A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Abby Normal]

....and one wonders how many of that type were in Kelly's small social circle

Apparently one

[Wickerman]

What I intended to address in this thread was how this killer gained access to Mary Kelly, which really boils down to either with her consent, or without it.

If you use the acceptable evidence, that is evidence that is provided at the Inquest and with the approval of the coroner, we have Marys arrival with company, no seen departure of either...and a room dark and quiet by 1:30am, we have a cry out at approx 3:45 sounding like it came from the courtyard heard by 2 witnesses in different locations, we have the room evidence... which shows us a partially clad Mary being attacked while in bed on the far right hand side, likely lying on her right side, facing the partition wall. We have 2 locked windows and a locked door. We have boots by the fireplace, clothes on the chair nearby.

The fact Kelly was dressed in a chemise on what we believe to be a cool night, in a room with two broken windows, strongly suggests to me she was not alone. Kelly was dressed to entertain.
Mrs Prater, like Cox, like Lewis & Kennedy, apparently all slept with their day clothes on, very possibly the normal state of dress for all those near destitute and not able to waste money on keeping a fire going all night.
When you're alone you make do, but if you are entertaining you make an effort, you make exceptions.

The state of her clothes, apparently orderly, and her dress (chemise) indicate to me she had a man with her, a client, in her last moments.
If she had been found fully clothed, like Prater, Cox, etc. then it 'could' be argued an intruder broke in, but not in the sate she was actually found.

Her killer was a client, he was invited in.

Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

That makes sense. But what about the extreme damage inflicted on the body? Do you envision any background in that?

What I see, Curious, is an offender whose sexual impulses were so perverted that he could attain gratification only by acts of extreme violence against women.

It's difficult for me to think that was done by an ordinary person without any background in ?? I don't know, murder or butchery, or something similar.

Murder certainly, Curious. But butchery? The following extract of my book might be worth thinking about:-

‘But it is the latter-day serialist who places the Ripper’s exploits in their truest light, medically untrained killers like Ed Gein who beheaded victims as well as removing internal organs and large areas of skin. Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish, Dennis Nilsen, Andrei Chikatilo, Fritz Haarman, Karl Denke and Joachim Kroll each fall into a similar category, representing an arbitrary sample of non-medico murderers who have exhibited tremendous dexterity in dismemberment and organ removal. In addition to performing these same ritualistic acts, Ed Kemper learned from experience that, by slicing through a victim’s Achilles tendons, he could stave off crural rigor mortis – a process which, if left unchecked, severely inhibits necrophilic activity. And when in 1959 Birmingham police were alerted to the murder of Stephanie Baird, they became convinced that the man responsible had undergone medical training, a view endorsed by Dr Francis Camps after he had examined the body. Apart from being decapitated, Stephanie had been mutilated in a manner that stirred echoes of Mary Kelly. This prompted investigators to interview four thousand butchers as well as hundreds of medical students. These inquiries led nowhere. Then, quite by chance, the murderer was apprehended. He turned out to be Patrick Byrne, a twenty-eight year old Dubliner of below average intelligence who earned his living as a building site labourer.’

In other words ordinary men without training in butchery or surgical procedures are perfectly capable of inflicting the most appalling of injuries on their victims as part of the fantasy which motivates and perpetuates their crimes.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would suggest that it is an absolute certainty that Kelly's was ''invited in'', the most obvious killer being Mr A,however if Mrs Praters inquest interpretation of a nightmare is accurate, also taking the considerable amount of time that passed after Hutchinson's bogey man entered the room and the cry into consideration , we can have doubts.
The last man seen with the victim is always suspect number one, and if Maxwell was right. then the middle aged man dressed like a porter, seen talking to Mary has to be the most likely killer.
If Kelly returned to her room, to dress down to receive such a person, it would explain the state of undress , the boots laying by the fireplace, and as it was daylight, the rolled up bedding, which would have not been in that position had it been night-time.
The burnt out kettle may have been the result of boiling water, and Mary not being in the position to remove .
I would suggest that MJK made a dreadful mistake in trusting that she would be safe from the killer in daylight, and let her guard down.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

The fact Kelly was dressed in a chemise on what we believe to be a cool night, in a room with two broken windows, strongly suggests to me she was not alone. Kelly was dressed to entertain.
Mrs Prater, like Cox, like Lewis & Kennedy, apparently all slept with their day clothes on, very possibly the normal state of dress for all those near destitute and not able to waste money on keeping a fire going all night.
When you're alone you make do, but if you are entertaining you make an effort, you make exceptions.

The state of her clothes, apparently orderly, and her dress (chemise) indicate to me she had a man with her, a client, in her last moments.
If she had been found fully clothed, like Prater, Cox, etc. then it 'could' be argued an intruder broke in, but not in the sate she was actually found.

Her killer was a client, he was invited in.

Regards, Jon S.

Sound reasoning Jon. Except...

Alternatively, Kelly 'entertained' Blotchy - I agree with the points that you make regarding her state of dress - and after he left, simply went to sleep in a drunken stupor.

How likely is it that she'd have got up again, got dressed, and then gone to bed?

For my money, either Blotchy was her killer, she let somebody in after he'd gone, or somebody let themselves in whilst she slept. The defensive wounds on her arms (assuming that they are in fact such) rather suggests the latter.

