|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 74
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 4:05 pm: | 
|
It seems to me that Mary did not have the same disadvantages in terms of safety that the other victims had. She would not have had to raise her skirts thereby putting her in a vulnerable position. She had more light with to watch her customer closely, as opposed to being in some dark alley, and there were other people close by. Would Jack have felt confident enough that his initial attack would silence her before she screamed for help? It would seem that killing her in her sleep would be a much safer option. That leads me to my next question. Given Mary's alleged fear of the Ripper, would she have allowed a customer to spend the night and give him the opportunity to kill her while she slept? Would her financial situation override her common sense since an all night customer would be paying more? Would she try to walk a fine line and only allow customers she knew or who appeared to be harmless to stay the night?
This is sort of a conglomerate of some other threads so my apologies if I am stealing anyone's thunder or if this particular question has been discussed before.
c.d. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 9:23 pm: |
|
If you just toss Hutchinson, then you have her singing herself to sleep earlier and not going out again and Hutchinson is not very credible anyway. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1918
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 3:57 am: |
|
G'day C.D,
' It would seem that killing her in her sleep would be a much safer option.' To climb through Mary's window without arrousing her attention or anyone elses, plus to take the chance that she was fully asleep and remained that way, seems to me to be a very risky option!
'Given Mary's alleged fear of the Ripper, would she have allowed a customer to spend the night and give him the opportunity to kill her while she slept?' That's why I believe she knew exactly who her last 'customer' was and thought she was safe. I don't think he went there specifically to kill her!
LEANNE |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 75
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 8:15 am: |
|
G'day Leanne,
I agree with you that climbing through Mary's window would be a risky option. Given her fear of the Ripper, she might have placed objects in such a way that they would be knocked over (and thus alerting her) if anybody tried to gain entry to her room in that manner. I was implying that she was killed by a customer or someone who was already in the room which begs the question (as you noted) would she have felt safe with that person. |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 48
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
"I was implying that she was killed by a customer or someone who was already in the room which begs the question (as you noted) would she have felt safe with that person."
I lean more in favour of the notion that she was murdered by an intruder, seeking the opportune moment to enter and strike, rather than a customer.
If a customer was already in the room, he would, of necessity, have been forced to quell his urge to kill for an hour or more. That is precisely what the Astrakhan invention must have done. |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 76
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
Good point about the customer having to quell his urges.
I am not sure, but didn't the police find that her door was locked? Of course, once the intruder gained entry, he could have (and most likely would have) locked the door.
c.d. |
Maria Giordano
Chief Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 518
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
I would love to know if that bed had a footboard or not.
I've been picturing the scenario this way:
Kelly is with a customer (who is probably JTR).
They're both standing at the foot of the bed, she with her back to the bed and him facing her. She removes most or all of her clothing then he grabs her by the throat (or by the secret Ninja spot that renders her instantly unconcious) and strangles/silences/stuns her. Then he lets her fall onto the bed.
After he cuts her throat-from right to left this time since sh'e lying face up- he pulls her to the left side of the bed via the sheets to allow himself room to work.
If there was a footboard, though, I don't see how this is possible and it then seems that Mary would have climbed into the bed of her own accord. I suppose the murderer could have killed her anyway but the blitz seems a lot more unlikely in this scenario. Then, she well may have been asleep when her throat was cut and that opens up the whole can of worms.
Mags
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1919
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:04 pm: |
|
G'day C.D.,
We have been over and over the Kelly's door and lock issue, and determined that her door locked automatically once closed.
According to Barnett she had lost her key, but her door could be opened from the outside by reaching through the broken window and moving a catch.
This was supposed to be a tactic than only he and her knew about.
I am still tring to work out why Barnett never volunteered that information to the police, until it was too late.
LEANNE |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 621
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:36 pm: |
|
I would think that a lot of people could have see Mary and Joe opening the door through the window and known that as a way in.
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4277
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:51 pm: |
|
Stan,
True, people like their neighbours, for example. But an outsider or occasional client with no closer familiarity with 13 Miller's Court or Mary Kelly? Doesen't ring true.
As for Mary Kelly being killed in her sleep - I would most likely say NO.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 50
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 8:24 pm: |
|
Hi CD,
"I am not sure, but didn't the police find that her door was locked?"
A point well raised. However, I was under the impression that the murderer could easily have availed himself of the broken window pane, unlocking the door from the inside and thus gaining entry.
To all - I'm afraid the JTR-as-last-client scenario doen't sit at all comfortably with her purported fear of the ripper. Anyone thus perturbed would hardly accede to the advances of a complete stranger.
Conversely, no such contradiction is presented by the "intruder" theory, which is altogether more likely.
