Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

    Hello all,

    Ive a scenario in my minds eye that I cant find obvious fault with, perhaps one or more of you will see if this can or cannot work with the known evidence:

    11:45pm, Thursday : Mary and Blotchy faced man arrive at Marys door, Mary Ann Cox exchanges good nights with Mary. Mary is inebriated

    11:45pm, Thursday -1:15-1:130am, Friday : Mary is heard to be singing and a light is on in her room

    1:30am, Friday : Elizabeth Prater notices Marys room is dark and quiet when she goes inside up to her room. Mary let her companion out quietly and she has partially undressed and gone to sleep.

    3:45am, Friday : Mary hears a soft tap on the door or window. Diddles upstairs wakes when he hears this. Mary opens her door slightly still half asleep, and when she recognizes who is there while her door is open she moans "oh-murder", and pads back to her bed, now slipping over to the far right hand side, on her right side. Elizabeth Prater and Sarah Lewis, staying in the courtyard, hear the cry, Sarah "as if at the door", and Elizabeth, "as if from the court". Marys position in bed suggests that she is allowing room for her visitor. No words are exchanged beyond the moan from Mary. The man has been in that room and with Mary before. The 2 women now listening for more sounds hear nothing else.


    This scenario, I believe, presents a plausible encounter and a reasonable alternative to some of the less acceptable methods her killer might have got into the room. We need to address if Mary uttered the "oh-murder", and why there was no noise that followed, how the killer got into the room and to Mary Kellys bed without her waking and screaming something that would indeed be followed by noises, and how the first cut on her throat was made while she was on the bed, on the right hand side.

    If he slips his hand through the broken pane for the latch, he makes a noise when he sets it "on". If the door was unlocked, it may have creaked, and it appears that he would have had to get around the night table to get at her. Too many footsteps too close by to not be heard. It seems to me that the only way the killer gets at Mary while she is unprepared and on the right hand side of the bed facing the partition wall is if he is in the room with her consent. Its the only way I see her being asleep or almost so when the attack starts.

    Anyone see any logic amiss here? Im open to valid critique.

    Obviously, if this is a realistic possibility, then Marys killer being known by her even intimately is probable. Which would explain the personal style facial mutilations, and perhaps the absconding of her heart.

    Look forward to any feedback. Cheers
    Michael Richards

  • #2
    Hi Michael,

    I thought the following, posted by Richardnunweek on 23rd November 2008, interesting. Hope Richard doesn't mind me bumping it on this thread.

    Hi,
    Elizabeth Prater is a fascinating witness to the events of the early hours of the 9th November 88 in many ways, she comes across as a person of detail, and her various observations of that night all have a ring of truth about them.
    For exsample.
    She describes a meeting with Mjk at the court entrance at 9pm on the eve of the 8th, and adds such believable phrases as ...She was wearing a coat and bonnet... she said 'Goodnight my pretty''...another quotation..I spoke to the man McCarthy at 1am whilst waiting for my young man, asking him [McCarthy] to say 'I have gone up to my room'.
    But the most intresting account is Praters version of hearing the cry of 'Oh murder',and her opinion that it sounded like a person awakening from a nightmare,her description of how the cat Diddles awoke her has all the hallmarks of truth, her reaction to being awaken by the cat, also her visiting the pub for a drink seeing men harnessing horses at 545am in Dorset street, and her not rousing from her bed till around 11am would fit what is known.
    I cannot get away from the significance of the cry and Praters interpretaion, as it surely would have major significance if the cry was exactly what she implied, leaving the major possibility that Mary kelly was alive around 4am, if this was the case then Mrs Maxwell, and Maurice Lewis, acounts must enter the mix.
    Remember Kit watkins account two years later and Lotties words.
    She [ Kelly[ told me that she had a dream that she was being murdered, and that shook her up.
    As the sound heard by Prater was 'Oh Murder' a phrase many people on Casebook have thought unusual for a person about to be physically murdered by a mad knifeman, my conclusion is MJK actually 'woke up 'having a reoccurance of her bad dream that she was being 'Murdered' hense the apt choice of words.
    That being the case, the early hours of the 9th would have a new outlook would they not?
    Regards Richard
    I don't know of Kit Watkins or Lottie. Can anyone enlighten me?
    "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

    Comment


    • #3
      Answering my own question:

      Kit Watkins, alias Coleman was a reporter on the Toronto Mail who allegedly visited the various scenes in 1891. She spoke to 'Lottie' who was the current (1891) occupant of 13, Millers Court.

