|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1948
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 8:26 am: | 
|
G'day,
On November 13, after reading William Acton's report on the 'Moral, Social and Sanitary aspects of Prostitution', I read learnt about men called 'watchers' who worked for brothels guarding prostitutes in the streets and I guess to take their 'cut'. I suggested that George Hutchinson was a 'watcher' and got no reaction from posters.
I've just worked out something to support this idea: Hutchinson told Inspector Abberline that he had known Mary Kelly for about 3 years. Bruce Paley's book says that Kelly arrived in London from Wales around 1884 and worked from a West End brothel. From there she went to France with a 'gentleman' and returned shortly after, before drifting to the East End.
"about 3 years" from 1888 suggests that Hutchinson met Mary Kelly around 1885. As Paley wasn't specific about how long Kelly worked at this brothel before she went to France, I'd say that if George Hutchinson wasn't this 'gentleman' I reckon he was a 'watcher' that worked with her from this brothel!
LEANNE |
john wright
Sergeant
Username: Ohnjay
Post Number: 22
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 9:16 am: |
|
Leanne,
I mentioned on another thread that perhaps the 5 victims did not have minders, thats why jack picked them, only response i received was "where's your proof, where's the evidence" no discussion, nothing!
Ohnjay |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1949
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
G'day Ohnjay,
I'm not suggesting that the other four victims had 'watchers', but I consider the above to indicate that Mary Kelly may have once had a regular 'watcher' that occasionally kept in touch.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 241
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 2:58 am: |
|
If Hutchinson was a watcher for Kelly,where was he earlier that evening,and wouldn't he have been watching when she went to her room with a man at midnight.
Saturday,being the social evening of the week,one might expect more custom for Kelly,hence a greater need for a watcher,but isn't Hutchinson supposed to have been in Romford that day. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1610
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 3:54 am: |
|
Hi.
The main reason the majority of posters are reluctant to believe our George is the very detailed description given by him regarding Mr Astracan.
My point is would not the police also have reluctant to believe that a man dressed in that attire would be loitering around the worst areas of whitechapel in the early hours?.
And yet they accepted his account.
Mr Astracan [ if he existed] must have been oblivious of any impending dangers ie; mugging or taunting from any person or persons he encountered, such a man must have had nerves of steel or possibly unaware of any danger from a form of insanity.
But yet he seemed agitated according to Hutchinson when the latter attempted to peer into his face which shows us at least he was aware of being identified.
Hutchinson admitted that the man did not appear menacing in appearence or attitude and it was only curiosity in seeing such a well dressed man in that area accompany Mary that compelled him to follow.
I Personally can see nothing wrong with Hutchinsons description the words he heard mentioned by stranger/Kelly have truth written all over them, to actually present himself to the police albeit late[ which he gave a explanation for]and place himself only yards from the murder spot at a relevant time and then to precede to give a description of a fancy client which seems incredible suggests to me that his description was a accurate one, or the police with the cooperation of George complied a statement which was far fetched in order to give the murderer a false sense of security.
That last sentence is tongue in cheek although possible.
The accounts by Mrs cox [ which have variations] are intresting.
We have her following Kelly and Mr blotchy face into Dorset street and behind them up the narrow passage the man had entered the room by the time she reached mary and mrs cox said goodnight whilst kelly said 'Goodnight i am going for a song'
Another acount according to a version told to mrs coxs neice by her aunt has a better dressed man leading Mary kelly by hand in obvious single file through the passage in a rough manner so much so Kelly said' all right my love dont pull me along'.
This sighting occured whilst waiting for her drunk of a husband to come home from the pub, whilst she was standing at her door looking down the passage.
Note .That both these sightings had the man leading the way up the passage suggesting that the client/clients were familar with kellys room.
I therefore suggest a possibility that mrs cox may have seen two men that night a poorly clothed Blotchy face man at around Midnight , and a second man around 2am whilst at her door still awaiting her husbands return who was far better attired.
Specualation again.
Did the police only issue statement one and keep the second back. and was Gh statement a verification of hers which led police to believe his account..