All the best,
Ben |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1920
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 9:02 pm: |
|
G'day,
There was a neighbour of Mary's, (I forget which one), that told the court she used to put a chair up against her door so no one could break in. I'd say that with a broken window pane and her door being within reach that way, Mary would have made some procautions. Like the fact that the heavy coat that Maria Harvey left was bloking the broken window and that table was against the door.
'To all - I'm afraid the JTR-as-last-client scenario doen't sit at all comfortably with her purported fear of the ripper.' It does if we consider for just one minute that Mary's last customer was someone that she thought she could trust!
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 225
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:55 am: |
|
Wasn't there just the one chair in the room,and that at the foot of the bed,with Kelly's clothes folded and placed on it.
Heavy coat or no,the landlords rent collector had no difficulty pushing it aside,so neither would someone opening the door through the window.
What doesn't make sense to me,is that with plenty of time at her disposal earlier that day and evening,and in all the days previous,she should suddenly decide that 2am of 9 November was a good time to earn money.Why suddenly at that time on that date,and why the urgency.
It was the person she owed money too who should have been worried,
Still it,as everything else,depends on the words of George Hutchinson.You either believe he saw Kelly meet a male person and take him to her room ,or you do not?.I don't. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1921
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 3:43 am: |
|
G'day,
The 'Illustrated Police News' 17 November 1888 said: 'it contained little besides a bed, a rickety table and a COUPLE of chairs.'
Anyway I wasn't saying that Mary Kelly would have placed a chair underneath her broken window. That would have given an intruder something to step on! ELIZABETH PRATER told the inquest that she barricaded her door with two chairs.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1922
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 3:47 am: |
|
G'day,
I was thinking more of a table behind her door!
The heavy coat wouldn't have been put there to keep people from seeing the hole in the window, because it was inside the room. I'd say it was put there just to keep out the cold.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1923
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 3:51 am: |
|
G'day,
Thomas Bowyer knew about the broken window before he looked inside. They probably had to tell him when it was broken in the fight. But he obviously didn't know it was a way of gaining axcess to her room, otherwise he would have told the police!
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 228
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:26 am: |
|
Even a chair against the door could have been removed by a hand through the window.
The twelve oclock visitor would know, if that was the method used at that time.It certainly restricts the number of persons knowing ,but it must be considered an entry method by the killer,because it was possible. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1593
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:28 am: |
|
Hi,
When the police forced open kellys door it banged against the table next to the bed, i would suggest that this would have been Marys safety net and proberly it was her policy to place the table in that position upon retiring to bed alone.
Therefore if the killer was in her room and was expected to be doing a bit of business she would not have put the table agaist the door until she became alone.
I find a intruder entering via the window a bit hard to swallow, a clumsy , and possibily noisy means of entry.
It appears to me that her killer left everything in that room to give the impression of a night time event.
The Fire[ to give light]
The Folding of Kellys clothing [neatly on a chair]
The Curtains drawn.
The question is why would Mary after entering the room with a client and shuting the door place the table in a position that the door would bang against.?
She may well have done even with a locked door for secondary protection when alone, but with a client present she would want the means of a quick exit or the means of a quick entry if she hollowed for help with a awkward customer.
I doubt if she even locked the door when alone with a client.
Therefore her killer before leaving the room would have placed the table in front of the door allowing himself just a gap to get through and pulled the door shut so the spring lock went into operation, thus leaving a cosy night time killing in evidence, however the reason why kelly placed the table in a security mode when entertaining a client does not make sense, and if her killer was worried against being disturbed why not simply lock the door why use a secondary precaution.?.
Strange.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1924
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 5:34 am: |
|
G'day,
HARRY: 'Even a chair against the door could have been removed by a hand through the window.' THAT'S WHY I SAID: "TABLE"! I don't know how heavy the table was but surely it would have made a noise and when police eventually opened her door it banged against a table!
RICHARD: 'Therefore if the killer was in her room and was expected to be doing a bit of business she would not have put the table agaist the door until she became alone.'
Maybe not. But if the table was behind or near the door when she entered her room with the client he could have realized why it was there and when he was finished, he could have opened her door a little, placed the table behind it, crawled underneath it and carefully closed the door so it would lock automatically.
Looking at the second police crime scene photo of Kelly's body, the table and her partly opened door is visible in the background. If that table wasn't moved for the photographer, there would have been no need for the killer to crawl underneath. There was plenty of room for him to squeeze past.
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
To all - I'm afraid the JTR-as-last-client scenario doen't sit at all comfortably with her purported fear of the ripper. Anyone thus perturbed would hardly accede to the advances of a complete stranger.
Do you mean that as soon as it was known that a man was ripping up prostitutes in the area, you believe that Mary would have stopped selling herself to customers she didn't know? And what if Jack was a 'regular'?
I have always wondered if Mary's customers that autumn were 'vetted' for her - especially after Joe left - and perhaps by someone like Hutch, who made it his business to loiter in the court the night she died.
