A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Agreed about seeing the knife. My point was, if "MJK" brought someone in, try to imagine the unfolding scene through their eyes. She is disrobing, folding her clothes, etc. Ascribe a time for that. Now look through her eyes. This chap is still in his coat he's standing almost stock still for X time.

Hi Lynn.

You don't believe he played along until the right moment when her attention turned away from him?
Why would you think he remained dressed, not even removing his coat?

Surely, if he was anticipating messy mutilations he would at the very least remove his coat, maybe even more. Must avoid messing up the threads....


Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

Hutchinson was discredited, Maxwell was warned about her testimony before she gave it at the Inquest. These are the only 2 witnesses who claim to see Mary Kelly, not someone with someone else, but Mary Kelly, alive after 8am.

Seems to me that looking to these 2 for the answers isnt the best use of ones time. Assuming one is looking for truth, rather than a particular killer.

Sorry Richard and others who support these folks,....Im merely pointing out that historically they were believed to have no value as witness sightings.

All the best

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.

[Bridewell]

Further to my last, I recall reading a Father Brown story where various witnesses in the street were asked if anyone had visited a particular address at which a crime had taken place. To a man, they said that no-one had done so. In fact (well fiction, but you take my meaning) the postman had visited but, because it was a regular and expected occurrence, his presence had not been noticed.

[Bridewell]

E) Finally, do you think It likely the murderer could escape, say at 10 or 10:30 a.m., without being witnessed or more importantly, without blood on body or clothing?

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

[Michael W Richards]

Hutchinson was discredited, Maxwell was warned about her testimony before she gave it at the Inquest. These are the only 2 witnesses who claim to see Mary Kelly, not someone with someone else, but Mary Kelly, alive after 8am.

Seems to me that looking to these 2 for the answers isnt the best use of ones time. Assuming one is looking for truth, rather than a particular killer.

Sorry Richard and others who support these folks,....Im merely pointing out that historically they were believed to have no value as witness sightings.

All the best

[Bridewell]

A)What was the timeframe from Maxwell’s sighting to the discovery of the body. I don’t recall exactly but I believe the “work” that went on in that room would take an hour or two.

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

[Michael W Richards]

Indeed, Sally. Many prostitutes would draw the line at an invasion into their "sanctuary". The nature of their occupation often leads to the rather iffy assumption that anyone plying such a trade cannot be fastidious about such things.

Even the papers noted the lack of inquest evidence suggesting that Kelly ventured outdoors again.

Agreed about Blotchy too.

There is some real wisdom in the above, Ive read many suppositions about Mary and her room without anyone ever considering the "sanctuary" element.

Cheers Ben, Sally

[GregBaron]

Escape artist...

Hello Greg,
OK..let me start .
With regard to the time frame..it was approx two hours, I do not agree with the length of time it took the killer, I would suggest less then one hour.
The Lord mayors show would have attracted, but the majority of locals were too busy going about their daily chores, to alter their comings and goings.
We have no reports of fire billowing out of the window, but lets not forget a man's pilot coat acted as a curtain.
As for the ''do not disturb '' suggestion.
We can only speculate on Mary Kelly possibly having a piece of string as a sign to friends if she was in, or not, according to a report, ''the string was missing'' apparently they could tell if she was in , and had no need to knock?
As for the killer escaping around 10-1030..
Someone on the move, and not drawing attention , could have mingled with the crowds, and escaped , also he could have lived or worked local.
The report of a young man rushing through Mitre square at 1010 that morning with blood on him, carrying a parcel in an excited state , is worthy of comment, as it would fit in with my hour forecast, also its location being that of Eddowes.
Regards Richard.

Thanks Richard,

I forgot that (I believe) the room had a working chimney so I guess the smoke could escape that way...

It's certainly an interesting idea. I'd like to read the report of the absconder through Mitre Square. Seems everyone always has a parcel, always a mysterious parcel...?