There is a account which reads 'The man Hutchinsons description also fits other accounts of a man seen with the victim on that night/morning.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1950
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 8:02 am: |
|
G'day,
HARRY: 'If Hutchinson was a watcher for Kelly,where was he earlier that evening,and wouldn't he have been watching when she went to her room with a man at midnight.'
Calm down Harry, I never said that Hutchinson was Mary Kelly's official 'watcher' on the night of her murder. She was no longer working from that brothel. I suggested that he was perhaps an official 'watcher' when she worked from a brothel in the West End. He said that he OCCASIONALLY gave her a few shillings but perhaps it should have been HER OCCASIONALLY giving HIM a few shillings, for OCCASIONALLY being her unofficial 'watcher'!
RICH: 'I Personally can see nothing wrong with Hutchinsons description the words he heard mentioned by stranger/Kelly have truth written all over them,' Please explain??? Why do you say they have 'truth' written all over them?
'to actually present himself to the police albeit late[ which he gave a explanation for]....' And what explanation was that and why wasn't it in the official files?
'Did the police only issue statement one and keep the second back.' Back from whom? And were the official files ever meant for the public eye?
'There is a account which reads 'The man Hutchinsons description also fits other accounts of a man seen with the victim on that night/morning.' Please state your source for that one Rich! I've never seen it!
LEANNE |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 8:16 am: |
|
LEANNE
It is very possible that Mary had a watcher and not necessarily the other 4.
Mary started out in the westend and would have been considered refined as compared to her eastend croonies.
She was also younger and from what reports I've read, she was certainly more attractive.
When she made the transistion from the westend to the eastend she may have been convinced that she needed a watcher for those reasons.
She would have been a good moneymaker for her watcher or brothel because of her looks and age as well as her recent background in the westend.
George Hutchinson would be a good candidate for this position. I've always questioned the reasons why he would lend her money from time to time. Was he that well off, was he a client, did he fancy her etc?
And the biggest why of all, Why did he follow her and watch and wait outside her apt. for 3/4 hr. or so. Was he just a good samaritan or was he in fact her protector??
Good point worth pondering in my opinion.
regards
Julie
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Truth written all over them.
'The man put out his hand as if to detain her'
They both laughed out loud'
They both walked past me he has his arm around her shoulder'
For what i have told you , you will be alright'
All right my love you will be comftable.'
He walked kind of sharpish'
'Oh i have lost my hankerchief'
A gesture by the man giving her a Hankerchief.
All of those observations point to a vivid imagination by the witness or absolute truth.
An explanation for the delay.
It is reported once Hutchinson heard of the millers court murder and the victim was Mjk, he was extremely concerned and pondered seriously over contacting the police, and confided in fellow lodgers at his boarding house, who suggested that he should report his sighting of the 9th.
On sunday the 11th he walked up to a bobby and informed him that he saw Mjk that morning but was not taken seriously, and it was then to take till the monday evening the 12th before he felt compelled to approach the police station.
What i meant by holding back information is not unusual in murder cases throughout history.
For exsample what police authority would release that a witness saw a man with a red beret with a pair of green trousers running away from the scene of a crime, when if became public the culpret would discard the beret and destroy the trousers so that his detection would be less likely.
That i should say is just a exsample...
With reference to GH statement matching other accounts of descriptions it is mentioned in the press section of these boards and yours truely will look it up over the weekend.
Rich. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 243
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 3:13 am: |
|
Leanne,
The post by me on George Hutchinson as a watcher,was a general one in response to a post that there was no discussion on watchers.I merely pointed out my opinion as to his actions on the evening and night Kelly died,if it was believed he was her watcher at that time.
Now watchers have killed the people they protect,and if Hutchinson was thought to have been a guardian of Kelly,it would add to the suggestion,that being as he was so close a companion,then he would surely know the way into her room through the broken window.
Connecting Hutchinson to Kelly in any way is fine by me,it can only reinforce suspicion against him. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 244
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 3:25 am: |
|
Richard,
Don't you believe the fact that why the midnight man was already in the room and Mary wasn't by the time Cox passed,was because Mary had to open the door by reaching through the window.Stands to reason if this happened,the man would have had every opportunity to be in the room first,as he would have been stood by the door when Mary opened it. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1951
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 6:12 am: |
|
G'day Rich,
'Truth written all over them.'