Maybe only very special clients who agreed to pay extra up front were shown to No.13. Maybe Mary's last client appeared determined to stay and squeeze every last pennysworth out of her.
It's amazing how money could often vouch for a man's character and make him appear 'safe'. If the police let men go as soon as they were satisfied about their status, someone like Hutch or Mary could have been impressed out of their usual caution.
Love,
Caz
X |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 51
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
"The question is why would Mary after entering the room with a client and shuting the door place the table in a position that the door would bang against.?"
Why indeed! It makes no sense whatsoever, UNLESS you reject the client theory in favour of the notion that Mary was assailed by an intruder who entered No. 13 shortly after Mary Ann Cox retured to Millers Court for the last time that morning at around 3.00am.
"I find a intruder entering via the window a bit hard to swallow, a clumsy , and possibily noisy means of entry."
This is chiefly dependent on whether or not JTR was a clumsy, noisy operator, which I don't for a moment believe he was.
Hi Caz,
"Do you mean that as soon as it was known that a man was ripping up prostitutes in the area, you believe that Mary would have stopped selling herself to customers she didn't know?"
Financial necessity would undoubtedly have forced her to overcome her ripper-fear, at least to a degree, but this obligatory brave front would not have extended to walking the streets at 2:30am, the ripper's general striking time, and in the very epicentre of the subsquently coined "ripperland".
Hutch may have been a "vetter" for Kelly's clients, but if that were indeed the case, surely others in the locality would have been aware of his special relationship with Kelly and, when they learned of Hutchinson's witness account, would they not have submitted this rather crucial detail to the investigation?
And I still have trouble accepting that Astrakhan spent an hour and a quarter in the company of Kelly *before* killing her.
Best Regards,
Ben |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 77
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Some very good points here.
I certainly lean towards the idea that Mary would have taken precautions against intruders, i.e., rearranging furniture, unless drinking made her forget to do so.
As for her being on the street so late at night, here is a scenario for what it is worth. Maybe McCarthy decided to make an example of Mary for being late with her rent and warned her that she would be evicted. She intends to get the money but gets sidetracked by drinking beer with the carroty mustache man. He may have been a friend and all they did was drink. Enter the ashtrakan man. If we are to believe GH, he appears to be prosperous. Mary asks for the money up front but he laughs it off and says that if he is satisfied with her services that she will be well taken care of. He might even hint that he will be a long term client. Not wanting to anger him she agrees. Now, after drinking and sex, as well as not feeling well, she falls into a deep sleep. At this point, the ashtrakan man simply dresses and leaves without paying. When Mary wakes up she realizes her plight and takes to the street in desperation only to run into the Ripper.
c.d. |
Maria Giordano
Chief Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 520
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Has anyone considered that the table was at the side of the bed behind the open door because it was a very small room and there was nowhere else for the table to be?
Mags
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1925
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
G'day,
'Hutch may have been a "vetter" for Kelly's clients, but if that were indeed the case, surely others in the locality would have been aware of his special relationship with Kelly and, when they learned of Hutchinson's witness account, would they not have submitted this rather crucial detail to the investigation?'
Not necessartily! Especially if they wanted to keep him in such a job for their own safety.
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3318
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Caz
Good point the Hutch "lurking" is a 'worry' isn't it.........it will always be ..until we sort something that is seriously missing here in the veracity (!) of GH's statement!
Theres always the possibility I suppose ....(too late at night here) ...that Mr 'Carrotty' and Mr 'Astrakan' were one and the same.....'masters of disguise'!!!!!!....daft comment and a daft idea BUT..........(Very Mr 'Olmes!!!!!)
Mags-
The table was at the left hand side of the bed ..
because thats the only place for it to be..the other side of the bed was the 'partition'..Anything such as water or some form of easily extinguishable light(which doesn't seem to have been there or wasn't there on discovery!) would have been placed there on that table.
The other chair and alleged clothes in front of the fire have no real credence (although I feel the boots in front of the fire do). Maria Harvey's bits and pieces were of course placed somewhere too, before parts of them ended up in 'The Fire'
IS it me but the table behind the door was a place to 'place' things that were 'at hand'.....Ghastly thought that that's where chummy placed the flaps of abdomen etc and Mary's hand in the empty cavity...horrid thought but nothing's more horrid than that photograph at the end of the day is it!
Suzi |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 83
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
What rationale would Jack have for striking Mary before she was asleep? Whether by design or chance he finds himself in a room with his intended victim, a situation he has not encountered before. His victim is also twenty years younger (presumably with better reflexes)than his previous victims. If the room was lighted, his actions could be scrutinized more closely and there were other people nearby who could possibly come to her aid. I am sure that being this close to the promised land would have been maddening for Jack. He was able to wait weeks between murders. Why not wait a few more minutes until Mary falls asleep when his chances of success and fulfilling his heart's desire would be virtually guaranteed? |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 786
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 8:16 am: |
|
Hi Mags,
"Has anyone considered that the table was at the side of the bed behind the open door because it was a very small room and there was nowhere else for the table to be?"