      According to Jon Guy (posted 25th March 2009):

      I believe Lottie was Lottie Owen, according to the 1891 census she was married to Dock labourer Henry Owen and they lived at 26 Dorset St, possibly the same Harry Owen who was living with Julia Venturney at 1 Millers Court in 1888. Venturney had moved on by 1891.

      26 Dorset Street in 1891

      Head: Henry Owen aged 49 born St Pancras - Dock labourer
      Wife: Lottie Owen aged 43 born Kennington
      Last edited by Bridewell; 01-09-2013, 10:16 PM.
      "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

      Comment


      • #4
        "It seems to me that the only way the killer gets at Mary while she is unprepared and on the right hand side of the bed facing the partition wall is if he is in the room with her consent."

        I can't see it any other way either Michael.

        DRoy

        Comment


        • #5
          Michael,
          " . . .still half asleep, and when she recognizes who is there while her door is open she moans "oh-murder", and pads back to her bed, now slipping over to the far right hand side, on her right side."


          I am confused by Mary’s position in the bed. Was she on the right side of the bed or the left?

          This is from Dr. Bond’s post mortem report, Begg, Jack the Ripper, The Definitive Story, page 301, Pearson, Paperback, 2005

          Begg states “The scalpel-cold post mortem report by Dr. Thomas Bond is clinical and precise.” [for whatever that is worth; precise should not be construed to mean actuate; only ‘definitely stated’] But the report places the ‘axis of the body’ on the left side of the bed.” What does that mean?

          “The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat, but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was turned on the left cheek.”




          I would like to add, that I feel the explanation regarding why Mary says ‘O Murder, and why the two ladies didn’t (over) react to it, is one of the most plausible I have heard.

          Can I am assume that the term ‘O Murder would translate into the American lexicon as an annoyed “damn!”? As in: "Oh, damn, it's you!"

          Anthony

          Comment


          • #6
            Sorry me again.

            I found my own answer, maybe. [smile]

            Dr. Phillip’s Deposition [excerpt]

            “. . . the saturated condition of the paliasse, pillow, sheet, at the top corner . . . lead me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid . . . was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner.”


            So juxtaposed against Dr. Bond’s findings, does this mean the murderer grabbed Mary by the chin, slitting her throat, while rolling her back towards the left side of the bed?

            ?

            Anthony

            Comment


            • #7
              Anthony.

              There are three points that I can see in your questions.

              First, the body had been over on the right side of the bed when the throat was cut, suggesting that there was room beside her for another person.

              Second, the body, once killed, had been pulled from the right hand side towards the middle of the bed, by the killer.

              Third, in the process of pulling the body towards himself, the body twisted slightly towards its left side. In other words the body was not laying flat on its back but slightly turned towards the door (the left). That is what "axis inclined towards the left side" means.

