How did he do it?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

It seems very unlikely, to me at least, that the killer should have spent any considerable time in the room before the crime. When Mary Cox passed by Kelly's room at 3.00am, the light was out and there was no noise, which suggests very strongly that she did not have company at that time - Blotchy having presumably departed - unless it is to be envisaged that she was engaging in silent intercourse at that time. Similarly, Sarah Lewis made no reference to any noise emanating from Kelly's room as she passed it shortly after 2.00am. Tellingly, we know that when Kelly did have company in her room, she was hardly hush-hush about it, and was heard singing in Blotchy's company.

Mary Cox was a widow who lived alone and admitted to being an "unfortunate" at the inquest. There was no hubby in the picture. Clearly she ventured outside to service clients on the street out of choice. Some people have recently suggested that she did take clients home and simply failed to divulge as much at the inquest, which makes very little sense to me. If she was prepared to 'fess up to being an unfortunate, there was no rationale in concealing such a detail.

I think the assumption is that these tenants locked their doors when they were home for personal safety, but because they had no valued possessions (rooms already furnished), they left their doors unlocked while they were out.

But if Kelly was absent-minded and drunk, it is possible, if not more than likely, that she forgot to flick the engage the spring lock.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

was Blotchy Face intending to have sex with her, or were both of these after the booze instead, Mary was a binge drinker, she was probably only interested in singing and getting blind drunk, with him leaving at about 2am, quite content to be just blind drunk himself...many blokes are like this, because getting drunk is a good night out; especially when you're young !

was MJK fast asleep and the killer broke in via the window, yes maybe, but having got her blind drunk and leaving earlier on, Blotchy face might have returned again at 4am, because he's the one that is best placed to break in..... for sure !

plus also, if you look at what was said after the 10th, he didn't like being seen and when he was, he scowled at her, like LA DE DA did too!....Blotchy Face is therefore highly suspicious.

you must never be seen at the murder site close to the time of death, so to be really safe, Blotchy Face has to leave and come back later, and just hope that someone saw him leaving, if not; this doesn't really matter, just make sure that you dont stay in there all night and then kill.

i thus think for both top suspects, that MJK was on her own at 4am, but if neither of these killed her, then JTR could be anyone

[Hunter]

Mary Cox was a widow who lived alone and admitted to being an "unfortunate" at the inquest. There was no hubby in the picture. Clearly she ventured outside to service clients on the street out of choice. Some people have recently suggested that she did take clients home and simply failed to divulge as much at the inquest, which makes very little sense to me. If she was prepared to 'fess up to being an unfortunate, there was no rationale in concealing such a detail.

Whether or not Mary Cox took clients back to her room was irrelevant to the information she was providing. That she did not do so on that particular night can be attributed to not being successful in procuring a client (which she admitted) on a miserable night.

A woman told The Western Mail in the Nov. 12 issue that Kelly was 'known to take a stranger back to her room' and we known that 'Blotchy' certainly went with her. The Liverpool Mercury, on Nov. 14, reported that the police had further statements from residents who were not called to the inquest that Kelly ventured out again after 1 a.m... for whatever these certain press reports are worth.

[Malcolm X]

Whether or not Mary Cox took clients back to her room was irrelevant to the information she was providing. That she did not do so on that particular night can be attributed to not being successful in procuring a client (which she admitted) on a miserable night.

A woman told The Western Mail in the Nov. 12 issue that Kelly was 'known to take a stranger back to her room' and we known that 'Blotchy' certainly went with her. The Liverpool Mercury, on Nov. 14, reported that the police had further statements from residents who were not called to the inquest that Kelly ventured out again after 1 a.m... for whatever these certain press reports are worth.

after the 10th onwards, all of this lot becomes a mess to understand, i would tend due to human nature, to only believe what was first said, all of this later stuff could be based upon tittle tattle, the wrong evening, tabloid reporters lieing/ influencing others etc etc.

she stopped singing at some time close to 1am, but my guess is she was too drunk to go out, it could be somebody else that went out again, some other door heard slamming, some other footsteps, some other woman's voice and finally, some other night.

my guess is that that pale of booze that Blotchy face had in his hand, could have been ``topped up`` by the barman before they left the pub together, but it might not have had beer put in it, but Gin, Brandy, or Scotch instead.

we dont know at all, because if so, she would have been extemely drunk, paralytic, she stopped singing an hour later..... yes, she literally passed out, Blotchy Face put her to bed and then he left, pulling the door closed, but uuum not quite closing it, it's up to you to think why !!!!

