the key

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Kelly's clothing was reportedly found neatly folded on the chair."

It was.

"One might presume that ,this was largely due to habit,but might the neatness also point to a state short of completely drunk and incapable."

It might.

"A state whereby she was fully concious of what she was doing,even by habit to lock the door from the inside before retiring."

Perhaps.

Then again, we don´t know HOW neatly the clothes were folded, and locking doors does not automatically follow from folding clothes. There are such things as slipping minds and partial drunkenness.
But in my world, Kelly retired and went to bed, fire lit, comfortably undressed, and subsequently let the killer in when he arrived since she knew him and did not foresee any foul play. So, you see, to me the point about locked or not locked is a moot one.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Kelly's clothing was reportedly found neatly folded on the chair.One might presume that ,this was largely due to habit,but might the neatness also point to a state short of completely drunk and incapable.A state whereby she was fully concious of what she was doing,even by habit to lock the door from the inside before retiring.In respect of the lock,it has to be realised that the door was an old one,perhaps even predating Victorian times,and locks of that time were mostly of the bar type bolts,and although some could have a kind of spring mechanism,most were lever types,and the bar bolts prevented self locking.Barnett speaks of pushing the bolt to disengage from the jamb,and again this might mean a separate bolt to the main lock.Separate that is to the key locking mechanismn.As to 'On the latch',a favourite means of keeping a door closed but not locked was to insert a paper or cardboard wedge between door and jamb.I know the idea of a bar bolt would mean that the killer would have to reach through the window to engage the bolt on leaving,but the few seconds to achieve this would be more than compensated by keeping people from entering easily.One last thing.A self locking spring bolt when engaging,and in the narrow confines of Millers Court would have made a sound like a gun shot.There was a sound of a person leaving the court,but no sound of a door closing.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"The point about rough looking women is that the Ripper tended to ply his trade in the early hours, when the least favoured prostitutes, those more down on their luck than most, would tend to predominate. And when the swarm of prostitutes was mostly asleep. That would skew his victims in the ‘rough’ direction, although that would not be an absolute, as shown by Kelly (and maybe Coles, though I am reluctant to include Coles)."

I dunno, Lechmere - I think your reasoning somewhat predisposes that the younger and prettier prostitutes were volunteering in the trade, and thus were at liberty to pick their working hours themselves.
I think we need to remember that most prostitutes took up that occupation because they were forced to. And some of them would have experienced more force than others - there would have been pimps around, supplying an around-the-clock army of fairly attractive streetgirls, for example.

Maybe the overall picture you paint has something going for it, though; maybe the ones who had not been able to find costumers in the earlier hours of the night, were the ones who felt compelled to stay out the longest. But even if we were to accept this to be the overall picture, it would only show us that the Ripper actively chose to hunt when the prey was certain to be middleaged drabs, and we would still be left with the same impression of a man who made an active choice.

Of course, we can throw forward a guess that the Ripper tried to stay undetected by using only the latest hours of the night, and thus he had no actual choice. But the span of victims points to a time frame inbetween 12.45 and sunrise, so I would not bank too much on this.

Furthermore, if you want to throw forward Kelly venturing out in the small hours looking for trade on the night she was killed- and that is exactly what you do - then you also create a scenario in which you HAVE a goodlooking, young woman prostituting herself in the early morning hours ...

... so maybe I should be the one pressing the point of only the elderly brigades being open for service in the small hours, since that would mean that Kelly would not have gone out ...?

"The giant Flemming seems a poor suspect to me."

A personal aquaintance, said to have maltreated Kelly, a down-on-luck former plasterer, unable to hang on to a job, living in the Victoria Home and ending up with a diagnosis that got him incarcerated in an asylum, a man shoved aside by Kelly in favour of another guy, a man suffering from delusions of persecution - a poor suspect? Jesus, Lechmere, you ARE picky! I would instead say that Flemings act contains a type of material that should sound all alarms available!

... but for the heigth of the man, that is. 6 foot 7 - that is a heavy burden. Then again, there is the odd possibility that this figure is wrong. But that will take some disproving, of course!
There is also the possibility that none of the men sighted in connection with the murders was the actual killer. Lawendes man, for example, may have said goodbye to Eddowes seconds after the clubbers´ sighting of him, and Kate may have walked down that lane on her own. No definite call can be made, that must be remembered. But I do of course favour the bid that the Church Passage man WAS Kates killer!