              Best Wishes, Jon S.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi Bridewell,
                I still believe that my explanation for the ''Oh Murder '' is the most likely.
                It simply fits, and would certainly explain the morning sightings.
                Remember the nightmare theory stems two fold.
                Mrs Praters account at the inquest 1888
                Lotties account to Kit Watkins in 1891.
                We have two independent residents of the court ,who were both living there in 1888, relaying an account which binds together.
                Regards Richard.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi.
                  Look at the way the body was discovered , and tell me does this look like a event that happened early am?
                  The rolled bedding,has all the appearance of a daylight event, the boots placed near the fireplace has all the hallmarks of being placed there by the victim.
                  Who would place them there[ apparent to dry] if the fire was unlit.
                  So that would suggest that Kelly lit the fire herself. and was likely killed whilst she was boiling water, hence the condition of the kettle.
                  The clues are there....no wonder why the police believed the murder happened in daylight..
                  Regards Richard.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If he slips his hand through the broken pane for the latch, he makes a noise when he sets it "on". If the door was unlocked, it may have creaked, and it appears that he would have had to get around the night table to get at her. Too many footsteps too close by to not be heard. It seems to me that the only way the killer gets at Mary while she is unprepared and on the right hand side of the bed facing the partition wall is if he is in the room with her consent. Its the only way I see her being asleep or almost so when the attack starts.
                    Kelly was blind drunk at the time of the attack, Mike, and had almost certainly been asleep since 1:30am or thereabouts. Had she gone to bed with Blotchy at 1:30 it is more than possible that she would have occupied the right side of the bed and remained there even after Blotchy’s departure. Thus the killer could easily have let himself into the room without alerting Kelly as to his presence. If this appears far-fetched, it isn’t. I recall reading an account some years ago of a drunken docker who during the Blitz had slept obliviously through an air raid that had blown away most of his house.


                    Obviously, if this is a realistic possibility, then Marys killer being known by her even intimately is probable. Which would explain the personal style facial mutilations, and perhaps the absconding of her heart.
                    Although I don’t agree with your premise that Kelly must have let her killer into the room, Mike, I do consider it a certainty that the two were known to one another. Perhaps the Ripper was a client or simply someone she knew from the local drinking dens. But he must have had prior knowledge of Kelly and her personal circumstances, which would appear to indicate that Kelly was no random victim, rather a woman who had been specifically targeted well in advance of the crime.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Merely a sleeping position...

                      "It seems to me that the only way the killer gets at Mary while she is unprepared and on the right hand side of the bed facing the partition wall is if he is in the room with her consent."
                      Hi y'all,

                      Lots of people sleep in the fetal or "spooning" position and facing the wall would give one a false sense of privacy and comfort. It recreates the womb, many of us do it...

                      I don't think we can say categorically just because she was in this position that she was expecting or entertaining someone. She may have simply snuggled up for a drunken snooze after Blotchy left.

                      I think this is an unwarranted jump to conclusions...



                      Greg

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                        Hello all,

                        Ive a scenario in my minds eye that I cant find obvious fault with, perhaps one or more of you will see if this can or cannot work with the known evidence:

                        11:45pm, Thursday : Mary and Blotchy faced man arrive at Marys door, Mary Ann Cox exchanges good nights with Mary. Mary is inebriated

                        11:45pm, Thursday -1:15-1:130am, Friday : Mary is heard to be singing and a light is on in her room

                        1:30am, Friday : Elizabeth Prater notices Marys room is dark and quiet when she goes inside up to her room. Mary let her companion out quietly and she has partially undressed and gone to sleep.

                        3:45am, Friday : Mary hears a soft tap on the door or window. Diddles upstairs wakes when he hears this. Mary opens her door slightly still half asleep, and when she recognizes who is there while her door is open she moans "oh-murder", and pads back to her bed, now slipping over to the far right hand side, on her right side. Elizabeth Prater and Sarah Lewis, staying in the courtyard, hear the cry, Sarah "as if at the door", and Elizabeth, "as if from the court". Marys position in bed suggests that she is allowing room for her visitor. No words are exchanged beyond the moan from Mary. The man has been in that room and with Mary before. The 2 women now listening for more sounds hear nothing else.


                        This scenario, I believe, presents a plausible encounter and a reasonable alternative to some of the less acceptable methods her killer might have got into the room. We need to address if Mary uttered the "oh-murder", and why there was no noise that followed, how the killer got into the room and to Mary Kellys bed without her waking and screaming something that would indeed be followed by noises, and how the first cut on her throat was made while she was on the bed, on the right hand side.

