A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[GregBaron]

Get off the fence...

They have not a scrap of reliable evidence which would suggest the Fenians, the Ochrana, Special Branch, The Secret Tribly Hat Wearers

Good observations Observer. Your post does; however, have me giving serious consideration to the Secret Tribly Hat Wearers....I think you may be on to something...

As you said, I'm a bandwagon jumper.....I just don't know which post to hitch my wagon to ...?

You are wise to discuss Coles. And there is even a good bit of movement lately for her and McKenzie--to say nothing of Tabram. All this in light of the FBI's discussion of serial killers.

Interesting that experts like Neil Bell and Stewart Evans list Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

Yes Lynn, we have many opinions and when we veer outside the canon things get even murkier...

I wish I was firm in my convictions but I'm hoping for the unexpected evidence to tilt the scale..

It may have been you who first said it, not sure, but the idea was that 1888 was a very peculiar year...


Greg

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

Since only Cox testified at the Inquest, Mr Astrakan may have been created to appeal to Abberlines sensibilities, not a jury's. After all, he is our local Fenian knowledge base in these cases.

Quite true Micheal, my mistake, but it does not alter the fact that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement. Why would he do this? Who exactly is applying the pressure?

Im not arguing this particular scenario myself, but its possible that Mary Kellys murder was made to look as if she had met a Ripper, ..so there may be basis for this murder to suggest the murder was "pinned" on someone by some evidence,... in the case of pinning it on Jack, the condition of the corpse is the evidence.

Presumably there were more than one person involved in this intrigue? I find it very difficult to believe that not a shred of evidence has emerged since 1888 if this is the case. people talk Mike.[/QUOTE]

I believe Millen was elsewhere but not in America, point being, the point of fingering Millen, if one was empathetic to the Irish cause, is to try and frame him because of his traitorous behavior based on his double agent status. I could see law enforcement wanting to have him in custody as well.

And so they murder and mutilate Mary Kelly in order to achieve their aims? Who are "they" by the way?

I dont mean to disparage anyones beliefs, but as a "Jackter" you must realize that there is virtually nothing that might connect some of these murders with the others and a "Jack", ..hence, the more probable solution is that we have more than just one mans work here.

At least you recognise, and make room for the fact that there are posters who belive in a lone killer. And with respect, I belive that here are a host of reasons which point to a lone killer. Furthermore I am not alone in my assumptions , indeed the finest the Met, and the City had to offer at the time were of this opinion.

I suppose you have the foundation for a multiple murderer assignation, one I happen to agree with in the case of Polly and Annie...same killer....and you have the potential for serial killings had he been able to kill more women....if he actually killed any. You also have a Torso maker. A serial one it would seem.

Agreed. But carefull, were talking about a serial killer here in connection with the Whitechapel murders, we don't want to drift off topic.

believe what is represented in the above is that there was in fact 1 serial killer running around loose at that time,... 1 who was likely of a serial bent but was restricted to a small group of victims, and you have other women killed by someone assumed to be Jack the Ripper.

Like Ive said many times...suggesting that the Canonical Group was a list of a single serial killers victims because serial killers are rare isnt really a sound argument. We can see evidence of at least2 different men her

Greg Baron has already pointed out the fact that at least four of the victims shared the same signature. I believe Stride and Tabram were also victims of JTR.

Once you accept the fact that serial killers are not robots, thus not all their victims are exactly mutilated in exactly the same way then you'll realise that one man was behind the murders in Whitechapel in 1888.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Interesting that experts like Neil Bell and Stewart Evans list Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

And their ideas as to motive, and what type of individual commited the murders?

[Observer]

A little bit of inside information Greg, Lord Randolph Churchill was tribly in chief, code name, six and seven eights. Warren was seven and a quarter.

Regards

Observer

[lynn cates]

murky

Hello Greg. Thanks.

"Yes Lynn, we have many opinions and when we veer outside the canon things get even murkier..."

Agreed. Quite murky.

