A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[lynn cates]

having a lie down

Hello Velma. Thanks.

Yes, unsatisfying. But having a lie down IF sick seems right and proper.

Of course, her nausea may have left her by then.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"You don't believe he played along until the right moment when her attention turned away from him?"

Can you expand here? What sort of behaviour is taking place here?

"Why would you think he remained dressed, not even removing his coat?"

Well, could be the exposed knife would look threatening.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Ok, hypothetically, as Mary is undressed, in her chemise, when murdered, the perpetrator is likely undressed to a similar extent, or at least in his long-johns.
His "tools" (garotte, knives) were still in his bag, on the side table.



Like I said, hypothetically.
Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

Hello Velma. Thanks.

What if they were parting and she felt like lying down?

Were it not for the defensive wounds, one might think she was overcome and undressed by her assailant.

Cheers.
LC

What if they were parting and she felt like lying down?

That doesn't feel right to me . . .

Combine the two:
She was undressed. They were parting. that would have made it more than a chat . . .

He overcame her, then no, that doesn't work does it? He wouldn't place her in the back corner of the bed.

Can't picture this . . .

[lynn cates]

parting

Hello Velma. Thanks.

What if they were parting and she felt like lying down?

Were it not for the defensive wounds, one might think she was overcome and undressed by her assailant.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Perhaps not. But what if he were an acquaintance who merely wanted "a chat"?

Cheers.
LC

Hi, Lynn,
That's possible, but doesn't explain her being in just her chemise and in the back corner of the bed . . . .

How would that work?

Thanks,

Velma

[lynn cates]

Was ist?

Hello Colin. Thanks.

I share your hesitation.

OK, what would "MJK" think she was looking at?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Hello Colin. Thanks.

I'm game. What ELSE might it look like?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

A larger version of this perhaps. Appearance of a short length of wood. Just an idea - don't know if this kind of thing was available in London in 1888

http://www.nihonzashi.com/DIY/knife_saya.jpg

[GregBaron]

Points well taken...

So am I, but he might have had a cooper's draw knife:
[ATTACH]15033[/ATTACH]
A friend who has used them assures me they will slice through oak like butter.

I can see that being used on the thighs or arms but not the belly, face or throat. The pulldown method doesn't allow for it....Also, the more knives and equipment he has the more likely he's carrying the mysterious parcel.....interesting tool indeed......

'Methodical' and 'quick' are not mutually exclusive are they?

They aren't but tend to be work in opposition...

Surely a methodical killer, such as you postulate, would strip to his underclothes (perfectly natural if he was posing as a customer) place his outer clothing carefully out of the way, do what he did, replace his outer clothing, don gloves and walk out. He didn't need to clean up if he was in a position to cover up - the latter far more likely than the former I would have thought.

This is a good point and would add organization to our man's type. I can't think of any reason to dispute this. This sort of thinking tends to downplay the wild eyed schizophrenic postulate...


Greg

[lynn cates]

looks

Hello Colin. Thanks.

I'm game. What ELSE might it look like?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Well, could be the exposed knife would look threatening.

Only if it looked like a knife.

[lynn cates]

behaviour

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"You don't believe he played along until the right moment when her attention turned away from him?"

Can you expand here? What sort of behaviour is taking place here?

"Why would you think he remained dressed, not even removing his coat?"

Well, could be the exposed knife would look threatening.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

What if . . . ?

Hello Abby.

"1.There does not seem enough time from the time Maxwell saw Mary and the discovery of her body for Mary and the man outside the pub to go back to Mary's room, the murder to take place and for all the damge to be done to her body."

How much time do you think was needed for the mutilations, etc?

"Plus there is the problem with a large and long fire and burnt clothes, which would seem to indicate a night time and prolonged time frame."

Could the fire be from a previous night?

"2. Maxwell says Mary was so hung over she had tried to have another drink and had vomited. Would someone that sick really be soliciting in that condition and bringing a man back to her place for sex?"

Perhaps not. But what if he were an acquaintance who merely wanted "a chat"?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

I'm pretty sure he didn't have a chainsaw or a woodchipper though.

So am I, but he might have had a cooper's draw knife:

A friend who has used them assures me they will slice through oak like butter.

Whatever it was, the process was manual and it appears to me, methodical. Not frenzied. Method takes time.

'Methodical' and 'quick' are not mutually exclusive are they?

..I think we should also consider how much time it may have taken to clean himself up...........

Surely a methodical killer, such as you postulate, would strip to his underclothes (perfectly natural if he was posing as a customer) place his outer clothing carefully out of the way, do what he did, replace his outer clothing, don gloves and walk out. He didn't need to clean up if he was in a position to cover up - the latter far more likely than the former I would have thought.