                        If he slips his hand through the broken pane for the latch, he makes a noise when he sets it "on". If the door was unlocked, it may have creaked, and it appears that he would have had to get around the night table to get at her. Too many footsteps too close by to not be heard. It seems to me that the only way the killer gets at Mary while she is unprepared and on the right hand side of the bed facing the partition wall is if he is in the room with her consent. Its the only way I see her being asleep or almost so when the attack starts.

                        Anyone see any logic amiss here? Im open to valid critique.

                        Obviously, if this is a realistic possibility, then Marys killer being known by her even intimately is probable. Which would explain the personal style facial mutilations, and perhaps the absconding of her heart.

                        Look forward to any feedback. Cheers
                        Hi Mike
                        Interesting sequence and maybe very likely.
                        Having owned a cat though it has always made me wonder if Diddles was aroused because of the smell/sensing of blood and she was just a little off on the sequence because she was half asleep. As in she hears the cry goes back to sleep and moments later smelling the blood the cat wakes her up again.

                        But in general I agree with you. I think mary knew her killer and she either let him in or did not wake(or protest) when he let himself in.

                        The absent heart has always in my mind pointed to Barnett-the facial mutations not so much as Eddowes also had them. That last meeting earlier that evening between MK and Barnett has always intrigued me. Did he realize finally it was over and she was not taking him back?

                        According to the Varying witnesses Mary Met with Four men that night:
                        Barnett
                        Blotchy
                        Hutch
                        A-man

                        My bet is that one of these was her killer.

                        Barnett has an alibi and was not suspected by police
                        Hutch was probably just trying to cash in
                        A-man probably was fictional

                        My money is on Blotchy. Or hutch but probably Blotchy.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hi folks,

                          Thanks for the contributions. Let me say that its important to me that any theory cover all the known bases and the conclusion is based upon, at the very least, circumstantial evidence.

                          I have a few counter points...

                          Bridewell: With all due respect to Richard, Lotties story has nothing in the way of authentication and if she had spoken with Mary before and heard that story why didnt she tell the police that weekend? Why wait until a reporter from Canada asks about Mary 3 years later? The only part of the story that I can see has merit is the supposition that the cry uttered was from Mary and it did not signal the commencement of any attack upon her.

                          I would think that much should be considered as fact. No witness heard another sound after the cry.

                          Anthony: I think what can be taken from the report is that Mary was as this thread contends, on the far right hand side of the bed. What the doctor is saying is that her "right" carotid artery was severed first. That leads me to believe we have a left handed killer who approached Mary from behind and placed his arm and the knife across her throat, then he drew it back across towards himself. That way the artery doesnt spray him. Its why I believe the killer was left handed and Mary was with her back to him.

                          Richard: As I said to BW above the story Lottie offers is far too late and far to suspect to be considered anything but attention seeking. If she knew Mary and that specific incident happened, she could have told the police that before the Inquest, instead of allowing people to be misled by the cries inspiration for all these years. We already have 2 court witnesses who lived there the night she is killed Richard, why would we set them aside for someone who only tells her story 3 years late? I now see why you would like to believe Hutchinson, he was only 4 days late.

                          The rolled bedding is stuffed down beside the bed, like for sleeping in a warm room Richard, or because it was in the way. You mentioned the boots by the fire and ask why anyone would put them there if there was no fire. And then you make the opposite of a logical conclusion, that it indicated a daylight death. There was rain Thursday night-very early Friday morning, which would mean a need to dry the boots,..but there was none later Friday morning. Clearly the fire was going on at night, and the light in her room was seen. There is no indication there was any fire in the morning, there is no evidence that confirms the kettle spout was melted that same night. And the police didnt believe the murder happened in daylight, not Bond, and certainly not the coroner who warned one witness about her testimony concerning Mary still being alive during daylight.

                          Gary: Logistics here. The windows were found locked. Unless the man knew about the broken pane and latch on the door, he would have had to have found the door unlocked and latched when he arrives. As soon as the door opens the light from the gaslamp on the opposite wall spills in, then he has to make his way across creaky floorboards that apparently Liz could hear upstairs at times. Add to that someone called out at 3:45am and from that courtyard. Mary is the only person in that courtyard that could not claim that call Friday morning,...and since no-one else did, it would seem Mary did. The only way a woman in her undies makes a call that sounds from the courtyard is by doing so at her open door.