"I wish I was firm in my convictions but I'm hoping for the unexpected evidence to tilt the scale.."

New evidence would be lovely. I hope for it as well.

"It may have been you who first said it, not sure, but the idea was that 1888 was a very peculiar year..."

Indeed. Whoever said it, I can go along.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

So could "Kate" have been the one who Barnett called "a woman of bad character" that MJK allowed to move in which led to him moving out? Just because Maria Harvey had stayed with MJK a couple of random nights doesn't mean it was her that Barnett was talking about.

Hi DRoy.

The Daily News appeared to draw the same conclusion.

In Maria Harvey, the woman who had been compassionately taken in by Kelly, the Court had its one amusing witness.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Quite true Micheal, my mistake, but it does not alter the fact that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement.

On what basis do you state this to be a fact as opposed to an opinion?

[DRoy]

The Daily News appeared to draw the same conclusion.

In Maria Harvey, the woman who had been compassionately taken in by Kelly, the Court had its one amusing witness.

Jon, are you saying that "Kate" is Maria Harvey?

They don't sound like the same person to me. "Kate" was apparently staying with MJK long enough to pay weekly rent. Maria only confirms to staying with MJK a couple days before she was murdered. Barnett claims he left on October 30th because of someone MJK took in.

"Kate" seems to match Barnett's story where Maria's doesn't. Does anyone have records as to who stayed in MJK's room after her murder?

DRoy

[Wickerman]

Jon, are you saying that "Kate" is Maria Harvey?

They don't sound like the same person to me. "Kate" was apparently staying with MJK long enough to pay weekly rent. Maria only confirms to staying with MJK a couple days before she was murdered. Barnett claims he left on October 30th because of someone MJK took in.

"Kate" seems to match Barnett's story where Maria's doesn't. Does anyone have records as to who stayed in MJK's room after her murder?

DRoy

I don't think your 'Kate' was using her real name in the article, or if she was then she doesn't seem to fit in with what we know about Mary Kelly.

We seem to have four names of women who either visited Mary or stayed with her in her last week.
Lizzie Albrook apparently lived in Millers Court, but visited Mary on Thursday 8th.

We have a "Julia" offered by Barnett..
"We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room. I objected; and as Mrs. Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left her, and took lodgings elsewhere."

Maria Harvey gave a different address at the inquest. So even though she claimed to have stayed overnight twice (Mon/Tue), she doesn't appear to be living with Mary permanently.

Then there is this "Margaret", apparently not her real name..
"A young woman who goes by the name of Margaret says:- I saw Kelly on Thursday night in Dorset street. She told me she had no money, and intended to make away with herself. Shortly after that a man of shabby appearance came up, and Kelly walked away with him."
Her story only appears on the 12th, then by the 17th Lizzie Albrook appears, their stories are not too dissimilar.

Mary only had a three-quarter bed, so where did she expect this "unfortunate" (Julia) to sleep while Barnett was there?

Regards, Jon S.

[Observer]

On what basis do you state this to be a fact as opposed to an opinion?

I think there is some confusion here. I am not of the opinion that Hutchinson was coerced into giving a false statement. In fact I believe the opposite is the case. I believe Hutchinson acted upon his own initiative. I was refuting the suggestion that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement, and mistakenly had him giving his statement at the inquest. The post you bring to light.

"Quite true Micheal, my mistake, but it does not alter the fact that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement."

was a correction to my previous post, and me reiterating that despite Hutchinson not appearing at the inquest, the fact still remained that the poster ( Mr Cates) had still entertained the thoughts that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement. Something that I believe was very very unlikely.

And if you can decipher the above, you are a better man than I am. I would suggest that you go back and read all the posts concerned with this matter.

Regards

Observer

[Ben]

They didn't have time to investigate him before Abberline wrote his report. Abberline only said "I believe him" (paraphrase), which is something we have to trust.