You took the words right out of my mouth, Mags!
There is no evidence at all that Mary Jane usually put the bedside table against the door for protection. What protection would such a fairly small table provide anyway? Besides, I see no reason at all for why Jack should have left through the window to leave that table against the door.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 87
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
Was the bed next to the door? If so, and there were casters on the legs of the bed, she could easily slide the end of the bed down so that it blocked the door and prevented it from being opened.
c.d. |
Maria Giordano
Chief Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 524
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Yeah!
And if there were electric iron bars in the ceiling she could have slid them up and down to cover the door and the window.
Mags
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 88
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
Mags,
I guess I will take that as a rejection of my idea but I certainly don't see why. A bed with casters on it is easy to push and she would only have to move it a foot or so. It would be quite effective.
c.d. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1594
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Hi,
Common sense tells me that in a rough area such as Whitechapel rife with desperate people let alone the infamous 'Jack' women living alone such as Mary Kelly [ at least that night] and definately Mrs Prater upstairs would have placed a heavy object against the door even if they had a key to the room simply for peace of mind.
I am not suggesting a table of that size was a heavy object but anyone that was able to enter the room by foul means would then have pushed the door against a solid object which would have possibily awoken the inhabitant.
What i should have explained in my earlier post was that the murderer himself proberly positioned the table in the exact position that Mjk normally did when Barnett was not in the room, and left by squeezing through the available space and slaming the door, giving the impression that she had retired for the night and was killed by a intruder, which incidently was Marys usual habit , her routine was to frequent one last pub for a nightcap before retiring around midnight , but on the eve of her death found Mr Blotchy face and returned minus nightcap to her room proberly encouraged by the promise of sharing his quart of ale.
This speculation leads me to my suspicion of Barnett and his nightime alibi, for in order for it to be of any consequence the evidence found in her room had to be pointing to a murder in the early hours.
My point is by positioned the bed in the security mode, he made a mistake for it indicates that the only way she could have been killed by a intruder was via the window and if the interior had a catch, and proberly a noisy opening upwards that would be extremely unlikely.
Regards Richard. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 674
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Just a few thoughts,
Anyone that is familiar with Victorian sash windows will know that they are the devil themselves to open, the chances of any intruder getting in that way is really very remote indeed. This would be especially true in a run down place like Miller's Court where they probably were never opened anyway and never maintained.
No -one would risk trying to open one knowing that the chances are they would get stuck before they had opened six inches and make a terrible racket in the process. I can almost guarantee that her killer would not even consider entering that way.
I suspect she might have put something behind the door, like a chair under the handle or the table up against it.......that was common practice at the time in working class homes, just as a matter of routine, so very probable.
I think that Richard's idea is quite a good one, that whichever way her killer got in, he sidled out of the door through the smallest gap he could as the table was quite close to the door when the police broke in so that the table banged against it when opened far enough.
I discount Mr Astrakhan, if he existed, being her killer as I think it unlikely he would have spent so long in her room before killing her. Way too risky for him to hang around in case someone came calling on Mary, not only that but I don't think he would have had that much restraint....just doesn't feel right.
Was she asleep when she was attacked? I think the possible defense marks on her left forearm suggest that she was at least partly awake when the attack began and tried to feebly defend herself, that possibly being the time she cried, 'Oh Murder,' but I hope that he killed her by cutting her throat almost immediately after the initial assault. That would seem most likely.
I truly hope that she didn't suffer more than a few moments before he killed her.
I think she was dozing or lightly asleep when she became aware of someone attacking her. Did he break in though or was he let in? Still not sure on that one.
Janie
xxxx |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 89
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
I think that Richard is right in that a woman living alone in that area even without the Ripper attacks occurring would want to ensure her safety by blocking the door. I still think the bed makes the most sense. In case anyone is not familiar with the term "caster" it nowadays refers to the wheels on each of the four bed legs. Prior to that, it referred to small disks in which the bed post rested. The bottom of the disk would be covered with a material like felt so that anyone who wanted to move their bed could slide it rather than having to lift it. It is a trick that movers use. Rather than lift something heavy like a chest of drawers, they but a cloth under it and slide it. Even if Mary's bed did not have casters, she could easily improvise by putting a small piece of soft cloth under each bed leg. Simply slide the bed up against the door and you effectively block entrance to the room by way of the door. If Jane is correct in her assessment of victorian sash windows and Mary took the precaution of blocking the door, it seems to me the odds are in favor of her murderer being a client rather than an intruder. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 675
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
HI cd,
The only other option I can think of to it being a client, which I would say might be worth throwing into the mix, is that after her last visitor left, either Mr Carrotty, Mr Astrkhan that she was so tiddly that she forgot to drop the catch on the door and/or forget to barricade the door in any other way.
