....lets not forget Lizzie Allbrook and Winifred Collis! Mary had girls who she shared(!) her room with....Someone was killed in that room that night /morning...,if and only IF... MJK discovered it... then it would explain 'Diddles' waking up to the cry of 'Oh Murder!'
Cheers
Suzi |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 7:35 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
Pleas remember that there is no evidence that Winifred May Collis ever existed, other than a brief mention in the story told by Joseph Sickert.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 121
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 1:01 am: | |
Diana,
A problem with the killer sneaking into Mary's room...the door automatically locked. He likely wouldn't have thought to reach through the window to open it.
Suzi,
The police cleared Kidney of the crime, and that's good enough for me. Quite likely (though the evidence doesn't survive, if it existed), he was shown to Schwartz who cleared him. The evidence of Liz Stride having been a Ripper victim is overwhelming, when studied properly and put into the proper perspective. As for Martha Tabram, it is possible she was a Ripper victim. Regarding Kelly not being the woman on the bed, you'd have to explain away that the woman found had her rather unique (for the area) hair, her eyes, and her curiously unique 'ear', by which Barnett identified her. The woman found dead in Miller's Court was Mary Kelly, no matter how modern enthusiasts attempt to romantacize it.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 293
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 12:21 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
If her killer was one of Mary’s regulars it’s quite possible that he would have known that he could open the door by simply reaching through the broken pane. And even if he had only been with her once or twice before he might have known about it.
Frank
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 136
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
Not to mention that any number of people could have found out about the reach through the window trick either by hearing about it from someone who had been in the room or watching Mary do it at some point.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 896
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Hi,
Lets be realistic, the klller of kelly either entered the room with her in the early hours of the 9th, or the killer entered her room whilst she was in Dorset street unaware of such a visitor, [ see Maxwells statement].
To suggest that her killer gained entry to her room, fumbling around with the bolt entry, in the middle of the night is absurd.
Richard. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
I dont think the ripper was one of her regulars. I dont feel he was ever interested in having sex with any woman or that he would of had a regular prostitute he visited. I agree with Mr. Thomas C Westcott I dont feel that the ripper would have known about the latch and how easy it was to open the door by sticking your hand through the window.
I think we have three possible scenarios were Kelly is concerned.
1. The man that Cox saw Kelly with killed her. The problem here is the time he would have had to take before killing her. Several witnesses heard her singing untill 1:30am That means the ripper would of had to wait over an hour before striking down Kelly.
2. The man that Hutchinson saw Kelly with and possibly Sarah Lewis saw killed kelly. The problem again is we would have too account for an hour before the cries of murder were heard by Pratter and Lewis. I believe the time of death was around 3:30 and 3:45am because to different individuals heard the cry of murder at the exact same time. One witness Lewis claims the cry sounded like it was coming from right outside her door. I personally believe the odds of two people hearing a cry of murder and then a neighbor being killed that night are slim.
3. Kelly dismisses the man that George and possibly Sarah saw her with and then she goes back out on the street around three just before or just after Cox returned home. Cox claimed it was all dark and quiet in Kelly's room when she returned home around three in the morning. Kelly returns with this new client around 3:15 or 3:30am. The ripper strikes quickly after Kelly undressed down to her chemise and layed on the bed. Prater and lewis here the cry of murder. It is possible that George Hutchinson was the man who Kelly ment after she dismissed her client and he killed her.
I dismiss the breaking in while Kelly was sleeping for the same reason that Tom mentioned and the fact that the ripper would have had noway of knowing if Kelly was alone in her bed unless of course he had been watching Kelly. Again GH may have been that man.
All the best,CB |
Andrew Gable
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 2:43 pm: | |
I wonder, though, if the fact that Mary was younger and presumably more fit than the others accounts in part for the increased mutilation. If she did put up a fight, as James said in the initial post, maybe that increased Jack's anger level. Just a thought. |
James Moses
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
Hello Richard and Thomas,
I am not sure that “ The answer lies with Kelly”, however, I do believe that without her there would be very little interest in JtR a hundred plus years later. I think we have an emotional need to include her because it completes the set piece of Jack the unstoppable monster getting away with the most horrific murder imaginable.
The press minutely covered most of the details of the murders, including the proceedings of the various coroner inquests, at least since the Chapman murder. Actually these press reports are our chief source of contemporary information on the crimes. The only details omitted (at least in the more “respectable” papers) was the total extent of the mutilation. The police were reluctant to release this information and the press was reluctant to print it. This left any would be copycat with a vague idea of who and how, but not “how much”. This could account for the tremendous escalation in the mutilation especially if his information came from the “respectable” papers..