I still can't see how you draw 'TRUTH' from those statements. Are you suggesting that he must have been telling the truth because everything he said was so detailed?
Hutchinson told the press after his interview: 'I fancied I saw him in Petticoat Lane', [the clothes exchange], 'on Sunday morning, but I was not certain.' What? But Hutchinson was so certain and detailed when giving his description to police! It seems as though he said he was uncertain so the reading-public wouldn't ask why he didn't see a policeman then.
'An explanation for the delay.
It is reported once Hutchinson heard of the millers court murder and the victim was Mjk, he was extremely concerned and pondered seriously over contacting the police, and confided in fellow lodgers at his boarding house, who suggested that he should report his sighting of the 9th.'
Hutchinson told the press: 'I told ONE of the lodgers here on Monday', [the 12th and the day of the Inquest], 'and he advised me to go to the police' There's still no satisfactory explanation as to why he doubted that it was the right thing to do. Who was this lodger he spoke to anyway, and why didn't he accompany him to Bishopsgate Police Station?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 10, 2005) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1952
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
G'day,
HARRY: 'Now watchers have killed the people they protect,and if Hutchinson was thought to have been a guardian of Kelly,it would add to the suggestion,that being as he was so close a companion,then he would surely know the way into her room through the broken window.'
So, Harry, why do you think that Hutchinson went to the police and opened the possibility that 'street-wise' Abberline would guess that he was acting as her watcher at the time?
'it would add to the suggestion,that being as he was so close a companion,then he would surely know the way into her room through the broken window.' Why would Kelly and Barnett make their door-opening secret known to anyone? The window was broken just 10 days before her murder anyway.
'Mary had to open the door by reaching through the window.' Only when she was attempting to enter.
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 76
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Why would Kelly and Barnett make their door-opening secret known to anyone?
They didn't need to keep it a secret.
The possibilities for entry into No.13 become startlingly obvious given the most cursory glance of the photographs which exist of the dwelling. From these, we notice the door in close proximity to a window which we know was smashed in November of 1888.
The ripper could easily have learned of this through discreet surveilance of his future victim, and seized his moment accordingly.
No secrets there.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1954
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
'The possibilities for entry into No.13 become startlingly obvious given the most cursory glance of the photographs which exist of the dwelling. From these, we notice the door in close proximity to a window which we know was smashed in November of 1888.'
Then why didn't the intelligent police officers, photographers or any of Kelly's close friends suggest the method on the morning her body was seen through the window?
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 77
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Because they were seemingly so entrenched in the notion that Kelly's murderer was a last client, that they overlooked a more obvious possibility.
Unfortunately, the "Oh the police MUST have checked THAT out" argument has never satisfactorily convinced me. We must stop assuming that the police investigated all possibilities. The most clumsy opinion on the Hutchinson saga asserts that Hutchinson is a weak JTR because police did not consider him a viable suspect at the time.
The layout of No. 13 renders the possibility of a quiet, even surrepticious break-in a very real one.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 245
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 2:55 am: |
|
Leanne,
I do not believe Hutchinson was a watcher as you call them,I only pointed out possibilities if he was so.He did come forward,and say he knew Kelly fromm a period long before the murders,so he was coming to the police attention as a person associated with her.It doesn't appear that Aberline investigated that connection before judging Hutchinson as truthful.
Ben has answered the window situation.Even the midnight companion could have known,but you will have to read my comments above to understand this. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1955
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 3:37 am: |
|
G'day
BEN: 'Because they were seemingly so entrenched in the notion that Kelly's murderer was a last client, that they overlooked a more obvious possibility'
No Ben, I'm sorry to have to inform you that at that stage they wouldn't have come to any conclusions! Their first desire/job was to get inside that room to take a look at and record what the body's condition was...her injuries etc, and to try to find if her killer left any weapon or other evidence that they could use to determine something about her murder.
If it was so obvious that her door could be opened that way, I'm sure that John McCarthy would have preferred it to having to demolish his door! He would have at least tried!
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 78
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 9:16 am: |
|
"No Ben, I'm sorry to have to inform you that at that stage they wouldn't have come to any conclusions!"
Where did I mention any "conslusions", Leanne?