"If Kelly’s killer didn’t go there with murder on his mind, he seems to have gone equipped for murder!"

I think we both know, Lechmere, that many men carried knives with them at all times. I think we may also agree that there is a fair chance that the Ripper, as such, may have belonged to this category of men. Finally, if there had been an absolute demand for people visiting friends not to carry knives, then the possibility remains that Kelly was killed with her own knife. For if he arrived there knifeless, a household like Kellys would potentially - perhaps even reasonably - have been equippped with a knife just the same.

I am in no way saying that your wiew is not a useful one, Lechmere. That it is, and the case can be called in many directions without stretching things too far. So very little evidence and information remains at our hands.
But I am intrigued by the obvious possibility that the Kelly case holds the key to the whole affair. I would say that the chances that she was slain by the Ripper are very big - to me, there is even little doubt about it.
I would also say that the extreme excess violence points to a deed by an aquaintance, just as I would say that the undressed state in which she was found, the neatly tucked away shoes, the folded clothes, the rolled-up bedroll the lit fire and her position in the bed as she was attacked, leaving room for a bedmate, all speak for a scenario in which Kelly never left her room after the Blotchy visit, but instead opted for a night alone at home - but then there was this soft knock on the door ...

When we combine these factors, we get a lot of explosive power. And I think that it may very well be - and aptly so, considering the name of this thread - the key to the whole business.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Fisherman

The point about rough looking women is that the Ripper tended to ply his trade in the early hours, when the least favoured prostitutes, those more down on their luck than most, would tend to predominate. And when the swarm of prostitutes was mostly asleep. That would skew his victims in the ‘rough’ direction, although that would not be an absolute, as shown by Kelly (and maybe Coles, though I am reluctant to include Coles).

I tend to doubt that he picked ‘rough’. He would need to find one when he was both ‘in the mood’ and when no one else was about. I would presume they would be his primary considerations, rather than finding a pretty one. I don’t think he was bothered about their appearance, although he may have also gained an unexpected voyeuristic pleasure from Kelly undressing before killing her.

Wife murderers tend to just murder wives or girlfriends – like Ed Gingerich, Bury or Chapman (multiple wives) – ah but not Christie!

The giant Flemming seems a poor suspect to me.

Of course Kelly will have known some people, probably quite a few people. But out of the tens of thousands living with a few minute’s walk of her abode, her circle of friends will have been a drop in the ocean.

If Kelly’s killer didn’t go there with murder on his mind, he seems to have gone equipped for murder!

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich,
....Can you honestly imagine a bloodthirsty killer tidily roll up the bedroll, and place what has been suggested as the stocking of Mary's left leg over it., rather then sling away every thing in his way?

We cannot tell from the photographs for certain what appears to be cloth about Mary Kelly's ankle or even what is folded on the bedside table. No contemporaneous mention is made of either item. It calls for speculation. On the other hand, it is stated that Mary's clothes were folded neatly so, a folded bolster is at least consistent.

[claire]

Some good points, Fisherman. Although, of course, we can't know the nature of Barnett's relationships, either with Kelly or, later, with the wife that he claimed to have married in the first or second quarter of 1888 (which claim, in itself, speaks to his desire to dissociate himself from any of the events of later that year--although one could hardly hold him culpable on that score).

That said, as you know, I'd prefer Fleming as a more viable candidate than Barnett, for the reasons you list, if I had to choose between the two. There was a man for whom the absence of a key would have meant nothing--he could quite readily have been invited--or welcomed--in. Whereas Barnett, if his record is to be trusted, seemed simply to have assumed a rather more protective role towards Kelly.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly - I think it is extremely unlikely that the killer knew the victims or that the victims knew each other - because it was such a densely populated area. What are quite short distances contained populations that today would be in substantial towns in their own right."

Ah - maybe I simply misunderstood you. With this I agree on the whole. But densely populated town areas are not a hinderance as such for forming friendships! Although most people would have been strangers to each other, just like you say, there would have been networks of friends too. And Kelly would have had an extensive story of male friends and lovers, some jilted, some perhaps missed - who can tell? - behind her. Apparently, she had attraction enough to even go on export to France, and she upheld contact with (at least) two lovers at the same time in the autumn of 88. That in itself spells danger to most people´s ears, I should think.