Her killer then seeing her last client leave, just thought he would chance his arm and go in. The only thing that might make this is little less likely is that he would have to know that she had left the door off of the catch.....which meant he was must have been watching that door very carefully. That might put Hutchinson in the frame.......but I am not really overwhelmed by that idea.
I think on balance that she probably left to find another client after Carrotty or Astrakhan left, depending on how much credence we give Hutchinson and took another client back. Unfortunately the wrong one.
Janie
xxxx |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 91
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
I think it is more probable than not that Mary made efforts to protect herself and that with a little effort and a little ingenuity she could have made herself fairly safe from intruders. I agree with you that if her planning failed it probably was the result of being a bit tipsy and forgetfull.
I tend toward a client being her killer. An intruder would be taking a chance that she would wake up and summon help whereas if he posed as a client it would be Mary herself who would give him access to her room. If he could contain his urges long enough for her to fall asleep he would virtually be assured of being successfull with his attack.
c.d. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 676
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
HI c.d
I think I went that way in the end........I went through every possible scenario and none of them really felt feasible, although one of them must have been or she wouldn't have been killed!
The strange thing is that security in the East End at that time was very firmly divided between night and day.....
During the day, most doors of working class homes were often left on the latch when people popped out. Mainly because there was not much chance of anyone breaking in and taking something because there was nothing worth taking. There have been discussions on the board about the good possibility that Mary left her door on the latch when she went out in the day.
This would explain why she wasn't that bothered in getting a new key, she really didn't need one.
At night though, especially amongst prostitutes, even before the Ripper scare, effort was taken to secure the premises, not against burglarly, but for other obvious reasons. Disgruntled punters or boyfriends turning up in the middle of the night, didn't make for a sound nights sleep.
But thinking about the night of her murder.....we know that Mary was very worried about the murders, at least that would seem to be the case......her door could be opened through the window.....relatively easily.......she was in a high risk profession.
I think that the chances of her getting drunk enough to forget to drop the latch is not very likely, although possible.
If however a client came, that she either knew already or who seemed innocuous, then she might well have let him in. The newspapers had gone out of their way to portray Jack as a certain type, and it is quite likely that most of the populace had that stereotype set in their minds. A killer had to look like a killer.
I think that is almost certainly why the other victims were lured to their death. Jack did not look like a killer. I do have a few reservations about Jack being Mary's killer for a certainty, but whatever, I think that him being a client or someone that Mary knew is the most likely.
You are quite right in saying it would have been the easiest way for him to attack.
The events surrounding Mary's death have always perplexed me, because there are so many variables. Oh to have been a fly on the wall........on second thoughts. maybe not.......
Janie
xxxx |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 54
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 8:24 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
Anyone that is familiar with Victorian sash windows will know that they are the devil themselves to open, the chances of any intruder getting in that way is really very remote indeed.
Yes, but this is the whole point. Kelly's intruder would have had no need to OPEN the window. It was already smashed. The prudent ripper needed only to reach through the broken pane and unlock the door.
Mags makes an entirely reasonable suggestion in regards to the location of the table.
Jane wrote:
The only other option I can think of to it being a client...after her last visitor left...she forget to barricade the door in any other way.
Her killer then seeing her last client leave, just thought he would chance his arm and go in. The only thing that might make this is little less likely is that he would have to know that she had left the door off of the catch.....which meant he was must have been watching that door very carefully.
Or, it meant that Kelly's killer was accustomed to her nightly precautions, and judged his actions accordingly. Bear in mind that Kelly's intoxicated condition may well have prevented her from taking her usual security measures.
Seriously, Jane, you make an excellent suggestion here, but I have to wonder why you consider the theory to be unlikely, ultimately?
That might put Hutchinson in the frame.......but I am not really overwhelmed by that idea.
Again, I'd be interested to know why.
All - she couldn't have found any more clients after Blotchy face departed because she was physically incapable of doing so. We must be circumspect and accept that the preponderancy of evidence and logic points squarely in the direction of an intruder rather that a client.
She was too scared to accept another client after 1.00am.
She was too pissed to accept another client after 1.00am. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 55
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 8:35 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Let's return, for the sake of completion, to the above proposed theory as Hutch-as-vetter. You wrote:
Not necessartily! Especially if they wanted to keep him in such a job for their own safety.
Safety? Leanne, if Hutch was a vetter, he can't have been avery discerning one. If we accept the "vetter" theory, such theorists will natrually infer that Hutch must have given Mr. Astrkhan the "all clear" for Mary Kelly, only for the latter to commit the unspeakable (as others allege he did) shortly thereafter.
In light of the above, we can hardly say that GH has proved the extent of his "vetting" prowess, so why would anyone wish for him to remain in the "vetting" business?