I merely wondered if all *possibilities* (note the terminology) were entertained. I don't believe for a moment that they were.
I'm sure that John McCarthy would have preferred it to having to demolish his door! He would have at least tried!
Leanne -- You're doing precisely what I cautioned against. Assuming that they examined all possibilities, on what grounds I don't know.
Ben |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1956
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 11:10 pm: |
|
G,day Ben,
I was referring to your words: 'entrenched in the notion that Kelly's murderer was a last client.' Being entrenched in a notion, sounds to me like drawing a conclusion. Forming an oppinion as to what happened before examining the scene.
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 79
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 8:02 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Apologies for my verbosity.
If a person is "entrenched in the notion" s/he has not necessarily arrived at a "conclusion". I believe that too much credence was accorded to the *possibility* that Kelly was assailed by a last client. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1957
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
It very much appeared that the Ripper approached his earlier victims as a client. To take the 'shock approach' and surprise a victim in her sleep would have been a drastic change of M.O. for Jack, and anyone attempting to make it look like a Ripper killing.
I think I am begining to understand what you mean. Are you saying that perhaps they were too entrenched in the Ripper murders that they failed to examine other possibilities thouroughly?
There was alot of police men there that morning for hours. The 'Daily Telegraph' said that the medical men were there until after 4:00p.m. when they left, and that was just the doctors.
The doctors were examining the body and the police were searching the room a weapon or anything left that could be used for evidence. They then examined the other rooms in the court and interviewed occupants all the time keeping curious onlookers away. I think they did a thorough job.
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 80
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
The ripper enticed his victims under the guise of a client, but in so doing, he was merely acting out of onerous necessity, and it would be wrong to misconstrue such actions as an example of his "M.O." If he had launched a "shock attack" on Eddowes or Chapman, for example, he would have been caught in the act by Lawende and Long respectively. In the minutes proceeding these earlier murders, JTR masquaraded as a client in order to allay any suspicions his victims might have. He put them at ease. It also enabled him to entice his victim to a lonelier spot.
At Miller's Court, he didn't need to do any of this. He didn't need to put her at ease because she was already asleep, and he didn't need to entice her to a lonely spot because she was already IN ONE.
Easy. He didn't need to bother with the "client" act.
If he was presented with any opportunity to forgo the aforementioned "client" rigmarole (as was the case with Kelly) he would certainly have availed himself of it.
Why didn't he apply the same method for the other murders? Well, the most logical reason is that he knew where Kelly lived, which may not have been true for the others.
"I think they did a thorough job."
Well, were they thorough enough to note the proximity between the smashed window and the door?
Best Regards,
Ben |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 120
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 9:22 pm: |
|
Ben,
Given Mary's alleged fear of the Ripper, don't you think it is a reasonable assumption to think that Mary would have taken precautions to prevent someone from breaking into her room? Granted, she might have been drinking or been tired and forgotten to follow her usual ritual but it would seem that a little bit of effort on her part could have made her reasonably safe. And why take a chance on Mary waking up and screaming, when Jack could pose as a client and have Mary herself let him into her room?
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1958
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 10:44 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
I called it part of his M.O. meaning it was the way he operated. The way he loured his victim, making her feel safe, the way he pulled out his knife once the time was right giving the victim little chance of summoning help and then slashing her throat rendering it impossible.
He did use a 'shock attack' approach, but when the victim had too little time between seeing the knife and when her throat was slashed.
'At Miller's Court, he didn't need to do any of this. He didn't need to put her at ease because she was already asleep, and he didn't need to entice her to a lonely spot because she was already IN ONE.' How could he have been certain? Kelly sometimes had people stay with her and people were coming and leaving the court at all hours. What if someone saw a man that they'd never seen before reaching through the window?.....unless it was someone that they often saw reaching through that window!
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 81
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
Hi c.d.,
don't you think it is a reasonable assumption to think that Mary would have taken precautions to prevent someone from breaking into her room?
In the absence of any evidence to the effect that she took such precautions, the only "reasonable assumption" is that she didn't. You ask a pertinent question, though, and one which you answer yourself: her drunken stupour prevented her from taken such measures IF indeed she was ever in the habiting of taking them in the first place.