MJK was already drunk, so if JTR was looking to kill her at 4am, he probably made sure that the pale of booze either contained extremely strong beer only, or spirits instead, he was drunk too, yea' well what, because if he's JTR he would have made sure that he was only ``just drunk``

booze is very strange, because it's effects are usually exactly the same

1..... if you dont drink enough, it makes you rowdy and loud and it can make you stay up all night long... annoying everyone that lives close to you, with you only falling asleeep at about 6am.... how often have you noticed this !!!!!
2..... but if you drink far too much, it knocks you out pretty quickly !
3......after drinking quite a lot and starting to recover, it makes you sleepy and very lazy, you just go upstairs and collapse in bed

so MJK is 66% likely to be asleep at 4am and going out again about 33%, but it looks like she drank way too much that night, simply because she went quiet at 1am, which is quite early compared to the young idiots that live around me, they keep making a noise till 6am, so i favour her collapsing in a heap at about 1am, which tallies with a heavy drinker and only waking up again at 4am !

so how the hell does GH fit into this lot, because she's fast asleep when he enters Dorset st at 2am ! yes exactly, well for me, it looks like GH heard her singing back at 12.50am.

GH therefore is a wee bit shaky too, because he said ``she looked slightly drunk only``..... NO, more like in bed snoring like crazy, pissed out of her brains!

so for every alternate theory we have, there looks like a legitimate counter arguement..... welcome to JTR

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

I'd be particularly wary of any non-inquest press snippets regarding Kelly's movements on the night of her death. There is usually a very good reason for their conspicuous absence from the inquest, and given that a great deal of false information was circulated in the immediate aftermath of Kelly's death (such as the "little boy" who allegedly lived with Kelly), the most likely explanation is that the unsourced claims concerning Kelly's alleged presence on the streets were a mixture of misunderstanding and pure invention. Significantly, when one considers only the inquest evidence, there is not the slightest indication that Kelly left her room after she was seen with Blotchy.

Whether or not Mary Cox took clients back to her room was irrelevant to the information she was providing.

So was the fact that she was "unfortunate", but she chose to impart these detail anyway. Such honesty with regard to this particular detail doesn't mesh up at all well with the idea that she'd conceal the detail of bringing clients home. The fact that she made no such claim in this regard is an extremely strong indicator that it never occurred. She never stated that she found no clients that night, incidentally.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

make no mistake that the one thing you notice in life, is that very heavy binge-drinkers pass out early, but the social semi drunk party animals keep going till the morning.

MJK is the first type, she's a weekend binge drinker, she goes out to get blind drunk instead, this is also due to her tough life, she prefers to drink to forget, which of course is very sad.

she is therefore far more likely to be home alone when the killer strikes, JTR kills in the early hours, so 4am to 6am is perfect for him; as is leaving Millers court at 6.30am... just look at Annie Chapman

there is plenty of room here for either of the GH candidates, or anyone that might resemble Blotchy Face, just in case anyone thinks Mal is going on about GH again bla bla bla

[Wickerman]

.....Significantly, when one considers only the inquest evidence, there is not the slightest indication that Kelly left her room after she was seen with Blotchy.

Hi Ben.
It is because the inquest evidence is so significantly edited that we need to compile a variety of different news accounts to arrive at a fuller picture.
Even "sworn-to" evidence given at the inquest is not beyond reproach, so where we have a defficiency we must supplement the story with "out-sourced" comments & interviews.
There is no guarrantee the "inquest" sourced data is any more reliable than that which is "out-sourced".

For instance, if we had no statements to the contrary we would have no reason whatsoever to criticize the "little boy" story, especially when Kelly was rumored to have had a child.
It is precisely because we have so many other sources with respect to her life in room 13 to contest the existence of this "little boy" that we can quite reasonably discard it.
However, this is not the case most of the time.

So long as we do not end up with contradictory information when we consider inquest testimony along with out-sourced statements then we have little reason, except personal bias, with which to discard what the public might tell us.
I think this issue has been a problem in most of your arguments all along. I mean to say, this is where "we" differ most clearly.