Greg

[richardnunweek]

Hello Greg,
OK..let me start .
With regard to the time frame..it was approx two hours, I do not agree with the length of time it took the killer, I would suggest less then one hour.
The Lord mayors show would have attracted, but the majority of locals were too busy going about their daily chores, to alter their comings and goings.
We have no reports of fire billowing out of the window, but lets not forget a man's pilot coat acted as a curtain.
As for the ''do not disturb '' suggestion.
We can only speculate on Mary Kelly possibly having a piece of string as a sign to friends if she was in, or not, according to a report, ''the string was missing'' apparently they could tell if she was in , and had no need to knock?
As for the killer escaping around 10-1030..
Someone on the move, and not drawing attention , could have mingled with the crowds, and escaped , also he could have lived or worked local.
The report of a young man rushing through Mitre square at 1010 that morning with blood on him, carrying a parcel in an excited state , is worthy of comment, as it would fit in with my hour forecast, also its location being that of Eddowes.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Its a far more efficient way of earnng - and also far less personal.

Indeed, Sally. Many prostitutes would draw the line at an invasion into their "sanctuary". The nature of their occupation often leads to the rather iffy assumption that anyone plying such a trade cannot be fastidious about such things.

Even the papers noted the lack of inquest evidence suggesting that Kelly ventured outdoors again.

Agreed about Blotchy too.

[Sally]

Hello Ben

Interestingly, the former is precisely how Mary Cox - who was on the lookout for clients that night - went about things. She didn't take clients home and serenade them drunkenly for prolonged periods. She went out several times and evidently "serviced" her clients where she found them. Had Kelly been similarly motivated by panic over rent arrears, she'd probably have done the same thing.

Well, you would, wouldn't you? Its a far more efficient way of earnng - and also far less personal.

I start to wonder if Blotchy was in fact strictly a client, or more of a friend with benefits - which might have included the pecuniary, of course.

[GregBaron]

Murder by Daylight...

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.

I like your thinking outside the hovel Richardnunweek….always a commendable exercise.

Your hypothesis however, raises some questions. Let me know what you (and others) think about the following?

A) What was the timeframe from Maxwell’s sighting to the discovery of the body. I don’t recall exactly but I believe the “work” that went on in that room would take an hour or two.
B) Would the Lord Mayor’s Show likely create less crowded conditions in Miller’s Court and Dorset Street than on a normal day?
C) Would smoke billowing from the broken window, say at 9:30 a.m., raise a ruckus or perhaps knocking from the neighbors?
D) Do you think the working girls had an equivalent of a Do Not Disturb sign they used when entertaining customers?
E) Finally, do you think It likely the murderer could escape, say at 10 or 10:30 a.m., without being witnessed or more importantly, without blood on body or clothing?

I’m curious about the logistics of a daytime crime……….


Greg

[Ben]

Yep, very well said, Sally.

Suffice to say I agree entirely with Sally's and Garry's position on this, which, incidentally, is the explanation that makes most sense of the inquest evidence, i.e. the information that was taken seriously by the police.

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.

Absolutely.

Interestingly, the former is precisely how Mary Cox - who was on the lookout for clients that night - went about things. She didn't take clients home and serenade them drunkenly for prolonged periods. She went out several times and evidently "serviced" her clients where she found them. Had Kelly been similarly motivated by panic over rent arrears, she'd probably have done the same thing. But the evidence strongly suggests she wasn't.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Hi Jon

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.

Well indeed, can't argue with you there. Either is possible. Perhaps what we're debating is which is more plausible, given the information that we have.

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.

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. 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.

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.

I disagree with you here. It is quite reasonable to think that she did not return to the streets, in my view, given what we know. 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. As for Sarah Lewis, what she said was:

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

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).

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.

Very much intoxicated. Blind drunk, in other words. And in the company of a man carrying yet more alcohol. That, fundamentally, is why I think it is plausible that Kelly did not venture out again that night.

Nothing complex, nor invented, in that.

[Sally]

Hi Sally
well said. i totally agree.

Thanks Abby