Hi Leanne,
How could he have been certain? Kelly sometimes had people stay with her and people were coming and leaving the court at all hours.
Through surrepticious monitering of his victim. By observing her movements from a discreet vantage point.
What if someone saw a man that they'd never seen before reaching through the window?.....
He'd be in big trouble of course. But the ripper was demonstrably unafraid of taking risks. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1959
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
'Through surrepticious monitering of his victim. By observing her movements from a discreet vantage point.'
Maria Harvey had only just found her own room, and Kelly had invited her to stay as soon as Julia left - the night after.
'He'd be in big trouble of course. But the ripper was demonstrably unafraid of taking risks.' The Ripper waited until his earlier victims took them to a secluded spot, away from patrolling police and common citizens.
He obviously avoided the patrolling policeman in the Mitre Square case.
Why would he take the extra risk that you describe when all he had to do was get the victim to willingly let him in?
Maria Harvey went to her room at midnight, remained a quarter of an hour and then left again to return at 3:00 a.m. She didn't go out again but how was the killer to know that?
LEANNE |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 122
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
Yes, it is an assumption that Mary would have taken measures to prevent someone from breaking into her room. The question then becomes how reasonable of an assumption is it. Try to put yourself in Mary's place. She is a young woman with a justified fear of the Ripper. She now feels even more vulnerable than usual since she no longer has the comfort of a male presence now that Barnett has moved out. Alone in her room, she looks at the two entry points into her room, the window and the door. Do you think that she would not do something to protect herself? All she has to do is slide something in front of the door and arrange things so that they would be knocked over alerting her if someone tried to enter through the window. She doesn't have to buy anything or go to any great effort to acomplish this. I think virtually anyone in Mary's circumstance would do the same. She could only block the door if she was in the room. If she brought in a client,there would be no evidence of that. In my opinion, it is an assumption but I think a very reasonable one.
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1960
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 10:01 pm: |
|
G'day,
Let us not forget that Elizabeth Prater, who lived in the room above Mary, told the inquest that: 'I went to bed at half-past one and barricaded the door with two tables.'
C.D: I wouldn't call the window an entry point to her room. It didn't open and no one could squeeze in through the holes, but it gave access to her lock which opened the one and only entry point....the door.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 246
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 4:32 am: |
|
If Kelly was afraid that someone might enter while she was asleep,and do so by opening the door through the window,why didn't she have the broken pane boarded up.It had been broken some days before her death so there had been time.Perhaps she mistakenly believed no one would use that method.
As the other victims had obviously met the killer on the streets,her fear may have been of meeting him the same way.This is why I believe the midnight visitor was a person she knew well,that she trusted,and that she did not venture out after he left.
It did not matter in the least who and when she had had company,the midnight companion was the person who best knew her situation that night,what precautions she may have been contemplating,what her intentions were after he left,and best of all,if he didn't already know,and it is correct that he was first into the room,how to open the door through the window.
(see post before for this reasoning).
As the clothing was the reason Hutchinson's attention was drawn to the supposed male at 2am,it is a case that Hutchinson couldn't change the very detailed description,otherwise he would have to come up with another explanation for being outside Crossinghams.You either believe his memory to be exact on this issue,or left with a doubt the person ever existed. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1961
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
G,day Harry,
'If Kelly was afraid that someone might enter while she was asleep,and do so by opening the door through the window,why didn't she have the broken pane boarded up.'
Barnett told Abberline that they had been opening the door by reaching through the window, since the key had been lost. She therefore could not have it boarded up otherwise how would she get in?
Thomas Bowyer was well aware that the panes had been broken after an argument 10 days before her murder, but he didn't know Kelly had lost her key. They would have been mad to tell the landlord that the key was missing because he then would think that the window was deliberately broken. Therefore the press started the rumour that the killer had taken the key when he left.
'As the clothing was the reason Hutchinson's attention was drawn to the supposed male at 2am,' It was such an usual thing to find such a well dressed man in Dorsett Street, that's why I believe the man, (who Kelly knew well), was unusually dressed, (disguized).
'You either believe his memory to be exact on this issue,or left with a doubt the person ever existed.'