Kelly’s case can stand on its own. Kelly deserves her own answer
Take Care,
James
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 810
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Richard
EXACTLY!!! I suggest that 'Mary' or "mary" was out and about, with or without the carroty man !singing and God knows what suggests that she was Not in Dorset St at all for a lot of the time!....And.. more than likely was outside the Brittania as seen by Mrs M!! in the early(!) morning!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 294
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
Hi CB,
Even if Mary’s killer wasn’t one of her regulars and had even never associated with her as a client, he may still have found out about the window trick. We only have to remember Hutchinson’s press statement, in which he said that just before 3 am he ventured ‘up the court, and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house, or hear any noise.'
This seems to imply that he went round the corner of Mary’s room to watch through and listen at her window - it would certainly be the logical thing to do, being as interested in the couple as he was. He would undoubtedly have seen the broken window pane.
Even if this part of Hutchinson’s story was made up, by himself or a journalist, somebody did come up with the possibility to walk up the court to watch and listen at her window. And if this somebody could, so could anybody else, certainly if that somebody was Mary’s actual killer who was eager to get into her room. It’s quite possible, perhaps even quite probable, that he would have found the broken pane, and knowing the position of the door knob, he could easily have figured out how to open the door.
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 295
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 7:02 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
You never cease to amaze me! Unreservedly, you believe a number of unsubstantiated stories from nieces, sons or whatever relatives of alleged witnesses and sometimes you put forward enjoyable but rather shaky theories, but when people come up with a perfectly realistic suggestion that Mary's killer entered Mary’s room while she was asleep, you dismiss it as unrealistic and absurd.
Frank
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 122
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 9:40 pm: | |
Hello all,
It would take a brazen killer indeed to stick his arm into a room and unlock a door while a woman is sleeping, taking the chance of waking her and getting caught. The whole scenario is a bit absurd from the Ripper's standpoint, as if he DID get the door open without stirring Kelly, he'd then have to shut it (and the latch would make a noise, not to mention the hinges - I don't remember reading of a can of WD-40 next to the ginger beer bottles, though perhaps there was and a constable told his brother who told his kid who told Joseph Sickert who corresponded this important information ONLY to Richard. Ha ha)and walk across the wooden floor, and attack Mary, all the while hoping to God she didn't awake and make a scene. Not likely.
CB,
You're forgetting another possible scenario - that the Ripper wasn't seen with Kelly, and thus a description of him doesn't exist.
Jack,
You write: "I think we have an emotional need to include her because it completes the set piece of Jack the unstoppable monster getting away with the most horrific murder imaginable." - Speaking for myself, I include Kelly in the tally of the Ripper's victims not out of 'emotional need', but out of the simple fact that the evidence sways heavily in favor of her having been a Ripper victim. The only 'emotional need' I ever see is that of those people who would like to think Mary lived a long and happy life, or want to 'spice the case up' by suggesting yet ANOTHER killer who happened to spring up in the Autumn of '88.
Suzi,
You write: "I suggest that 'Mary' or "mary" was out and about, with or without the carroty man !singing and God knows what suggests that she was Not in Dorset St at all for a lot of the time!." - First, I believe the capitalized version of her name would be the correct one. As for your 'suggestion' that she was out singing and 'God knows what', somewhere other than Dorset St., at the time another woman who was the same age, height and with the same eye and hair color, was being slaughtered in her bed - what evidence exists to suggest this, and why would anybody possibly believe that? The police certainly didn't, nor did her boyfriend, or her landlord. So, why should we now?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 897
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 3:53 am: | |
Hi,
If it was so easy to open the door in the middle of the night, why was the door not opened when the body was discovered the same way?.
It is true to say that I Do accept some oral history, simply because'Oh i have lost my hankerchief' 'All right my love dont pull me along',Maxwells description of kellys clothing, and the gravespitting, all have elements of truth, in the way they were described.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 811
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 7:02 am: | |
EXACTLY!!,also not forgetting the 'horrors of drink' line,Perhaps in the middle of the night the Ripper didn't happen to have his handy pocket pick axe with him!!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Desmond
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 10:47 pm: | |
It is interesting after reading some of the comments, which were fascinating insights by the way, that in the medical report the examiner stated his thoughts that the killing stroke may have been performed in another part of the room and the ghastly business finished on the bed. This might suggest she answered the door or had invited the individual in rather than the killer letting himself in. Or perhaps knew the individual, her business and habits placed her in comprising situations encouraging her to act at ease in order to better accommodate a paying customer.