[lynn cates]

knife

Hello Jon.

"Her killer was a client, he was invited in."

Very well. But consider this. He must have been fully clothed and concealing a knife. Are we to imagine that he was merely standing there whilst she disrobed, folded her clothing, etc. without making any movements towards her nor revealing his knife?

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

What I see, Curious, is an offender whose sexual impulses were so perverted that he could attain gratification only by acts of extreme violence against women.


Murder certainly, Curious. But butchery? The following extract of my book might be worth thinking about:-

‘But it is the latter-day serialist who places the Ripper’s exploits in their truest light, medically untrained killers like Ed Gein who beheaded victims as well as removing internal organs and large areas of skin. Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish, Dennis Nilsen, Andrei Chikatilo, Fritz Haarman, Karl Denke and Joachim Kroll each fall into a similar category, representing an arbitrary sample of non-medico murderers who have exhibited tremendous dexterity in dismemberment and organ removal. In addition to performing these same ritualistic acts, Ed Kemper learned from experience that, by slicing through a victim’s Achilles tendons, he could stave off crural rigor mortis – a process which, if left unchecked, severely inhibits necrophilic activity. And when in 1959 Birmingham police were alerted to the murder of Stephanie Baird, they became convinced that the man responsible had undergone medical training, a view endorsed by Dr Francis Camps after he had examined the body. Apart from being decapitated, Stephanie had been mutilated in a manner that stirred echoes of Mary Kelly. This prompted investigators to interview four thousand butchers as well as hundreds of medical students. These inquiries led nowhere. Then, quite by chance, the murderer was apprehended. He turned out to be Patrick Byrne, a twenty-eight year old Dubliner of below average intelligence who earned his living as a building site labourer.’

In other words ordinary men without training in butchery or surgical procedures are perfectly capable of inflicting the most appalling of injuries on their victims as part of the fantasy which motivates and perpetuates their crimes.

very enlightening. Thank you.

[lynn cates]

violet offender

Hello Sally.

"Kelly 'entertained' Blotchy"

You mean by singing?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hello Sally.

"Kelly 'entertained' Blotchy"

You mean by singing?

Cheers.
LC

Well perhaps, Lynn.

Wasn't she supposed to have a relative on the stage?

[richardnunweek]

Hello Lynn,
If Mary was killed by the Ripper, it goes against the grain to suggest, that he kept his patience long enough for a Victorian woman to disrobe.
Two possibilities arise.
a] she was attacked by someone sneaking into her room during the night
b] she was attacked by someone she invited in daylight hours, and had time to disrobe before he entered the room.
It surely is not likely that Mr A, or indeed Blotchy would have been the Ripper, if so their blood lust showed remarkable control.
I prefer Scenario B
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

relativity

Hello Sally.

Relatively speaking, yes. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Blotchy and A-Man

Hello Richard. Thanks.

"If Mary was killed by the Ripper, it goes against the grain to suggest, that he kept his patience long enough for a Victorian woman to disrobe."

Quite. To say nothing of a 75 minute serenade.

"It surely is not likely that Mr A, or indeed Blotchy would have been the Ripper."

Agreed. And now that Simon has almost conclusively shown Millen out of town at the time, these uncorroborated sightings may be mere descriptions. They sound almost like they have been pulled from the files.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Millen

Agreed. And now that Simon has almost conclusively shown Millen out of town at the time, these uncorroborated sightings may be mere descriptions.

Forgive my ignorance, Lynn, but who's Millen?

[lynn cates]

Generally speaking

Hello Colin. Thanks.

General Frank Millen was an agent of Sir Ed. He may have been involved in HM Government's 1887 dynamite plot. His description coincides with A-man's description--as does "Red" Jim McDermott (another of Sir Ed's agents) with Blotchy.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Sound reasoning Jon. Except...

Alternatively, Kelly 'entertained' Blotchy - I agree with the points that you make regarding her state of dress - and after he left, simply went to sleep in a drunken stupor.

Hi Sally.
Thats an assumption though. She may have gone back to sleep the way she was, but equally she may have gone out again, both are equally possible.

How likely is it that she'd have got up again, got dressed, and then gone to bed?

I would say, got up again, got dressed, went out, and then returned with another client, who killed her.
That, is likely, given her state of arrears and, given the fact Cox also found it necessary to go out repeatedly. We remember Kelly's room was both dark and quiet at around 1:20 am, according to Mrs Prater. No singing, no talking, no sound of movement, so at this time she was either sound asleep, had returned to the streets, or was already dead.

For my money, either Blotchy was her killer, she let somebody in after he'd gone, or somebody let themselves in whilst she slept. The defensive wounds on her arms (assuming that they are in fact such) rather suggests the latter.

When we choose to ignore the quite reasonable alternative that she needed to get more money, so returned to the streets, we are also required to ignore the two witnesses who said they saw her out after 1:30 am, - Hutch & Kennedy, and also include Lewis who saw a man watching a couple pass up the court.

The so-called simple solution requires the support of a series of complex, mostly invented, proposals aimed at dismissing or discrediting the words of three independent witnesses, all of which is necessary to support this assumed to be, 'simple solution'.

There is no balance to that argument, the negatives (what we must ignore) far outweigh the positives (a simple intruder theory).

Regards, Jon S.