I like "Giggly".......
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by richardnunweek View PostHi,
Giggly perhaps?
A good description, and rather in line with Hutchinson's account, but that is taboo on Casebook , as it was all invented
Regards Richard.
Regards, Jon S.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Kelly was perfectly capable of being "blind drunk" without staggering. Drink affects different people in different ways after all. Mary Cox reported that Kelly was barely capable of bidding her a simple goodnight, which would indicate a fairly advanced state of intoxication, and it appears she had yet to consume more booze from Blotchy's ale pale at that stage.
If "that taboo is broken" is intended to imply that there has been a recent trend towards accepting Hutchinson's account, I'm afraid that's a complete fantasy, and the reverse is far nearer the mark.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ben View PostKelly was perfectly capable of being "blind drunk" without staggering. Drink affects different people in different ways after all. Mary Cox reported that Kelly was barely capable of bidding her a simple goodnight, which would indicate a fairly advanced state of intoxication, and it appears she had yet to consume more booze from Blotchy's ale pale at that stage.
If "that taboo is broken" is intended to imply that there has been a recent trend towards accepting Hutchinson's account, I'm afraid that's a complete fantasy, and the reverse is far nearer the mark.
Cheers mate
Comment
-
If "that taboo is broken" is intended to imply that there has been a recent trend towards accepting Hutchinson's account, I'm afraid that's a complete fantasy, and the reverse is far nearer the mark.
(1) Hutchinson was telling the truth
(2) Hutchinson was lying in whole or in part.
If anyone has proof of the matter one way or the other I'd be delighted to see it. Until then, all there is - for or against the veracity of Hutchinson - is opinion.I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.
Comment
-
Hi,
I have mentioned many times over the years, that we have only one name put forward for the witness Hutchinson,by a member of his family, that being George WilliamTopping Hutchison aged 22 years, I month in Nov 1888.
For reasons of human nature , and a tendency to mistrust anything we can't understand, we have crucified this witness for many years now, labelling him as a mugger, stalker, pimp. liar, and even a killer.
I will not repeat all my case, as it irritates many, but for the life of me, fail to understand why Hutchinson's statement cannot be taken at face value, right down to the colour of the Handkerchief .
I consider this witness to have been taken very seriously by the police, and not dismissed as quickly as many accept .
Remember the payment ..I bet my bottom dollar it did exist, and he earned every penny, even though nothing materialised .
Proof .. no one can claim that, but the gossip sheet Wheeling does Toppings tale no harm..
Regards Richard.
Comment
-
Hi Richard,
Quite. Hutchinson is accorded the status of a proven liar on the back of no proof whatsoever. He may have been lying - but he may not.
We should probably return to the Mary Kelly access thing now though!I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.
Comment
-
Hi Richard,
I have mentioned many times over the years, that we have only one name put forward for the witness Hutchinson,by a member of his family, that being George WilliamTopping Hutchison aged 22 years, I month in Nov 1888.
But it would be painful to go through all that Toppy business again, as I'm sure you'll agree!
I will not repeat all my case, as it irritates many, but for the life of me, fail to understand why Hutchinson's statement cannot be taken at face value, right down to the colour of the Handkerchief.
I consider this witness to have been taken very seriously by the police, and not dismissed as quickly as many accept.
Remember the payment ..I bet my bottom dollar it did exist
but the gossip sheet Wheeling does Toppings tale no harm..
Finally, yes, it is "possible" that Hutchinson told the truth with some embellishments, but surely we're interested in separating the likely from the unlikely. It's "possible" that Packer and Violenia were both truthful too, but...
Anyway, I don't want another off-topic Hutchinson debate. I was only responding to the suggestion that there was some widespread anti-Hutchinson "taboo" that has somehow been broken.
Meanwhile, back on topic...
All the best,
Ben
Comment
-
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.
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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Access to Kelly:
Someone opened the door. The possibilities I can think of are:
(1) Kelly opened the door to someone she knew - and let him in.
(2) Kelly opened the door to someone she didn't know - and let him in.
(3) Kelly opened the door to someone she didn't know - and the killer forced his way in.
(4) Kelly left the door unlocked
(5) The killer had a key
(6) The killer knew how to open the door without a key
Bearing in mind that a man was killing and mutilating prostitutes in the area, (2) & (4) seem highly unlikely. (3) is possible but improbable because someone unknown to Kelly probably didn't know her well enough to be sure that there wasn't someone else in the room. (1) & (5) clearly indicate someone she knew. (6) indicates either someone she knew or, at the very least, someone who had visited the room before.
For me, on the balance of probabilities, Kelly knew her killer.Last edited by Bridewell; 01-14-2013, 10:07 PM.I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.
Comment
-
Hi Colin
Regarding (5) and (6), which I consider to be most plausible.
So far as we know, the key was never recovered - where did it go? Was it simply lost? Or did somebody take it? Perhaps the killer had the key.
Alternatively, perhaps the killer let himself in by reaching through the broken window.
In either case, the scenario suggests not merely a person who was known to Kelly, but one with whom she was on fairly intimate terms. He (I think we can fairly safely assume a 'he') would have had to know where she lived - it seems quite likely that he may have visited the premises before - and almost certainly he himself lived in close proximity.
Oh dear...If I'm not careful, I'll be talking myself into suspecting Barnett!
Comment
-
In either case, the scenario suggests not merely a person who was known to Kelly, but one with whom she was on fairly intimate terms. He (I think we can fairly safely assume a 'he') would have had to know where she lived - it seems quite likely that he may have visited the premises before - and almost certainly he himself lived in close proximity.
Oh dear...If I'm not careful, I'll be talking myself into suspecting Barnett!
I think it would be very,very difficult for Barnett (if he had not killed before) to have inflicted that horrendous catalogue of injuries on MJK. He would surely have had - at the very least - a previous history of violence. Therefore, for me, either Barnett had killed before or he didn't kill MJK.
and almost certainly he himself lived in close proximity.I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.
Comment
-
Hi Colin
I think it would be very,very difficult for Barnett (if he had not killed before) to have inflicted that horrendous catalogue of injuries on MJK. He would surely have had - at the very least - a previous history of violence. Therefore, for me, either Barnett had killed before or he didn't kill MJK.
or had a place of refuge nearby where he could clean himself up before re-emerging
Comment
-
If, as I have long suspected, the Kelly murder was premeditated (and not committed by Blotchy), the killer wouldn't simply have bumbled into the room trusting that Kelly was alone and asleep. He would have first listened at and then looked through the window to ensure that the coast was clear. From there it would have been a simple matter to disengage the bolt and let himself into the room. Assuming that this was what happened, it would appear likely that the killer had a history of burglary and similar such offences.
Comment
Comment