If the initial attack came and she was not disabled thoroughly, it might account for the "oh murder" claimed to have been heard at the accepted time of the murder. A response to her exclamation by the killer might have been to physically restrain her and attend the next blow or action as to keep any further unwanted exclamations from occurring.
A final thought, and I am very interested in the thoughts of others to these comments,
I have read several accounts of this particular murder, and speculation about the cry heard possibly coming from Mary's room. If indeed she was attacked and/or realized she was in imminent danger mightn’t a proper cry of alarm be to scream or cry for help.
To deepen my understanding of these questions I have read up on the time period. Where I cannot say I thoroughly understand the period and area, explorations into this particular piece of the Kelly murder suggest that a cry or scream or even "murder" was common place outcry to those dank catacombs. That she cried out "oh murder" as a more accurate alert. It is my contention that 1st, there are witness statements to Mary's activities leading up to the murder claiming she was intoxicated. Would a person intoxicated be able to overcome the delaying side affects of drink, to immediately qualify the best remark rallying aide? It would seem the attack came from someone invited in and by whom, made a sudden attack however was not by choice or precision initially thorough, giving Kelly time to fight or react. Obviously a sobering experience, but so much so that she could choose a statement not a scream?
Power over the victims seems to be a motivator, the killer retains power over them by the grisly acts, and removal of internal organs, and/or specifically reproductive areas of the body. In later mutilations, parts of the face, the areas a mother might use to express action, emotion, and support and shelter to a child are incised, removed or damaged in some manner. The breasts removed the age old symbol of motherhood, and the sexual organs. It would appear as though the killer is evolving through phases of power and control. This would suggest a history of aggression and increasing violence, and importantly a fascination with sadism linked with dissection. Very likely starting with animals and evolving to humans. The specific manner of the killings, chosen victims, mutilations, they suggest a deeply religious individual, a poor or neglected childhood. Very possibly sexual disjunction or impotence due to guilt either religious self infliction or parental. In efforts to overcome these feelings of guilt and inadequacy, the individual would very likely act or dress a part, evolve or to become someone, or something else. It is a deception to themselves to not have to confront themselves, and feel power over others.
The displacement of the organs and viscera seem to suggest a deep abiding curiosity, or searching a need to understand. It is less ritualistic and more pattern forming from practice. Questions formed from each experience. I would suggest for those 5 murdered and displayed there were many more disposed of as these explorations were being formed until a confidence and desire to display to prove power and a successful deception. This could very easily be a person with sever bi-polar or schizophrenic disorders.
I we look at evidence and action events of known serial killers we find some commonality to the JtR case. I do not think Mary was a convenience killing, it is ver likely she was stalked and killed specifically. Very few serial killings are without pattern and purpose.
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 10:15 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
Thanks for responding to my post. I think that is a good possibility.
Take care,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 7:37 pm: | |
Hi Frank thanks for taking the time to respond too my post.
I suppose it is possible but the ripper would of had to be sure that Kelly was alone and that she was asleep before sticking his hand through the window and unlocking the door. If she was restless that night and she could not fall asleep, if she was not alone the ripper would almost surely been caught or at the very least Kelly would have screamed her head off and there would have been more then just one cry of murder. If someone had been watching her all night [George Hutchinson ] then he may have seen her last client leave and taken the chance but if she was not asleep it could have been disasterous for him.
I dont support GH as the ripper and I feel if the ripper had been creeping around her place GH would have seen him and lets not forget that Mary cox also was coming home around 3:00 in the morning. I feel in order for this theory to work the ripper had to have known that Kelly was alone so he must have seen her last client leave and he must have been sure that she was asleep.
If there was no light on in kelly's room when GH went up to investigate and Cox said there was no light on when she came home around the same time. George who was watching the place did not see anyone depart then maybe Kelly was planning to spend the night with the man that George saw her with. I am not sure if Kelly would stay in the dark with a customer unless she trusted him and she was planning to spend the night with the client. Although, I read that her candles had all burned down and that could explain the lack of light. She kept a light on when she was with the man that Cox saw her with for at least an hour after entering the room with him. Of course Pratter claims to have seen no light when she went upstairs around 1:15 I suppose it all depends on THE testimoney you believe as to the time of death you support. I believe George because there seems to be some collaberation by Sarah lewis that Mary was on the streets after 2:30 with a man and then Lewis and Pratter hearing the cry of murder around 3:30 This all points to Kelly being alive well after 1:30
I feel that George Hutchinson would be a likely suspect for the breaking and entering theory but then you would have to explain why he brought himself to the attention of the police.