With all due respect Ben you seem to readily discard anything which contests your particular position on any issue by the flimsiest of arguments. And, holding 'puritanically' to only that which comes from the Inquest is too narrow a focus.
Certainly if an outside source provides information which directly contradicts that given at the Inquest, then we have an issue to debate.
In most cases though, the outside source is supplementing the Inquest derived evidence, which can only help us better understand events.

So, when you say..

...there is not the slightest indication that Kelly left her room after she was seen with Blotchy

We have chewed over the "digestion of fish and potato's" which according to an extremely common determination takes 1 to 1.5 hrs, give or take, to be digested.

In an interview after the murders one reporter when referring to "Whitechapel" was interrupted by Insp. Moore by saying, "this area is also known as the "3 F's", (Fried Fish & Fights).
Not that this has any bearing on the debate, but the most reasonable interpretation of the medical evidence is that after being payed by Blotchy, Mary Kelly went back out and bought a full supper which included fish & potato's, there was also other unspecified food in her intestines.
I know you don't like this because it then potentially offers credibility to the story that Mrs Kennedy saw Kelly outside the Britannia. This, I think, is the main reason for you attempting to water down the evidence pertaining to "digestion".

All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

It is because the inquest evidence is so significantly edited that we need to compile a variety of different news accounts to arrive at a fuller picture

That's the very opposite of what we should do, Jon: fill in the gaps in the inquest record with any old nonsense just because it was there, and because we can't prove it false. You're about the only person on this message board constantly to encourage an entirely unselective approach to source material, an approach sensibly rejected by most. Again, if the information under scrutiny did not appear at the inquest, and yet was known about well in advance of it, it was usually because the information was found to be of little value. The crap had been sifted, which is why we don't hear of it again after its first shabby appearance.

For instance, if there was any genuine, reliable evidence to suggest that Kelly was seen on the streets after 1.00am, it would almost certainly have appeared at the inquest. I remember Chris Scott making an excellent point on one of the podcasts; the early press information on the Kelly murder was notoriously unreliable, and included, amongst other pieces of nonsense, the claim that Kelly was living with a little boy. This was discredited in advance of the inquest, and the same may be said of the risible offerings of Kennedy, "Sarah Roney", and Mrs. Paumier. Take the advice from Philip Sugden if not from me:

"Our search for the facts about the murder of Mary Kelly must discount the unsupported tattle of the Victorian press"

But you don't do that. You take the line that as long as it hasn't been proven untrue, it must be true!

There is no guarrantee the "inquest" sourced data is any more reliable than that which is "out-sourced".

But it is only prudent to prioritize inquest evidence over second and third-hand hearsay of the type you champion as gospel on a regular basis. Are you seriously disputing that? I'm not asking you to discard it outright, but at the very least treat it with the caution that its dubious, often unsourced origin reasonably deserves. You seem always to do the opposite. Whenever the subject of genuine, police-endorsed evidence crops up, such as Joseph Lawende, you're very anxious to downplay its potential significance, and yet whenever the subject of discredited "Mrs. Kennedy" is broached, with her well-dressed interesting-looking suspect, it's as though she's your star witness.

We have chewed over the "digestion of fish and potato's" which according to an extremely common determination takes 1 to 1.5 hrs, give or take, to be digested.

I suspect you're relying on google again. As I've already said, sleep and alcohol can both slow down digestion. However, even if she did dine as the late hour you suggest, it should not permit us to conclude that Kelly did what you're mysteriously anxious for her to have done, and left her room after 1.00am. Blotchy could easily have brought food with him, which Kelly could easily have eaten at leisure before retiring.

[Hunter]

I'd be particularly wary of any non-inquest press snippets regarding Kelly's movements on the night of her death.

I agree, Ben. Press reports should always be approached with caution and it certainly applies with the Kelly murder. However, some can be ascertained as reasonably valid; such as this excerpt from the Daily Telegraph, Nov. 10:

'...Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday. She knew that Kelly had been living with a man, and that they had quarrelled about ten days since. It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased...'

And just as this excerpt is understandable from McCarthy in the same paper:

'...The landlord emphatically disowns any knowledge of his tenement having been used for improper purposes...'

He wasn't going to admit that it was.


[/I]

So was the fact that she was "unfortunate", but she chose to impart these detail anyway. Such honesty with regard to this particular detail doesn't mesh up at all well with the idea that she'd conceal the detail of bringing clients home. The fact that she made no such claim in this regard is an extremely strong indicator that it never occurred. She never stated that she found no clients that night, incidentally.