Best to all,
Ben |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 92
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 10:08 pm: |
|
Just a few thoughts here. If anyone was watching her door, he is only seeing the outside of the door and so would not know if the door was unlatched on the inside.
Would anyone looking through the window while it was dark in the room be able to tell that she had left the door unlatched or failed to put something against the door?
The hole in the window must have been quite alarming to Mary. I don't know what she could have done to compensate for that but if anything could have been done I think she would have done it.
Ben - how do we know that she was physically incapable of servicing a client? We don't have any idea of how much alcohol she had consumed or how scared or how sick she was. That can only be an opinion not an ascertained fact.
If the Ripper's M.O. was entering bedrooms, then any woman in Whitechapel was fair game. But we know that he limited himself to prostitutes outdoors.
The East End was an area where it seems people were up and about at all hours. Why take a chance that you would be seen climbing through a window or forcing a door?
GH might have entered her room but for anyone else who could pose as a client, the greatest chance of success would be to let Mary herself let you in and kill her in her sleep.
As for this vetting business, assuming you ruled out anybody who was foaming at the mouth and muttering "cut the whore", everybody else would pretty much make the grade.
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1926
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 2:19 am: |
|
G'day,
'Anyone that is familiar with Victorian sash windows will know that they are the devil themselves to open, the chances of any intruder getting in that way is really very remote indeed.'
Anyone that was familiar with Mary's shash window would know that it was one that didn't open. This was discussed here in the past. If it could open why did they need to axe the door open to get in her room after the body was discovered?
The chances of an intruder squeezing his body through the holes in the window are very remote indeed!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1927
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 3:26 am: |
|
G'day,
BEN: Ok, 'Hutchinson-as-vetter': You wanted to know why, if Hutchinson was a 'watcher', none of his other clients came forward to mention this vital information to the police. Alot of people didn't want to get involved in the Ripper hunt, and what would it have achieved? A 'watchers' client didn't necessarily know their 'watcher's' real name, and no photographs ever appeared in any newspaper.
Hutchinson just told the police and press that he was unemployed, and do we know anything about how he earned his living afterwards?
LEANNE |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 677
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
Hi cd,
I actually couldn't have done better than that post, but I thought of another couple of points which makes an intruder less likely in my opinion........so I'll address them to Ben......but I think that more or less sums it up for me......good post........
Hi Ben,
Just a couple of thoughts about why I am more inclined to discount an intruder, although of course I wouldn't rule it out. I just think it is less likely than a client.
First of all there was a window directly overlooking the pump yard from the first house in the court......it had full view of both of Marys' windows.
Anyone trying to gain access would be in full sight of that window, It may have been the middle of the night, but people in that court never seemed to sleep so, that would worry me a hell of a lot if I were Mary's killer. Anyone could have been looking out of that window at any time.
There was a gas lamp directly outside Mary's door which was alight until 4 am, approx......again not that useful if someone is breaking in somewhere.
How did her killer know that she wasn't just lying in the bed awake when he put his hand through the window to unbolt the latch? She would have literally screamed blue murder if she had seen a hand coming through the window to unbolt the door.
Anyone could have come along the Court from the houses or in through the passage while he had his hand through the window.....and caught him in the act. It just feels a bit risky.
Of course her killer might have been willing to take the risk, but I think your suggestion that she was too drunk or too incapable of getting another client is not really persuasive.
I do think that Barnett might have a few questions to answer, although not as persuaded as Leanne of his guilt, but of course if he were the one putting his hand through the window, then it might be a different story.......but if we are talking general intruder here, then I feel it is not that plausible to me. I can see too many problems with it.
Mary was used to drinking, and she may have been slightly the worse for wear, but she needed the rent money desperately and if that meant another client, then I can't see anything to stop her getting one. We can't assume that she was too drunk to do it.
There is no evidence of that at all. (You'd be amazed what a woman can get up to after she's had a few....... )
I do think that Hutchinson is actually a viable suspect, but if he did kill Mary, then I think it far more likely that she invited him in, even if it was just for a place to keep warm after his mammoth trek from Romford and the huddling in the rain. That would fit in far more than him being a cat burglar.......
I'll deal with the Hutchinson thing in a separate post if that's alright, because this is getting a bit long.
Hi Leanne,
Yes totally agree about the window probably either not opening at all, or being such a sod to open that the Police didn't even bother to try it. We can't second guess, but out of all the sash windows in my home when I was a kid, two opened about six inches, one opened but then smashed down and caught your fingers or head in it every time and the others didn't open at all.
I can see why the police (or her killer) didn't want to risk entering that way!
Hugs
Janie
xxxxx |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4279
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
I complete agree with most of Jane's and c.d.'s posts on this matter.
As for myself, I am more inclined to believe from the crime scene evidence that the perpetrator was someone Mary Kelly knew quite closely rather than a client, but I see no reason whatsoever to suspect an intruder or that she was killed in her sleep. Much points at she let in her killer herself.