I really enjoied your reponse you made me think. Take care,CB
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I think the reason the door as not open when they discoverd the body was first they wanted to wait for the higher ranking officers. It was decided that there was nothing that could be done for Mary after the officers arrive I assume Abberline there was some confusion about the bloodhounds for some reason if they were going to use bloodhounds they did not want to enter the room untill the dogs arrived. They never did use bloodhounds and then I believe they did not know about the way Kelly and Joe entered the room untill they questioned Joe.
You make a good point why did they break the door down I believe Joe had already arrived at the scene. They would have no reason to ask Joe about the door untill they questioned him about the key. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 816
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 5:51 pm: | |
Hi all
OK WHY did they break the door down......anyone in the court, if they werent scared witless, would have known how Mary let herself and probably anyone else into that room!!Mrs 'Blotchy face.....dont pull me along! Cox ' has a LOT of credence here.Bloodhounds had long done at this time unfortunately!....And Joe......well we can only imagine was woken from a night at the cards to go and look at the familiar "EAR"!!!!
Come on there wasnt a lot left of the head ,hair and face......must have been one hell of an ear!......echolalia may have a lot to answer for
Ch Ch Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers S S S suzi -i-i-i- |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 127
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 9:45 pm: | |
CB and all,
Actually, there was a good half a candle in Mary's room. It was not burning at the time of her discovery. The fact that it HADN'T burned down to the nub indicates it had been extinguished. I don't know that this point has every been addressed, but I feel that lends further credence (though by no means is it provable) to Mrs. Maxwell's story. After all, if Mary were alive and walking in the daytime, she would have no need for a burning candle. Had she been murdered at night, it stands to reason a candle would have been burning. It's been suggested the Ripper burned the clothes for light, but Mary would've already had the candle going, and would the Ripper have extinguished the candle? If so, why? My suggestion is Mary blew out the candle, went to bed, woke up the next morning, lit the stove to cut the chill, and went to the pub. At some point she met Mrs. Maxwell in the street, and a bit later, met the Ripper. But that's only one possibility. Who knows, I could change my mind again later!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 11:17 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
Thanks Tom for responding too my post. You have given me something to think about and I am not to proud to admitt when I am wrong. Thank you for correcting me that is why I apreciate people like you who repond to my post. I got my information from the chapter in Inspector Dews book. He claims that the candles that had been used to light the room had been burned right down. I enjoied reading thoughts of an actual detective alot and I want to believe him. I guess it would be foolish to believe something written by someone 50 years after the murders who was in his 70s I am sure he had some lapses in memory.
I dont think that the ripper would have taken a chance after eight in the morning. There were alot of people up and about and sombody may have seen him. It is not impossible tho. Most people who support that theory often support Barnett as the ripper.
I do not think the ripper started a fire. I donot think he needed that much light. I think it is possible that the ripper might have put out the candel himself when he was done. He may have not wanted to draw attetion to the room. Do you think the candel light would cause a shadow that could be seen from outside?
I think the candele is very important because surley if she invited the ripper in the first thing she would have done is light a candle. She had to undress and fold her cloths. Cox said at the inquest a lamp faced the door so she was able to get a good description of the man she saw Kelly with. Do you think the room was aluminated enough by the lamp to let the ripper work.
Thanks for pointing out my mistake. all the best,CB |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Mr. Wescott wrote "and would the Ripper have extinguished the candle? If so, why?"
I think if I were leaving the scene at night after just having killed MJK then I would definately blow out the candle. Otherwise you would be silhouetted in the doorway, however slightly, as you left the room. This would make it much more likely for you to be spotted. Also, blowing out the candle first would allow your eyes time to become adjusted to the dark before you left the room.
Regards, Vincent |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 891
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
Tom
The thing about being out and about to 'do' for Mary in the morning early ..is that once out and about on the streets with the early morning crowd (God help us!) in Dorset Street... our man would have become virtually invisible!!!,especially if he was a recognisable face.......would have been impossible for him not to 'disappear ' into the assembled crowds!
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 910
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 3:39 am: | |
Hi,
The intresting point about Kelly is, it was reported that it was strict policy that she never brought a client back to her room since the murders began, she reportedly told her friend Lottie that she had a frightful nightmare that she was being killed, and she also made a remark that the Ripper worried her.
Yet on the night of her death she appears to have dispensed with the code of practise, a lot of people believe that it was because she was in desperate need for money to pay McCarthy, yet she had owed money for weeks, and McCarthy stated that he had to obtain rent when he could ie. bits here and there.
my point is we have Kelly a paronoid young woman, scared stiff to venture out alone, bringing home mayby three men that night.