I'll address this only briefly as I don't wish to get bogged down in another off-topic Hutchinson debate. It isn't a question of "trust". I've no doubt that Abberline felt that way at the time, but it's equally clear from various sources that the credence initially invested in Hutchinson's account was later retracted. There is no evidence that he was ever considered a suspect, and it would have been nigh on impossible to exonerate him as one even if he was. "Sitting in front" of someone is a notoriously false barometer for assessing truthfulness as it places too much emphasis on body language interpretation. "Oh, he seems very confident and matter-of-fact, so he can't be lying", and other equally incautious deductions can be the result.

But this has all been done to death numerous times, so back on topic we go.

Nevertheless, this other man, the "Accoster"...was arrested about 8:30 the previous night he was not detained for much more than 12 hrs, and most of that was nighttime.

Where is it said or suggested that the man was arrested at that time? And how long does it take to verify an alibi? "I was in Finsbury at the time as my landlady will confirm" or any vaguely similar claim can be looked into relatively quickly. It certainly wouldn't require 12 hours! I'd query the value of those Sutcliffe comparisons, incidentally. Sutcliffe was interviewed as one of the potentially hundreds of men who fit the dark, bearded description provided by witnesses. He was not dragged in as someone who had allegedly accosted a women right where the murder were being committed, as your flushed foreigner was. Obviously the latter necessitates a more thorough investigation, i.e. more than the taking down of a name and an address.

If you were 5' 2'' you might describe him as tall if he were 5' 6-7'', "Tall" is still a relative term.

No it isn't a relative term. It's an objective term used to describe people who actually are tall according to conventionally accepted understanding, which nearly always mean's around 6ft and over. No sane person abandons all heigh-assessing rationale just because s/he happens to be an extreme of height. Would a midget describe a mini as a large car? Even if we do use your logic, remember that Sarah Lewis, who described her Bethnal man as short in stature, was herself alluded to in the press as a "doleful little body".

So on the one hand we have petite Sarah Lewis referring to a short man, and on the other we have a tall foreigner. They were, without any shadow of a doubt, different people, and there is no good reason to think either of them killed anyone.

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

I think there is some confusion here. I am not of the opinion that Hutchinson was coerced into giving a false statement. In fact I believe the opposite is the case. I believe Hutchinson acted upon his own initiative. I was refuting the suggestion that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement, and mistakenly had him giving his statement at the inquest. The post you bring to light.

"Quite true Micheal, my mistake, but it does not alter the fact that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement."

was a correction to my previous post, and me reiterating that despite Hutchinson not appearing at the inquest, the fact still remained that the poster ( Mr Cates) had still entertained the thoughts that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement. Something that I believe was very very unlikely.

And if you can decipher the above, you are a better man than I am. I would suggest that you go back and read all the posts concerned with this matter.

Regards

Observer

Hi Observer,

If you were yourself quoting someone else, then I apologise for mistaking your meaning.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

It seems that people can easily mis-read a posters intentions, and therefore miss the contextual point being made. I wish I was as elequent as AP Wolf when it comes to expressing digital thoughts,but since I have to be content with lesser skills, heres some rebuttal in point form;

-The Signature of the killer that was responsible for Polly and Annie changed with Liz, changed back somewhat with Kate, and then a psuedo version with Mary Kelly. Therefore, as Lynn pointed out many experts who share his opinion, it is most reasonable at this point in time to include only three of the five Canonicals in one spree.
-Since the Canonical Group is not based on the actual evidence but rather the opinions of some prominent contemporary officials and modern theorists, discussing other theories should NOT be held up to greater standards.
-What we can say for a fact is that there were clandestine operations run by many senior Ripper investigators at the same time as the Ripper crimes, concerning threats from various locations abroad.
-Ive said many times that the mutilation of Mary Kelly, an assumed indoor victim half the age of the street walkers, was an attempt by the murderer to group that murder with the previous ones.
-Ive never claimed that Hutchinson was coerced, I have suggested that his story was made up with the intent of assigning blame to someone specific.
-Abberlines acceptance of Hutchinsons statement, and written support of it, most probably reflects his inside knowledge of the local underground figures due to his extensive investigative work in this area of town, and his laudable eagerness to solve these murders.