From Cox's inquest testimony as reported in the Morning Advertiser 13 November 1888:

'...I went out, returned about one o'clock, and she was singing then. I went to my room to warm my hands a bit. It was raining hard; then I went out again and returned at 3.10 a.m. Then the light was out, and there was no noise. I went in, but I could not sleep, and did not go to bed. I can't sleep when I owe anything...'

I believe that was her way of saying she didn't fair too well that night.

[RedBundy13]

Hello Bridewell. Well put. And this is one time I must agree with Sir MLM.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,
I'll say that I have to disagree with you two on that point. While i'll admit that just because charges are dropped against someone doesnt necessarily mean they are innocent, but in this case the defence was too strong. There were too many witnesses that contradicted the prosecutions theory and they only dropped the case when they realized that the eyewitnesses in this case were too powerfull would completely contradict their theory. In other words they knew they would have lost the case because the defences arguement was stronger than theirs own.
In my opinion, just because some of the police later stated that Sadler had gotten away with murder doesnt mean it was so. We know that in the Ripper case each detective had his own theory about who the Ripper actually was and all believed that they personally were correct in their own assumption. But we know that each could not have been correct...

[curious4]

Hi Lynn,

Me too. Charges dropped is not the same as acquitted. Sadler had been robbed once, if not twice & seems to have thought Frances was involved. What would a man, known to be violent, do in such circumstances>

Regards, Bridewell

Hello Bridewell and LC,

No, not Coles. Apart from the fact that he was so drunk he couldnīt defend himself, the only knife he had (before he sold it) was very blunt.

I think he was a fireman on the ship (?) - job shovelling coal, so wouldnīt have needed a sharp knife in his work.

Best wishes,
C4

[curious4]

Hi Ben.
Yes, something over an hour, from being seen entering Millers Court about 2:15 am?, until the cry of "murder" being heard shortly after 3:30 am.
That does not seem too unreasonable.



Perhaps a client would not appreciate being brought home to perform in front of hubby?

1891 Census.
9 Paternoster Row.
William Cox, age 37?, Hawker.
Mary Ann Cox, age 40?, (unemployed)

I guess she moved..



Likely a time limit, after all we are only guessing that she was asleep, we don't know for sure. She could have entertained her client for a little over an hour, undressed for the finale, ..and then he struck...



Right, I think the assumption is that these tenants locked their doors when they were home for personal safety, but because they had no valued possessions (rooms already furnished), they left their doors unlocked while they were out.
That is why Cox did not see Kelly reach through the window.



Yes, but wasn't that for the same reason, burglary while the tenants were out, or shopkeepers not paying due diligence?

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Wickerman,

Just out of curiousity (lol) is it actually stated as a fact that MJK put her hand through the broken window? Otherwise it is possible that "by putting their hands through the window" could mean that they left the window unlatched (not obvious from outside) and just needed to push it up. It does strike me as odd that they would risk slitting their wrists every day to get into the room.

Cheers,
C4

[Malcolm X]

i'm pretty damn sure that Barnett and MJK were able to access the door handle via the broken window......this has been mentioned many times before here.

MJK could have eaten back at 11.30pm, i think digestion can be as long as 5 hours, 1.5 hours seems too short to me, again this has been talked about here many times before

[Rubyretro]

i'm pretty damn sure that Barnett and MJK were able to access the door handle via the broken window......this has been mentioned many times before here.

Even if there was broken glass they could have just put a coat or a newspaper over it when reaching in.

MJK could have eaten back at 11.30pm, i think digestion can be as long as 5 hours, 1.5 hours seems too short to me, again this has been talked about here many times before

[/QUOTE]

whatever the time that Mary bought her fish and potato supper, she could have let it get cold and either eaten it cold, or reheated it over the fire. The time that she might have bought it has nothing to do with when she ate it, in other words.

[Malcolm X]

Even if there was broken glass they could have just put a coat or a newspaper over it when reaching in.

whatever the time that Mary bought her fish and potato supper, she could have let it get cold and either eaten it cold, or reheated it over the fire. The time that she might have bought it has nothing to do with when she ate it, in other words.[/QUOTE]

yup i agree, there never was much mileage with this, it's more like how drunk was she at 1am ?