A] A respectably dressed man who offered her money.
B] The shabby blotchy faced man, carrying a quart of ale.
And Hutchinsons gent, dressed in suspicious attire, carrying a parcel wrapped in cloth.
I Cannot understand why the fearful Kelly would go with contender A/C, She may have accepted Mr Blotchy if he was a regular from Ringers, but even that is debatable.
I cannot help thinking that Kelly knew all of these people, and she trusted them because of that exspecially if she had conducted business with them during the murders, after all she would have thought if any of them were Jack, I would not be alive.
To sum up,I feel that the men that accompanied kelly to her room on the 8th/9th Nov were not her killer.
Regards Richard. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 86
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
Richard,
I see only two solutions for this apparent clash between her not taking clients to her room and suddenly taking a few in one night. The first is that the statements are false. This could happen because they might reflect what MJK said to people but not what she did. (I tell people I never speed in my car but the police can tell you that actually on occasion I do.) It could also happen because our witnesses are being kind to MJK's memory. The second option is that she had reached a point where she needed the money too much and the last murder was a long time ago, over two months. In other words she decided the risk was worth it.
Desmond,
I enjoyed your post. I think it contains many interesting and probably truthful glimpses of our killer. I don't think that Bond actually stated that MJK was first attacked somewhere else in the room though. I think he was saying that she was attacked whilst lying close to the right edge of the bed (from her point of view, ie: away from the camera in the wide angle photo) and that she had subsequently been pulled to the left. The blood on the sheets, on the partition wall, and on the floor under the bed all indicate that the fatal blow was struck to her throat as she lay in that location.
Thomas,
Good to see that someone else has the canonical victims all pencilled in as JtR's handwork. (At least I think that's what you're saying)
Scotty. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 530
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
I would suspect that blowing out a candle would be the 1888 equivalent of turning off the light switch when leaving a room for the evening. People probably did it without even thinking. Thus I suspect JtR simply extinguished the candle when he left.
The fire is still a mystery to me. If it was merely clothing that was burned it could have only provided light for several seconds -- although it would have been bright light in contrast to the candle, something like when you throw a sheet of newspaper on a fire and get a bright flare-up for a few seconds. This would almost certainly have been noticeable from the outside and could have placed the killer in great danger of being caught.
As to his means of entry, I don't think it is ridiculous to suppose that he entered while Mary was sleeping. But I also think it unlikely as it strains plausibility and would place the killer in great danger of being detected.
Andy S. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 87
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 2:05 am: | |
Hi Andrew,
I have often wondered if the exact opposite was the the case, that is to say that the killer threw the clothes on the fire to smother it. It would seem logical to extinguish the candle and the fire upon leaving to stop himself from being illuminated in the doorway. In this way he might reduce the risk of anyone getting a good look at him.
The clothes would burn eventually of course but if they were placed in such a manner as to blanket the fire, it might explain why they were only partly burnt away.
Scotty. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
Hi Scotty,
I feel the cloths were already burned before the ripper arrived and that the fire had already been put out. Just my own personal believe.
Take care,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 5:53 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I am not sure how long Kelly and Barnett were together but I think she was living with him during all the ripper murders. That could have been the reason that she had not brought a client to her house. Drinking effects judgement and she may have been desperate for money. Kelly had just split up with Joe and she may have felt very alone. The ripper had not killed for a time and fear may have abated a little. So we can not assume that she knew the men she brought back to her home. It is possible that the ripper was a common face in the area and Kelly may have seen him around and she may have felt familiar with him enough to take him home.
I think you make some valid points. Kelly was scared of the ripper and paying McCarhty was not of main concern to Kelly. If I remember correctly she was found with no money. Assuming the ripper did not take her money, I can only guess that Kelly spent her money as fast as she earned the money. Addiction drives many women to the streets today and I am sure 115 years ago it was no different. I have read conflicting reports on just how much Kelly drank. Some suggest she drank very little and then some claim she drank alot and there is no proof that Kelly had a drinking problem. However the tells are there. Kelly was drinking that night. If the ripper did not rob her of her money Then it may be safe to assume she had spent it all on booze and if someone who knew they had to pay rent, somebody who had very little in material things and of course someone who wanted to eat, would go out and spend every dime they made drinking then we safely can assume they have a problem. Of course all this is speculation. The ripper could have taken Mary's money. The ripper could have been blotchy and he killed her before she could make any money.
I feel alot of people tend to look at Mary with rose colored glasses. No matter how cute she was or how kind hearted, she was still a prostitute. Mary lived in a rough section and worked those same streets, She probably developed an edge and became hardend by the life. I dont mean to generalise but I feel Kelly would have done any thing for money.