Since there is an underlying, far more important investigation going on simultaneously with the Ripper investigations, involving some of the key officials in the Ripper cases and members of government, and since we have comments from a senior police official of an expressed belief of Irish self rule involvement in the crimes...the one who penned the Memorandum, and since in Mary Kellys case we have evidence both of a personal knowledge of killer and prey, and, Irish Constabularies and Members of Parliament...(one week after re-convening)...visiting the murder site at the beginning of the week when crowds and controls were in place,...it would seem we have ample framework for considering how all these various factions and activities might have overlapped.

It might also be prudent to explore possible ways in which the victims could have interacted with each other.

Nothing here is as insular as a "Canonization" would make it seem.

Just to clear a few points up.

My best regards all

[GregBaron]

Something to hang your hat on...

Hello all,

It seems that people can easily mis-read a posters intentions, and therefore miss the contextual point being made. I wish I was as elequent as AP Wolf when it comes to expressing digital thoughts,but since I have to be content with lesser skills, heres some rebuttal in point form;

-The Signature of the killer that was responsible for Polly and Annie changed with Liz, changed back somewhat with Kate, and then a psuedo version with Mary Kelly. Therefore, as Lynn pointed out many experts who share his opinion, it is most reasonable at this point in time to include only three of the five Canonicals in one spree.
-Since the Canonical Group is not based on the actual evidence but rather the opinions of some prominent contemporary officials and modern theorists, discussing other theories should NOT be held up to greater standards.
-What we can say for a fact is that there were clandestine operations run by many senior Ripper investigators at the same time as the Ripper crimes, concerning threats from various locations abroad.
-Ive said many times that the mutilation of Mary Kelly, an assumed indoor victim half the age of the street walkers, was an attempt by the murderer to group that murder with the previous ones.
-Ive never claimed that Hutchinson was coerced, I have suggested that his story was made up with the intent of assigning blame to someone specific.
-Abberlines acceptance of Hutchinsons statement, and written support of it, most probably reflects his inside knowledge of the local underground figures due to his extensive investigative work in this area of town, and his laudable eagerness to solve these murders.

Since there is an underlying, far more important investigation going on simultaneously with the Ripper investigations, involving some of the key officials in the Ripper cases and members of government, and since we have comments from a senior police official of an expressed belief of Irish self rule involvement in the crimes...the one who penned the Memorandum, and since in Mary Kellys case we have evidence both of a personal knowledge of killer and prey, and, Irish Constabularies and Members of Parliament...(one week after re-convening)...visiting the murder site at the beginning of the week when crowds and controls were in place,...it would seem we have ample framework for considering how all these various factions and activities might have overlapped.

It might also be prudent to explore possible ways in which the victims could have interacted with each other.

Nothing here is as insular as a "Canonization" would make it seem.

Just to clear a few points up.

My best regards all

That's fairly well stated Michael, for a digital thinker. While what you say is true, the skeptics are still waiting for the connection between these high minded activities and the savage murders of unfortunates in Whitechapel.

All we know is that several women were murdered and mutilated at that time. That usually means some guy is roaming around who likes murdering and mutilating women. It seems Parnellian, Prussian or Fenian involvement is as equally far fetched and complex as the Royal Conspiracy Theory.......... and we know what everyone thinks of that....

Anyway, I still think C's 1,2,4 and 5 have the same signature. On back, legs spread, throat cut, abdomen opened.........M.O. and signature are different...

A little bit of inside information Greg, Lord Randolph Churchill was tribly in chief, code name, six and seven eights. Warren was seven and a quarter

Good one Observer. I bet Abberline was 7 3/8....



Greg

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

If you were yourself quoting someone else, then I apologise for mistaking your meaning.

No problem Bridewell, easy done, something I myself have been guilty of. As Mike has recently posted some of us, myself included, are not very adept at writing the written word so to speak

Regards

Observer