And for God's sake, stop relying too much on Hutchinson. As his statement contains several problems, we can't base any of our speculations on him or his story about Astrakhan man. For what it's worth, it is quite possible that that man never existed and was a creation of Hutchinson's imagination.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 27, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 56
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
Hi c.d.
I can easily buy the theory that the ripper was at least acquainted with Mary Jane Kelly. Even an intruder must have had prior knowledge of Kelly's living arrangements. But whether any such knowledge would have extended to the door, the nature of the lock etc is, to my mind irrelevent.
"If anyone was watching her door, he is only seeing the outside of the door and so would not know if the door was unlatched on the inside."
It just wouldn't matter. It is no insurmountable task to reach through the broken pane (we have no evidence to suggest that this was boarded up) and undo the latch.
"Ben - how do we know that she was physically incapable of servicing a client?"
Not incapable of "servicing" per se, just incapable of venturing outside for the purposes of enticing potential clients. As ever, let's go with the weight of evidence; it is generally accepted that many prostitutes in the East End, including Mary Kelly, were extremely heavy drinkers. This if reinforced by Mary Ann Cox's account which relates how MJK was virtually incapable of speaking.
"But we know that he limited himself to prostitutes outdoors."
No, we don't. It may simply have been the case that JTR was better acquinted with Kelly than the other "canonical" victims.
It is equally possbile that the ripper had Kelly under discreet surveilance as a possible target for some time, and was thus aware of the fact that she no longer had a male living companion at Miller's Court.
"Why take a chance that you would be seen climbing through a window or forcing a door?"
Again, he didn't have to do EITHER. See above. If the ripper was loitering nearby, it is reasonable to assume that he entered the court when there was nobody in sight. He may have seen Mary Cox retire for the last time that night, waited to see if anyone else would return to the court, and when no one did - quick glance in all directions, all clear - in he went.
As for this vetting business, assuming you ruled out anybody who was foaming at the mouth and muttering "cut the whore", everybody else would pretty much make the grade.
Yes, but if Hutch was indeed a vetter (abeit one whose vetting prowess enabled the ripper to have access to Kelly) then he was lying in his witness statement. Is it likely that not one person would expose Hutchinson as a liar?
Hi Jane,
First of all there was a window directly overlooking the pump yard from the first house in the court......it had full view of both of Marys' windows.
Hmmm...how many windows must have overlooked Mirte Square and Berner Street? Didn't stop him on those occasions. 
There was a gas lamp directly outside Mary's door which was alight until 4 am, approx......again not that useful if someone is breaking in somewhere.
But nobody noticed anyone outside her room at 4am, did they? It was bedtime. Did anyone come forward and say "I saw a client enter number 13 at around 4.00am" or alternatively "I saw a short, stout man in a wideawake hat break into number 13 at 4.00am"? No they didn't. They were asleep.
But that doesn't mean it didn't happen!
The ripper was demonstrably unafraid of taking risks.
How did her killer know that she wasn't just lying in the bed awake when he put his hand through the window to unbolt the latch?
Well, he'd glance through the window first! He may even have "checked" earlier, but having found her awake, had no choice but to bide his time.
"Anyone could have come along the Court from the houses or in through the passage while he had his hand through the window.....and caught him in the act."
But that is true of ALL the previous murders, isn't it? If we accept Liz Stride as a ripper victim, we have evidence that he WAS caught in the act.
but if we are talking general intruder here, then I feel it is not that plausible to me.
No, as I've suggested previously, the killer may have been known to Kelly.
Finally, I'll cheerfully accept the possibility that Mary Kelly allowed the killer to enter, but I remain opposed to the theory which has her venturing out in search of clients.
If the killer was allowed in, it was because he knocked on the window or the door. In other words, he came to her, not vice versa.
(Message edited by BenH on November 27, 2005) |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I agree with Leanne. going into Kelly's room while she was asleep would be risky. However some believe that this is ecxactly what happend. I think the ripper attacked Kelly shortly after she removed her cloths. In my oppinion she let him in the room. I believe she did manage to let out one scream of murder.
I do not believe that Kelly was planning on letting the ripper stay all night. I think she invited men in to do the deed, and then her clients left.
Kelly was afraid of the ripper. However, she was not acting like she was afraid the night she was killed. I think desperation drove the woman to walk the street. She needed money. She would have invited any man back to the room who had the price of admitsion. I am amused by the suggestion that Kelly must have known her attacker, or the ripper must have looked respectable in order for her to exstend an invitation. Kelly was a prostitute. She was a street prostitute. Her buisness was taking money from strange men for favors. Prostitution has not changed much in 116 years. Prostitutes have not changed. You have to understand the women that Jack killed in order to understand the mystery. I bet some would be very disapointed if they met Mary Jane today. Her charactor may not live up to there exspectation.