I have never heard of the respectably dressed man who offerd Kelly money? I have read about blotchy and the man GH saw her with.
Take care,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
Hi all,
Just one more thought on the cloths, I believe Joe burnt the cloths when he was there that night. He did not like Maria and I think he burnt them out of spite. Leanne pointed something out on another thread, if the ripper had burnt the cloths for light then why did he leave Mary's cloths untouched? I do not think Joe was the ripper but I do believe he burnt the cloths.
All the best,CB |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 90
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 10:16 pm: | |
Hi CB,
I can't dispute that Joe may have burnt the clothes from a factual perspective, but I just think it is unlikely that anyone other than the killer would have burnt them. I base this simply on the fact that people in the state of poverty such as MJK and her acquaintences were, would have been unlikely to burn clothes, most of these people probably did not have a second set of clothes.
Anyway, it's just a gut feeling.
Scotty. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 912
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 2:54 am: | |
Hi,
The question over the burnt clothes, i feel is a good point to discuss, it is correct to state that if the murderer wanted light he would have burnt every article of clothing avaliable, yet kellys clothes remained intact.
Great pains seemed to have been done by the killer to give the impression that the murder was committed during the hours of darkness, the fire was to give the impression that he needed light, the folding of the clothes[ neatly] was to give the impression that kelly had retired for the night.
I believe that the killer knowing he had a alibi for the night hours, set out to give the impression that the murder was committed during the hours of darkness, and i feel that the murderer was familiar with the habits of kelly, but i feel that he made a vital mistake in placing her boots near the fireplace, as kelly would only have placed her boots there if she was aware of a warm fire in progress, and she was in no condition to know this if dead.
I Do not believe that Mary would have burnt clothing to fuel a fire herself , as these articles would have been monatary assets to her, nor do i feel that a tired kelly would have carefully folded up her clothing on that particular night /morning in the condition she was in.
To sum up , the killer committed this murder after the sighting of kelly by Maxwell, lit the fire, encouraged kelly to return to bed, folded her clothing arranged her wet boots in front of the fireplace, before killing her, this then would give the impression, that she had met her end during the hours of darkness , whilst asleep in bed, a alibi which suited a certain gentleman named Joseph Barnett.
Remember the boots... if the killer lit the fire after killing kelly, how come she placed her boots in front of a non existant fire?. she would never have burnt clothing which did not belong to her , also these items were pawnable, it would be like lighting a ten pound note, because of this the killer must have arranged her boots near the fireplace, to give the impression to the police that kelly had lit the fire before retiring to bed, and settled down for the night, and this would have aided the killer in giving light for his ghastly act.
Regards Richard.
|
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 92
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 4:50 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I was unaware of any statement anywhere that said the killer lit the fire. It has always been my impression that there was already a fire in the grate and that the clothes were placed on top of it. If there was a fire in the grate then this removes the need for the killer to place objects such as you suggested. I think we can read too much into folded clothes and boots by the fire. There is nothing unusual about these items or their positioning in any room at any time. Last point on this, but if we accept that there was still some life left in the candle, it would have been more practical for the kller to light it or keep it burning longer if he needed light. In doing so he avoids the possibility of drawing undue attention to the room.
Scotty. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 913
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
Hi Scotty,
The fact is there was the remains of a fire, in which case either Mary lit it , or the killer.
If she lit it then she burnt valuable assets, whether they were property owned by her or not, if the killer lit it, then as the boots were laid out in front of the fireplace, an obvious spot as it had been a wet evening, they would have been placed by design.
We should remember that only items left by Mrs Harvey were burnt, therfore i would dismiss kelly being the lighter of the fire.
The fire was apparently a fierce one originaly, and that is why i would also dismiss that it was lit during the night, it would attract attention.
Barnett knew kellys bedtime habits, so did Mrs harvey, and would have been aware that she was in the habit of folding her clothes up and leaving them in a certain spot overnight.
I still maintain that this murder was made to look like the killer struck in the early hours of the morning, and that the killer struck then.
If the killer wanted light there was half a candle close by, and that would have been a luxury to which he was not afforded in past deeds.
So therfore taking all the evidence on board of morning sightings from Hutchinson-Maxwell/Lewis, if the fire was lit in the morning , there would have been no reason to do this, because of morning lightness, only reason would therfore be to try to deceive the authoritys. and give extra credence to a alibi.
Regards Richard. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 95
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 1:28 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I'm not questioning your statement on them being Mrs Harvey's clothes which were burnt but I had never read this anywhere, can you tell me where this is stated?