I don't think that Hutchinson was lying in his description of the well-dressed man. I just think he didn't tell Abberline his true reason for waiting outside so long. E.g. He didn't state what he would do if he saw one or the other come out.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 14, 2005) |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
When it comes to the police investigation i think we have to assume at least some amount of competence.
Wasnt Joe Barnett required to produce an alibi? If so, it shows the authorities were investigating other avenues. I'd assume Hutchinson was required to produce an alibi also.
Since the police of the time couldnt rely on modern forensic techniques (fingerprinting, DNA, profiling) they surely would have placed a greater emphasis on interviewing suspects, witnesses and there alibis.
As alibis can be fabricated, this doesnt rule out either Barnett or Hutchinson. It does though mke there guilt less likely imo. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 87
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
Hi all,
There are two obstacles to the assumption that Kelly barricaded the door, and the first is Joseph Barnett.
Barnett never referred to any habit his erstwhile partner may have had of "barricading" the door. As a living companion, Barnett would have been well aware of such practices - if kelly ever enforced them - and a detail of this nature would be of paramount importance to the inquest. But no mention is made by Barnett (or anyone else for that matter) of any such security measures.
Then we have Elizabeth Prater:
"The partition was so thin I could have heard Kelly walk about in the room. I went to bed at half-past one".
But she didn't hear Kelly walk about in her room, so it is more than likely that the latter was asleep at this time - a likelihood that is bolstered by the fact that Kelly's clothes were subsequently discovered "neatly folded". When asked by the Coroner:
"Did you hear beds or tables being pulled about?" Prater responded with "None whatever."
And if a little kitten is capable of disturbing Prater's slumber, the cacophany of shifting furniture through a thin partition must have been doubly so. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Your man would have had to be a huge risk taker or a complete berk (I was going to say lunatic, but thought better of it  ) to go out of his way to wear clothes that would stand out as unusual for the area.
Tumblety, for instance, would have had to modify his 'tache, dress down, wear flat shoes and flatten his hair down to minimise his height and leave the greyhounds in kennels, if he wanted to look the part in Dorset Street and not stick out like a sore thumb.
Are you saying your man's strategy was to save up his non-existent pennies in order to dress up to the nines on November 9 so he wouldn't look the part?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on December 14, 2005) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1962
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
G'day,
JASON: 'Wasnt Joe Barnett required to produce an alibi?
The only existing reference we have of Joseph Barnett's 'alibi' comes from the press that stated: 'was at Buller's Lodging House in New Street, and was playing whist there until half past twelve when he went to bed.' At the time he gave it Mary Kelly's most likely time of death wasn't even debated, and are we expected to believe that he slept soundly?
BEN: 'Barnett never referred to any habit his erstwhile partner may have had of "barricading" the door.' I know everything we know about Mary Kelly's past came from the mouth of Joseph Barnett, but aren't you expecting a bit much? He was never asked about such habits but the Coroner just asked was she ever frightened of anyone? Joseph Barnett stopped living with her ten days before her murder anyway.
'But she [Elizabeth Prater], 'didn't hear Kelly walk about in her room, so it is more than likely that the latter was asleep at this time'
The coroner asked her if she heard tables and chairs being moved about, which would have woken the devil. This in no way suggests that Mary was asleep.
'a likelihood that is bolstered by the fact that Kelly's clothes were subsequently discovered "neatly folded".' How does that suggest that she was asleep? It suggests that she wasn't going to go out again that night, and folded her clothes in preperation for going to the 'Lord Mayor's Day' procession the next day. Unless she had the remarkable ability to fall asleep as soon as her head hit the pillow, then it suggests nothing.
CAZ: 'Your man would have had to be a huge risk taker or a complete berk (I was going to say lunatic, but thought better of it ) to go out of his way to wear clothes that would stand out as unusual for the area'. Did you know Caz, that when dock workers didn't have the money to gamble with, (I'm thinking about Barnett's whist playing at Buller's), they gambled with clothes? Hutchinson told the press that he thinks he saw his suspect later in Petticoat Lane where the clothes exchange was.
I believe he wore the elaborate clothes he won, (at least the jewellery items), to entice Mary Kelly to take him into her room, at least to talk, making her expect that he had some money.