No one can say for sure what really went on that night. I can offer my opinion. I think Cox saw Kelly enter her room with blotchy face man. I do not think he was the ripper. Blotchy spent to much time with Kelly. Kelly was heard singing for an hour after she entered the room. I think she went back out after she was done with her customer. I believe George Hutchinson. His story seems to backed up by Sarah Lewis. However, I do not think that Hutchinson saw the ripper. I believe that Kelly was killed around 3:45 Hutchinson's man would have spent to much time with Kelly to be the ripper. I feel the rpper struck shortly after entering the room.
The ripper could have entered the room after Kelly saw her last client and went to bed. However, what a chance he would have been taking. He would have had to know that Kelly was alone, and he would have had to know that Kelly was a sleep. If he entered Kelly's room and she was not asleep. If she was alert, she would have let out a big screem. She would have put up much more of a fight. It is possible that the ripper took that chance, but I do not believe he did
Kelly could have let her Killer in after her client had left. Her killer could have knocked on the door after she had gotten ready for bed. I do not know if it was common for men off the street to knock on Kelly's door looking for service. I doubt they did because of the fact she lived with her boyfriend almost the whole time she lived there. This may suggest that she knew her killer, and her killer knew her situation.
You can not rule out any scenario. I believe that Kelly was alive and well after three in the morning, and I believe she was walking the streets at that hour. I think she met Jack. I think they went back to her place. I think he killed her shortly after she undressed.
The question I have is what was the ripper doing while Kelly was undressing?
Your friend, Brad |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 57
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Hey Brad,
Just a quick one:
I believe George Hutchinson. His story seems to backed up by Sarah Lewis.
How is Hutchinson's story backed up by Sarah Lewis?
Cheers,
Ben |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 93
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
You made some good points but let me address the one that I think is most important. If I understand you correctly, your conclusion is that Mary was incapable of venturing outside to pick up clients. Again, I have to say that that is an opinion and not an ascertained fact. If Mary was a heavy drinker, don't heavy drinkers build up a tolerance to the effects of alcohol? In other words, they have to drink more and more to get the same effect. What evidence do we have as to how much alcohol Mary had to drink that evening? Supposedly the blotchy faced man was carrying a pail of beer. If they shared it between them, how much would Mary have drunk? Maybe two or three beers? I can't believe that that amount of alcohol would have prevented Mary from venturing outside to find a client. She might not have felt like doing so but she had to obtain her rent money. So, in my opinion, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that Mary was incapable of venturing outside.
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1928
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
G'day,
Before Barnett left Mary following his last known visit at 8:00p.m., he could have told Mary that he was going to play whist at Buller's to try and win some money.
If Mary was still short of the amount that she needed to pay the rent collector to avoid eviction, she would have welcomely let him in the room so that she could 'squeeze' every last penny from him.
There are three possibilities here:
1) Mary went out again to find one last client. (possible),
2) An intruder broke into her room. (highly unlikely),
3) Someone was let into that room by the occupant. (very possible, and not given enough thought).
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 230
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 3:08 am: |
|
One witness,Mrs Prater I believe,who entered the court at 1.30a.m.,states the court was in complete darkness.Improbable that someone would light the lamp after that time,so an intruder would have darkness to aid him.
There was no break-in as such,the hand through the broken window a known means of opening the door.It would have taken only seconds to gain entry by these means.It could be classed as intruder type entry,but suspected as being known to only aquaintances and neighbours.
Hutchinson was a long time aquaintance of Kelly,and could fit all three possibilities outlined by leanne.
Kelly was no machine.A long day,punctuated by bouts of drinking,points to a tired individual,not one interested in soliciting to near 4am in the morning.The rent arrears were of long standing,so there was no more urgency for settlement that day,than any day in the past,and there is no indication the landlord had demanded settlement that day.
That Kelly was awake or woken from sleep can be inferred from the cries heard,but it is argueable whether she was woken by an intruder or from a person who had been in the room for some while.There is ample evidence from past victims,that the Ripper was motivated to kill as soon as possible after confronting the victim,and the fact that Kelly's killing was indoors,would by no means negate this. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1930
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:51 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
EH??? What Inquest dialogue are you reading????
Mine says that Elizabeth Prater testified: " I left the room on the Thursday at five p.m. and returned to it about one a.m. on Friday morning. I stood at the corner until about twenty minutes past one. No one spoke to me. McCarthy's shop was open, and I called in, and then went to my room. I should have seen a glimmer of light in going up the stairs if there had been a light IN DECEASED'S ROOM....."
Joseph Barnett fits all three possibilities that I gave too!
How do you know that Mary was too tired to go out soliciting just before 4:00a.m.? Did you know that Mary & Joe were evicted from their lodgings in Brushfield Street for not paying the rent?
LEANNE |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