I don't question that a fire occured, I was simply saying I have never seen it stated that the killer STARTED the fire. This seems a long shot to me.
I believe the concept of the fire having been very hot at some point was based on the solder holding the kettle together being melted. I have never read that Barnett or anyone testified that the kettle had been intact prior to the murder. The fact remains that unless such testimony was ascertained the kettle could have sustained this damage at any time prior to the 9th, not just while the murder was being commited.
Scotty. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 916
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 1:39 pm: | |
Hi Scotty,
The Reference comes from the A-Z page 165, it refers to Harvey consistantly stating that she had leftTwo mens shirts, a black crape bonnet, a childs petticoat, a mans overcoat and a pawn ticket in kellys room. and only the overcoat was returned to her. the rest was persumed burnt.
Regarding the kettle, I would have persumed that Barnett was asked if to his knowledge the kettle was destroyed at some previous date, to which the answer must have been No' , for if not the assumption that the fire melted it would not have been suggested.
Regards Richard, |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 96
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
Thanks Richard,
I must have a different version of the A-Z, but I found that on pg159, that seems to be correct. It certainly seems logical that the burnt clothes were Harvey's, of course this could have been just luck.
I know it is clear that the assumption was made that the kettle was damaged that night, I guess I just don't want to take these sorts of assumptions at face value. We have many examples in the testimonies and other documents of controversy and sometimes conflict. I don't think that just because an assumption was made on the kettle issue at the time that we can in any way accept it as fact without the evidence to make it such. If anyone knows where any more evidence exists on this i'd love to know.
Scotty. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 918
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 3:46 am: | |
Hi Scotty,
In the case of 'Jack the ripper' we can only go on the facts that have been relayed , and make assumptions that relate to common sense.
The fact is that all of Mrs Harveys belongings except the overcoat were burnt, we however do not know if any of kellys clothes were burnt, she must have poccessed some other items apart from her clothing that was folded..
The kettle appeared to have melted that evening/ morning, mrs harvey and Barnett, and lizzie would have made it known to the police if the damage was done before.
I have been intrested in Maurice Lewis account of seeing kelly return to her room with some milk that morning, in which case that milk , or the remains of a container should have been present in her room.
Two points spring to mind.
if kelly required milk, the most obvious thing was she was going to use it for drinking, as one can not imagine her requiring it for a bowl of coca -pops, and a cup of tea would be the obvious, which would require the boiling of a kettle, if the fire was lit by someone in her room whilst she was obtaining the milk, with or without her knowledge, it would be intresting.
of course Lewis could have been lying, although such a remark , could have landed him in deep trouble should the police have interrogated him, and found no remains of milk in her room, making false claims in such a case as this [ like Maxwell] would have had serious reprocussions.
I do agree Scotty that we have to be careful not to believe everything, but we also have to try and recreate possible scenerios.
Regards Richard. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 100
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 4:04 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I'm all in to possible scenarios, I just wonder how many of these items like the kettle and the clothes might be red herrings. I don't know about anyone else but when I read the various testimonies I bemoan the fact that many crucial questions are not asked. Given that, I don't see how we can assume that Barnett or any others were asked about the kettle. I also cannot see why any of them would have offered up this information unless asked.
I don't see why Mary must have possessed any clothes other than those which were folded or which she was wearing. These women were destitute and the other victims certainly do not appear to have carried around a bag full of spare clothes from one doss house to the next.
Regarding Lewis and the Milk, surely the fact that no milk container was found in the room throws his testimony into doubt. If so, we might still have a 3:30am murder. The question regarding the milk for me is do we really have a list of the contents of the room? Surely the police took one, but I cannot find it.
PS: Detective Sergeant at last. I needed a promotion!
Scotty. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 6:01 am: | |
G'day,
CB: You wrote; 'I feel the clothes were already burnt before the ripper arrived...' Yes!
The clothes were already burned before Mary's killer arrived for his final visit.....by the Ripper!
An angry Joseph Barnett could have thrown Maria Harvey's clothes on the fireplace, or used them to start a fire, during his 8:00p.m. visit and just after Harvey left them there.
Mary Kelly's damp clothes and boots could have been placed near the fire by herself later. They needn't have been there when Harvey's clothes went on the fire.
LEANNE |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
Hi all,
Scott, Thanks for taking the time too respond to my post. I feel that the cloths were left with Kelly and that they were probably going to be sold. I am not sure if Harvey had given the cloths to Kelly or did she just store them with her. I think if Joe did burn the cloths he did so out of spite.