[GregBaron]

Method to his madness...

Hi Michael
Pretty much agree.
My problem with maxwell and the AM sighting is:

1.There does not seem enough time from the time Maxwell saw mary and the discovery of her body for Mary and the man outside the pub to go back to mary's room, the murder to take place and for all the damge to be done to her body. Plus there is the problem with a large and long fire and burnt clothes, which would seem to indicate a night time and prolonged time frame.

2. Maxwell says mary was so hung over she had tried to have another drink and had vomited. Would someone that sick really be soliciting in that condition and bringing a man back to her place for sex?

3. She really did not seem to know Mary Kelly that well nor did she ID the body.

4. There seems to be some problem with her sighting even at the inquest and later walter dew wrote that she may have been off on the day.

My money would be that or more likely she had seen a different Mary.

Well said Abby...

Wouldn't that depend on how the injuries were inflicted?

I suppose so Bridewell. I'm pretty sure he didn't have a chainsaw or a woodchipper though. Whatever it was, the process was manual and it appears to me, methodical. Not frenzied. Method takes time...I think we should also consider how much time it may have taken to clean himself up...........

Without being witnessed? Possibly not. Without being noticed? I think there's every chance if he did nothing to draw attention to himself.

Agreed here Bridewell. But again, I think he would have to be a pretty good cleaner-upper to avoid notice. That or he exited in his butcher uniform...


Greg

[Wickerman]

Hi Sally.

Right. Well, I'm not sure that I'd agree there. Firstly, her arrears - we have no idea who Blotchy was, or how much money he gave her; only that he was never identified and her room contained no money after her death.

Well, aren't we both assuming he was a client?, pretty much what Cox will have assumed - I think we can rule out 'rent-collector'.

The fact no money was found is consistent with either, Kelly going out and spending it after Blotchy left or, a future client took what he could find.
If money was hidden, by example, under the floorboards?, it could be found by anyone later, that would never reach the press. So, we cannot say there was no money, just that none was found.

Secondly, had she been intending to go out again, as Cox did that night, why the lengthy singing? If Blotchy was merely a client, and Kelly intending to work the streets after his departure, why wasn't she out sooner? In fact, now that I think of it, if Blotchy was merely a random client, why take him to her room at all? If making money was Kelly's prime objective that night, why not stay out and turn a few tricks - far more efficient in the time-cost analysis than taking one punter home and entertaining him for hours.

That's reaching too far, your solution suggests you know what the price was for a 'quicky' on the streets, as opposed to an hour or so in her bed.

Very likely the latter is a more efficient use of time on cold wet nights, especially when clients are sparse as must have been the case that night.
Alternately, we have no indication Mary ever entertained out on the streets, you're assuming she did, yet on what evidence?

If Kelly is adopting the role of an ex-West end 'Lady of the Night', then she may well see herself as a cut above the typical rough East End street walker (how did the Star describe Cox, "a miserable specimen of East End womanhood"?).

As for the witnesses, it doesn't really bear repeating that Hutchinson and Kennedy have both been viewed as problematic witnesses. Ok, so perhaps we shouldn't altogether discount their accounts - and I don't - but on balance I have to say that I find them lacking.

There are no perfect witnesses in this case, Lawende caused problems, Mrs Long caused problems, Schwartz also.
Witnesses are never perfect, so that is in itself a false premiss.

As for Sarah Lewis, what she said was:

another young man with a woman passed along (inquest testimony, my emphasis).

Oh I'm more than familiar with everything Sarah Lewis said.
Let me ask you this, where does it tell us where (precisely) this couple "passed along"?
There is only one source for this and no source identifies it as "Dorset St.".

I'm not aiming to 'discredit' anything Jon. I don't believe the 'simple' solution, as you call it, requires anything of the sort. I think all it requires is to accept the testimony of Cox, who saw Kelly -

..at a quarter to twelve, very much intoxicated.

Which sounds very much like sour grapes to me.

Very much intoxicated. Blind drunk, in other words.

She wasn't walking as if "blind drunk" was she? if you put faith in Cox's story. Cox was not able to tell she was drunk from the way she walked. So that is certainly not "blind drunk" by any standards.

The only indication Kelly had been drinking was from her speech, Cox said so.

So seeing as yet another "modern urban myth" is exposed, we can see Kelly was quite able to continue to solicit an hour or more later on the streets.

These women could take alcohol like it was milk. Alcohol and prostitution go hand in hand, they were rough and tough and drank from sunrise till sunset if the custom would allow it.

Regards, Jon S.