How did he do it?

[Phil H]

I'm not aware of any generally accepted presumption that the prostitutes led the killer to the murder locations, but it's possible.

I agree that many students of these cases do, at least implicitly assume that the women led "Jack" to the murder scene, at least in the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

All were relatively secluded, darkish spots, and all had a gate or wooden fence with some "give" against which the woman could lean.

... It is indeed a "fair guess" that Kelly brought home her killer who was then posing as a client, but to my mind, it is not the most likely explanation.

I disagree - this is entirely subjective (but then most consideration of MJK's death has to be) - for two reasons:

a) the neatly folded clothes. I doubt that MJK would strip off for a client - even in her own room. Too time-consuming, unnecessary and too much effort if she intended to go out again that night. Recall, Victorian women's clothes were not easy to remove and put on again;

b) secondly, I don't think MJK would have fallen asleep in the presence of someone she did not know - and all the evidence I have seen suggests that is what she did.

Phil

[Wickerman]

..I'm not aware of any generally accepted presumption that the prostitutes led the killer to the murder locations,...

That has been what might be called a 'point of agreement' among principal authors over the years.

Rather than credit the killer with knowing all the individual police beats it was deemed 'most likely' that the prostitute would be the one to be most familiar with the police patrols on her 'beat'. So the conclusion has been that the most likely solution was that the pros' took their clients to a place & time where they could expect the most beneficial 'window of time' without interruption.

But as with everything else in this case, these are just educated guesses. Suffice to say the possibility has been discussed at length over the years, not that it applies in the case of Kelly's murder.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi RO,

There is no indication that "protection from the ripper" was uppermost in Kelly's mind on the night of her death, or else she would hardly have taken men back to her apartment while in a heavily intoxicated condition. Moreover, it was observed by Chief Inspector Moore that East Enders were not generally in the habit of locking their doors. All in all, a pretty compelling case for Kelly absent-mindedly keeping the door "on the latch" that night.

[Raoul's Obsession]

for what it's worth (and I'm by no means the first person to say this)...

If Mary Kelly leaves her apartment, there is very little reason to lock it, after all it would simply mean that you would then have to go through the fiddly process of sticking your arm through broken glass to unlock it again on your return. But this doesn't mean she wouldn't lock it immediately upon her return. My guess is that it is her person that she wants to protect from the ripper, not her possessions, which, lets face it, were pretty much nonexistent. Just because she wasn't observed unlocking the door (via the window) upon her return doesn't mean that she habitually kept the door unlocked when she went to sleep. If other people in the same building were scared enough to put furniture in front of their door, it's a fair bet Mary had the same fear.

[Wickerman]

We don't know that McCarthy wasn't aware that the door could be opened like this ;

Oh yes we do!

We only know that the police, after waiting for bloodhounds that never arrived, broke the door down -but we don't know why.

No they didn't!

Inquest statement of Dr George Baxter Philips;
".....I remained until about 1.30p.m., when the door was broken open by McCarthy, under the direction of Superintendent Arnold."

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

The broken window was out of sight of the road and Kelly could only have been observed opening the door via the broken window by someone actually with her.

Or following her closely from behind, as Mary Cox had been at 11:45pm, Lechmere.

I'm not aware of any generally accepted presumption that the prostitutes led the killer to the murder locations, but it's possible. It is indeed a "fair guess" that Kelly brought home her killer who was then posing as a client, but to my mind, it is not the most likely explanation.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Given that the other four canonical victims, along with Tabram, and possibly McKenzie and Coles were killed at a site where they had (it is presumed) taken their last client, it is a fair guess that the same happened with Kelly and she took her killer back to Miller’s Court with her.

The broken window was out of sight of the road and Kelly could only have been observed opening the door via the broken window by someone actually with her.

[Sally]

Sally

Phil?

On Maxwell, short of additional evidence emerging that corroborates or undermines her evidence, I don't think we can be sure, but neither do I feel that is a reason for "rationalising" her out of the frame.

Quite right. I wasn't trying to rationalise her out of the frame, really.

She stuck to her guns under considerable pressure, soIi think we are stuck with the two possible scenarios. Dismiss her - and it could be she was right and other evidence (TOD?) was mistaken - and we would then misinterpret any new evidence that might arise or be recognised.

Ok, well, as far as I see it Phil, Mrs Maxwell was quite genuine - she was honestly convinced that she had seen Kelly. So, either she had not seen Kelly, but thought she had; or she had actually seen Kelly. If the latter, then either a) Kelly was killed subsequent to that encounter, or b) the dead woman in the bed was not Kelly. I've contemplated all those scenarios at some point, and I still haven't made my mind up.

So I just keep both scenarios in play, as I do with the killer of Stride (JtR or Kidney?) or the inclusion of victims like Tabram or Mckenzie. makes life messy and complicated by hey ho!!

Ah, but that's realism for you Phil. Life's like that.

On your last point:

a) no one noticed the stench between say 8.00am and the finding of the body nearer 11.00, did they?

Well, we don't know really, do we? It isn't reported. Perhaps the normal stench of Millers Court was such that nobody would have noticed. A pleasant thought.

b) Lizzie Prater is often assumed to have heard Kelly's last words, but confessed to hearing no other noises (precisely what do you have in mind - splintering bone? rending flesh? chuckles of sadistic pleasure ?;

Hmm. Well, the cry of 'Oh Murder' is controversial in itself, isn't it? And yes, all of the above, especially the last one

c) so far as heat is concerned that assumes the fire was stoked up during the killing - but no one said they saw a glimmer through the poorly covered windows of No 13;

If it happened at night there may have been nobody there to see it, of course. As you say, the fire was not observed.