That's why she laughed when they got close, because she recognized who it was but took him in anyway expecting him to have something for her.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1963
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
G'day Caz,
'Your man would have had to be a huge risk taker or a complete berk (I was going to say lunatic, but thought better of it ) to go out of his way to wear clothes that would stand out as unusual for the area.'
Don't you think that anyone who dressed so elaborately in the worst area in the East End, would be a huge risk taker and a complete berk? If he was doing what some people call 'slumming', (I think), and curiously seeing how the poor live, don't you think he would have left the seemingly-expensive jewellery at home? The hole thing shouts 'fancy-dress', 'disguize' to me.
LEANNE |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 124
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 9:32 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne,
Thanks for your clarification on the window not being an entry point into Mary's room. Can you think of a way in which she might have been able to prevent someone from reaching in and unlocking the door?
By the way, what's a "berk"?
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1964
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 11:57 pm: |
|
G'day C.D,
I don't know the exact meaning of the word 'berk' either, but I assume it's something like complete idiot.
The only way she could have minimized the number of people that knew the hand-through-window method was to lessen the chances of people seeing her and Barnett do it. Remember that on the morning her body was discovered, none of the other Miller's Court residents offered the suggestion to police.
The table placed close to the right side of the bed, (the one that the door banged against when it was opened), could have been arranged so it would prevent an unwelcomed guest from entering after the door was opened. Just because it didn't prevent police from entering once the lock was forced, doesn't proved that the table was always in that exact position. The killer had to allow himself room to pass through to escape, as he couldn't squeeze through the holes in the window pane.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 247
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 3:27 am: |
|
Leanne,
Kelly could have left the door on the latch,then she would not need to reach through the window.It was while she was in residence and asleep that it became an entry method for an intruder,and she either overlooked this or was not worried by it.Her fear,like most inhabitants of Whitechapel before her death,would have been the streets.That's where the killings were taking place.
That Hutchinson or in fact anyone would follow and wait,because a person was fashionably dressed,seems a bit over the top,but there was no other reason given.It would not be acceptable today in such a case,and there is no valid reason why it should be accepted because the year was 1888.
As to Hutchinson's memory,experience leads me to reject it being so complete,but I would be willing to change my view if someone showed the same ability.I have yet to meet that person. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1965
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 4:51 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
'Kelly could have left the door on the latch,then she would not need to reach through the window.It was while she was in residence and asleep that it became an entry method for an intruder,and she either overlooked this or was not worried by it.' Hey? Where were you Harry when all we seemed to be talking about was Kelly's door/lost key and latch?
As Kelly lost her key and the window was broken, (both of which seem to have occured around the night she had the fight with Barnett and he left), she apparently had a latch fitted on the inside of the door, that could only be opened by reaching through the window. She therefore had to use the hand-through-window method to let herself in.
How do you come to the conclusion that she didn't have to reach through the window if she left the door on the latch?
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 90
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
How does that suggest that she was asleep? It suggests that she wasn't going to go out again that night, and folded her clothes in preperation for going to the 'Lord Mayor's Day' procession the next day.
Well, we learn from Elizabeth Prater that the thin partition, which constituted her floor and No. 13's ceiling, enabled her to hear Kelly's movements below. But she makes no reference to any movements, so it is only reasonable to assume that Kelly was "motionless" on her bed at 1:30am.
And if she's motionless on her bed, having consumed a great deal of alcohol, the overwhelimg likelihood is that she was asleep.
Moreover, if she's in a booze-imposed slumber at 1:30am, it is highly unlikely that she's wake up systematically half and hour later, and roam the sreets in a "spreeish" condition.
If I am ever to embrace the "last client" theory, I can only accept the possibility that HE came to HER at around 3:30am.
(Message edited by BenH on December 15, 2005) |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 126
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:58 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
A couple of points. We simply do not know how much alcohol Mary had consumed. While it is true that drinking alcohol will put you to sleep, it is also true that alcohol interferes with sleep and someone who has been drinking will wake up later in the night unable to go back to sleep.
c.d |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 93
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
Hi c.d.,
"it is also true that alcohol interferes with sleep and someone who has been drinking will wake up later in the night unable to go back to sleep."
Regrettably, I can vouch for this, but even so, one is rarely stirred from a drunken slumber just half an hour or so into ones sleep.