                          As to the sleeping position, its the fact that she is on the far right of the bed while doing so that makes me suggest she was expecting someone to slip in behind her. I can recall late night visits from girlfriends when I let them in and slipped back into bed, assuming they would join me momentarily, I would occupy the far side of the bed. Since Mary could only get onto the bed from the left side, that makes sense to me.

                          Abby: I have an additional idea that addresses Blotchy. What if Blotchy is under instructions to get Mary drunk then home, and when she is going to sleep he is to come and report that to whomever goes back to that court later to get at her. This way the killer knows who she talks to on the way home, he ensures she doesnt speak with anyone until bed... by having Blotchy sit and listen to her singing until she is tired. Blotchy can even slip the latch on so the door locks behind him...ensuring no-one gets into see Mary until the killer comes there.

                          I think the facial mutilations show that this killer was angry at Mary for "having" to do this to her. Mary was hammered that night....what might she have known that could come out in the boozy conversation. I wonder the same about Kate that last afternoon. Both women were completely bombed and neither had the money to be in such a condition.

                          I dont think Blotchy killed her, but I do think Blotchy knew who did, and thats why a few days later he runs when someone sees him on streetcar. Someone recognized him and pointed him out to a constable, but the constable demurred from any pursuit. Ive always thought that if the policeman had chased and caught that man we would have had our answers. But....at that particular point in time, and within the short window of belief in George Hutchinsons story, the police were looking for Astrakan as her killer, not a shabby street man.

                          My best regards all
                          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 01-10-2013, 09:49 PM.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi Michael,
                            Just to come back on a couple of points.
                            I agree with you that the tale told to Kit, has attention seeker written all over it, however it warrants attention, simply because the topic of the dream Lottie claims Kelly informed her of, was that of the latter being murdered.
                            Which can relate to the words heard from the court ''Oh Murder'', also Praters inquest rendition of ''Awakening from a nightmare''.
                            I also believe it is uncanny, that she was killed on the very same bed she had such a dream...and not in the streets as per norm.
                            The bedclothes placed /stuffed between bed and wall, have the hallmarks of having not been used as a sleeping accessory when the body was found, indicating that she was up and about , which points to a daylight event, which brings in Maxwell's sighting.
                            As for the boots.
                            I am going by one of the sketches , showing a pair of boots lying close to the fireplace, I made the observation, that unless Kelly was alive when the fire was lit , and if the bedclothes suggest a later murder, she could have placed them there upon returning to her room after Maxwell's sighting, and I should state that it indeed was wet around 8.am as Catherine picket stated , she attempted to borrow Mary's shawl [ because of the weather].
                            As for the police not believing the murder happened in daylight, it states it quite clearly in ''The Times Nov 12''.
                            My whole point about the cry heard being not of a actual attack is very plausible , if one considers that no other movement or sound was heard after that initial cry, and sightings of Kelly allegedly happened hours later..
                            Regards Richard.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The Unknown Known

                              I do consider it a certainty that the two were known to one another. Perhaps the Ripper was a client or simply someone she knew from the local drinking dens. But he must have had prior knowledge of Kelly and her personal circumstances, which would appear to indicate that Kelly was no random victim, rather a woman who had been specifically targeted well in advance of the crime.
                              Hi Garry,

                              You make a good point. Kelly had been, until a couple of weeks previously, in a relationship with Barnett. Whoever killed her must have been reasonably confident that someone wasn't going to walk into the room whilst he was at work. Whoever killed Kelly, in my view, knew that she was single and not expecting the return of a husband/boyfriend. Kelly was killed by someone who knew her. Perhaps therefore if there was one killer for MacNaghten's five victims as Sir MM himself believed, the killer knew, and was known to, all five?
                              "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X