Perhaps taken individually, these factors are insufficient to substantially weigh against a daytime murder, but I still think that together, they do. You dissect my argument (such as it is) neatly, but in fact what you would have in reality would be an event which incorporated all those elements, and which, I think, would have been highly noticeable were there people around to witness it.

And then there's the risk factor. Daytime carnage would have carried an enormous degree of risk - too much, I contend, for this killer, who evidently didn't fancy being caught.

[Merry_Olde_Mary]

Could he have also observed Kelly open her own door that way, as wasn't her key reported missing? (Maybe I'm mixing this up with the window being reportedly broken.)

Did they have the kind of doors that could lock automatically behind you back then? If so, what I would have done (if I were a drunk with a missing key) would be to let the door automatically lock behind me when I went out pub crawling, then reach in to unlock it upon my returns.

Maybe the Ripper saw her do this...or had been to her room before to buy sex, and noticed the window.

All theoretical....I have no devotion to any theories, as I really only know the barest outlines of the different events.

EDIT: oops, just read more of the previous thread : ( Guess I should do that FIRST, if I don't want to annoy by repeating others' observations!

[Phil H]

Sally,

On Maxwell, short of additional evidence emerging that corroborates or undermines her evidence, I don't think we can be sure, but neither do I feel that is a reason for "rationalising" her out of the frame.

She stuck to her guns under considerable pressure, soIi think we are stuck with the two possible scenarios. Dismiss her - and it could be she was right and other evidence (TOD?) was mistaken - and we would then misinterpret any new evidence that might arise or be recognised.

So I just keep both scenarios in play, as I do with the killer of Stride (JtR or Kidney?) or the inclusion of victims like Tabram or Mckenzie. makes life messy and complicated by hey ho!!

On your last point:

I do say that once the slaughtering party commenced, such activity would have attracted particular attention, whoever it was....The noise, the heat, smoke and stench should have been enough to draw attention, I should have thought.

You may well be right, but consider:

a) no one noticed the stench between say 8.00am and the finding of the body nearer 11.00, did they?

b) Lizzie Prater is often assumed to have heard Kelly's last words, but confessed to hearing no other noises (precisely what do you have in mind - splintering bone? rending flesh? chuckles of sadistic pleasure ?;

c) so far as heat is concerned that assumes the fire was stoked up during the killing - but no one said they saw a glimmer through the poorly covered windows of No 13;

d) it could be argued that a fire, and its "glow" would be less visible after dawn rather than in the dark;

e) the fire - whenever it took place, earlier when kelly was alive, or later during the killing, it was not observed.

Just some thoughts.

Likewise a pleasure as always,

Phil

[Sally]

Sally,

Phil!

You are probably right.

Usually, I find (JOKE!)

But I don't think we can just write off the later time of death. As far as I know, no one has yet shown conclusively that Mrs Maxwell was mistaken, and until then, we cannot simply disregard her evidence can we? It has to leave open a sliver of doubt, at least.

But Phil, how does one show conclusively that Mrs Maxwell was mistaken? Surely that is entirely impossible? Since this is so, I feel we have to take other factors into account when assessing her account, which I try to do.

On one point, I wonder whether a Barnett (either) or a Fleming would have been noticed in daylight? Was Bowyer?

Phil

Well, I don't say that a person entering Kelly's room in the morning would have necessarily attracted particular attention, whoever they were. I do say that once the slaughtering party commenced, such activity would have attracted particular attention, whoever it was.

The noise, the heat, smoke and stench should have been enough to draw attention, I should have thought. In the early hours, when most people were in their beds, not so much.

A pleasure as always, Phil

[Phil H]

Sally,

You are probably right.

But I don't think we can just write off the later time of death. As far as I know, no one has yet shown conclusively that Mrs Maxwell was mistaken, and until then, we cannot simply disregard her evidence can we? It has to leave open a sliver of doubt, at least.

As you know, I try to have an open mind and keep several scenarios in play at any given time.

I may be quite wrong, and I am happy to countenance an "Oh, Murder!" timing as well.

On one point, I wonder whether a Barnett (either) or a Fleming would have been noticed in daylight? Was Bowyer?

Phil

[Sally]

I'm not sure that a killer who let himself in is necessarily a better premise than another; but I do think its worthy of consideration. I don't think it likely that Kelly was killed the next day, because then I think somebody would have noticed what was happening.

Lord Mayor's Show notwithstanding, there were evidently people about their daily business that day and I think if Kelly's killer had been busy strewing body bits about the room, burning clothing, roasting hearts etc he'd had been in for a sudden drop and a sharp stop.

[Phil H]

I think we'll just have to disagree, Ben.

I think we're too far apart even to try to reconcile our views.

Phil

[Ben]

“I think someone hanging about, checking the door, seeing if anyone else was in etc - not knowing if someone might come back - is far too complex”

Not really, Phil, no.

It would be just the sort of pre-crime surveillance that many serial killers are known to have adopted, and it is to the end of pulling off an efficient crime that these efforts are usually directed. It also removes the problem of having to "inveigle" the victim under a false guise.

“All supposition, built on supposition”

No.

It’s a logical deduction based on the evidence. It is not “supposition” to observe that Mary Cox mentioned nothing about Kelly or the Blotchy man reaching through a broken window pane. The inference from her evidence is that the door was certainly unlocked when Kelly returned at 11:45pm, and there is no evidence that she locked it at any point thereafter. In light of her intoxicated condition, it seems likely that she didn’t.

“Which assumes a familiarity with the lock”

Not “the” lock. Just spring locks in general, which were very common. “On the latch” means the lock has been disengaged, enabling the door to open and close without the turning of any lock or handle. A flick of a switch would engage the lock, preventing anyone on the outside from gaining entry without a key. I would suggest that the killer did precisely that as soon as he entered the room.

All the best,
Ben