If she wasn't asleep at 1:30am, she was almost certainly recumbent on her bed, preparatory to doing so.
Ben |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1966
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:19 pm: |
|
G'day,
BEN: 'Well, we learn from Elizabeth Prater that the thin partition, which constituted her floor and No. 13's ceiling, enabled her to hear Kelly's movements below. But she makes no reference to any movements, so it is only reasonable to assume that Kelly was "motionless" on her bed at 1:30am'
Do you think that Elizabeth Prater's floor was so thin that she could hear Mary Kelly breathing? The killer was definately there in Kelly's room at some stage yet Elizabeth Prater didn't hear him. Should we therefore assume that he was motionless, then floated out of the holey window when he was finished because Prater didn't hear him?
Then there's the clothes. Did they just walk silently over to the fireplace and throw themselves in?
Elizabeth Prater returned to her room, (which was above Mary's), at AROUND 1:00a.m. She went up the staircase that was before Kelly's door. There was no reflexion of the light from her room, outside the windows. That is the only way that she could have judged that there was no light in the room. At that time Mary Kelly had most likely left to find another customer.
Elizabeth Prater fell asleep SOUNDLY at 1:30 a.m. after barricading her door with two tables. She slept as Mary returned to her room with ?, then was woken around 3:45 a.m. just before hearing the cry of "MURDER!"
Why do you use words like: "almost certainly" and "the overwhelming likelyhood."? Mary Kelly was known to drink and was almost certainly always a little "spreeish". It's overwhelmingly likely that she didn't get blind-drunk as she had expressed a desire to go to the show the next morning.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 248
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 3:13 am: |
|
Leanne,
I am aware of the discussions about the Key and the latch,what I do not remember was that the lock on the door the night she was killed was one that could not be left on the latch.You say apparantly,do yourself have doubt?
Not that it matters,arm through the window was an entry method while she was in the room,and she would have been aware of it if she herself used that method,but she allowed it to be so.Doesn't seem to me that it worried her. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1967
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 4:29 am: |
|
G;day Harry,
'Doesn't seem to me that it worried her.'
That's why I believe that she and Barnett would have tried to keep the method as secret as possible. No one seemed to know about the method on the morning her body was discovered. Or even think of such a method. Not even the landlord.
What are your thoughts on this:
I believe that the key to her room must have been lost on the night that Barnett moved out and the window was broken. If her key was lost but the window panes were yet to be broken, how on earth did she get into her room? The door locked automatically when it closed.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1968
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 6:08 am: |
|
G'day,
Elizabeth Prater first told the police that she heard about 2 or 3 screams, then changed it to a single scream at the inquest. She told the press that she heard nothing. She was 'very drunk' before falling asleep quickly. Should we expect that she should have heard everything going on downstairs?
LEANNE |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
Wasnt Elizabeth Prater supposedly drunk when she went to bed?
I believe that the window was probably broken deliberately. If the key was lost, it seems a coincidence that a window pane was broken at the same time - the very window pane that would most easily allow them to reach the lock.
I doubt the door was locked any more than it had to be. Having very few treasured items to steal, Kelly most likely risked leaving it unlocked at times(if it did not lock automatically). |
brojo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 4:35 am: |
|
c.d
"berk" is rhyming slang, The actual saying is "Berkeley Hunt" and I'll let you work it out what that means. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 670
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
"Try to put yourself in Mary's place. She is a young woman with a justified fear of the Ripper. "
I think your points are well taken, c.d. I'd go further and say Mary had a room with a broken window and a missing key in a high crime area. I can't imagine that she wouldn't have barred the door or taken whatever primitive defensive measures she could IRRESPECTIVE of the Ripper terror. It's not as if whores have trusting natures...
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Hello Jason.
As Kelly was very frightened about the Ripper murders, which Joseph Barnett appears to have confirmed, there is very little chance that she would have left the door unlocked when alone in her room at night.
I doubt if the question of whether or not she had any treasured items worth stealing in the room, ever entered her mind. I do however agree with you that the window pane was quite likely to have been broken deliberately by Kelly or Barnett, as soon as they realised that the key was lost.
Regards
ROD |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