I agree with you about False clues and I agree with almost every thing you have written in your above post.
1. There is nothing strange about the positioning of the boots and the cloths. The room was very small and it may have been a common place for Kelly to put her belongings. For example when I enter my apartment I take my shoes off and they are placed by the door.
2. I do not think it was uncommon for unfortunates to only have one set of cloths. Kelly was very poor and she may have been suffering from alcholisim. I suspect that she spent most of what she earned on food and her vices.
3. I agree that the teapot is a red herring. We have no way of knowing when the kettle was burned or if Joe was asked the question about the teapot. I believe and I am not sure if I remember right but Abberline at the Kelly inquest mentions the fire and puts forth the theory that the ripper started the fire in order to give himself light. He sites the kettle being melted. It is a logical conclusion that Abberline asked Joe about the Kettle. In a four hour interigation they most likely coverd everything. Although, I think it was obvious that they were Harvey's cloths that were burned. Abberline probably felt safe to assume that a fire had been started that night and Knowing [as you pointed out Scott] that Mary would have been reluctant to burn cloths that she could possibly make money from or maybe they were not hers to burn, he assumed the ripper started the fire and then the kettle was burned and he may have not even asked Barnett about the kettle. He could have asked Barnett about the kettle and Joe claimed he did not know how the kettle got burned. He was out of the apartment for over a week. The kettle could have been burned during this time. I believe that the kettle was just an accident and it had nothing to do with the ripper murder. The poor girl probably did not have enough money to by a new kettle.
I think the only thing we can safely assume is that there was a fire started that night. The burnt cloths prooves that. If Joe did burn them he would not admitt to doing so and may have thrown the investigation off. When did the fire accure? Cox returned around 3:00 and it was dark in Kelly's room. Pratter and Lewis were awaken by the cry of murder around 3:30 that morning, Pratter leaves for the ten bells around 5:30 She sees no light on in Kelly's room. So based on this I believe if there was a fire going in Mary's room that was started by the killer then it had to have been started sometime after 3:30 and burned out before 5:30 that morning. The only other way that the ripper could have been involved in starting the fire is if the man that Cox saw Kelly with killed her because he could of had the fire going for at least 3 hours before Cox returned and noticed it was all dark in Kelly's room.
I of course believe the murder accured some time between 2:30 and 3:45. I believe the cry of murder to have been Kelly. I dont think that the ripper would have needed much light he did not need the light to kill the others. The candle has been a mystery to me. Tom claims that the candle was only halve burned and I have no reason to doubt him. I have read a report that states that the candle was burned all the way down and there may be reason to doubt this. I feel the Candle was put out either before the ripper killed Kelly or the ripper put it out after he killed her. I dont feel the ripper would have wanted to draw to much attention to the room. Kelly was a prostitute, it may not have been uncommon for unfortunates to come calling who could not find lodging or for clients to stop by.
Hi Richard,
I do not think that the woman Lewis saw was Kelly. I have posted this before I feel the later that you push the time of death back, the least likely Joe was the one who killed her. You are really pushing the time of death back to almost nine in the morning and I dont think Joe would have taken that chance.
1. He knew the rent was due. He had know way of knowing when the rent man was going to come for the money. What if he came early?
2. He knew Kelly had friends that often stoped by in the morning. What if one of them stoped by?
3. He was a common face and he almost certain would have been seen and reconised by somebody who lived in the area.
Of course Joe could have killed her and the rent man was not early and no one stop by and he was not seen in the area. Would you risk it if you were Joe? Joe is a strong canidate but I believe his window of chance lies between 3:30 and five in the morning.
I do not think the ripper would have killed that late in the morning either and I feel there would have been a good chance he would have been spotted leaving Kelly's room. Look how many people thought they saw Kelly that morning, so there were obviously people up and about. I might be putting to much stock in the doctors. Could they be that wrong about time of death?
Leanne,
HEY WE AGREE
ALL THE BEST,CB |
Kayleigh Irving
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 8:25 am: | |
Hi
Scott could be right on that one. The clothes could be a red herring, just like the coins in the murder of Annie Chapman. It could be used to draw attention away from any other clues in regards to the killer.
In regards to the inventory list of Mary Kelly's room, if they bought in a sketch artist to draw out the scene, they must have done a list. It would probably be in Scotland Yard's record office. I've tried to get information like this, but have had no success.
Has anyone got any ideas about the weaknesses of the Metropolitan Police at that time. I'm doing an A level courseowrk on it. I've got 1000 words but I need 1500 more.
Many thanks
Kayleigh |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