"I don’t think the Ripper deliberately chose rough looking women. I think rough looking women tended to be what was available."

By and large, that is something I do not agree with, I´m afraid. The East end was swarming with prostitutes of all shapes and forms. Kelly was goodlooking, or so it was said. A girl like Coles did not look bad either, we know that from her photo. And there would have been hudreds of likewise relatively young and goodlooking prostitutes around.
So why did he not choose them?
Of course, prostitution, like all other branches of trade, sets it prices according to supply and demand. If the youngest and prettiest girls had cost the same as the aging women of fading - or no - beauty, nobody but the ones with a flair for old, plain or outright ugly women would take advantage of the latter category. And that would soon put them out of business, right?
So what do they do about this problem? Exactly - they lower their price until they hit a market.

But what about the Ripper? He was not about to pay, was he? And that means that he could have chosen ANY prostitute on them streets - but he opted for middle-aged, drunken, sickly women just the same.

Therefore, this must be regarded as carrying significance!

He apparently chose this category of women for some reason. And that could have been one of many reasons; he could have wanted women he knew he could easily subdue, he could have had a flair for older women, he could have looked for somebody who resembled some woman from his own history etcetera. The main thing to keep in mind here is that he DID opt for this category when arguably given a choice. If he disliked what he saw, he could have waited - he was on the prowl throughout the whole autumn and must have come in contact with lots of younger and better looking girls during that time.

Therefore, once again, Kelly is an obvious anomaly. She does not answer to the type of woman our boy had earlier and consistently proven to go for, simple as that. She was not the right stuff, by the looks of things. And still I say that she WAS slain by the man we have come to know as Jack the Ripper - the medical evidence points a very clear finger at him, I think.

Conclusion? Mary Kelly was killed by the same hand - but quite possibly for another reason. My suggestion is that she was killed by a man from her background, most probably somebody with whom she upheld or had previously upheld a love affair, somebody who had killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, but somebody who did not arrive at Miller´s Court with murder on his mind. But something went wrong, and he lost it totally and killed her.

This would explain the homely scene with Kelly undressed, the fact that she was snuggled up in the corner of the bed when she was attacked - because somebody was taking up the rest of the space in her bed - and it would also perhaps explain why the murders came to an end after Kelly. It would perhaps also explain the total annihilation of Kelly. Anybody who takes a look at the amish killer Gingrich - who killed his wife, stamped out her facial features and cut her open, pulling all her internal organs out and arranging them in a tidy pile, will immediately realize the potential parallel. Most murders where damages on the scale that Kelly suffered are inflicted, are victims of people on whom they have had a deep emotional impact.

If the killer was unaquainted with Kelly, I don´t see him waiting for her to put her shoes away, light a cosy fire, roll up the bedroll and undress, after which he crept in behind her in that bed before he remembered what he was there for. I just don´t. Many uncertain factors, yes, I know - but that is how I read things. And the ordinarily acting Ripper does not fit in - only the Ripper acting in another role and killing for another purpose.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Heinrich,
The Times November 12TH mentions both the daylight opinion , and the burnt velvet and bonnet, and the reasoning for it being burnt.
Note this edition was published on the Monday, which gave the police ample time to consider that opinion.
Can you honestly imagine a bloodthirsty killer tidily roll up the bedroll, and place what has been suggested as the stocking of Mary's left leg over it., rather then sling away every thing in his way?
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Fisherman
Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly - I think it is extremely unlikely that the killer knew the victims or that the victims knew each other - because it was such a densely populated area. What are quite short distances contained populations that today would be in substantial towns in their own right.
(There is no evidence to suggest the victims knew each other Heinrich).
I don’t think the Ripper deliberately chose rough looking women. I think rough looking women tended to be what was available. That explains the Kelly exception.
The other victims were killed in the open. He had to be hurried. Kelly, probably unexpectedly, took him to a relatively safe location. He could afford to slightly bide his time. Maybe the fact that she was attractive was an added incentive to linger.

[Heinrich]

Hi,
Several things puzzle me.

I read your post, richardnunweek, but I am unclear just what is puzzling you.

The most likely event being that she was awake, and either dressing, or undressing, when she was attacked, and also had already made her bed [ hence the bedroll.]

This is too speculative to be of value, richardnunweek. It is just as probable that Mary Kelly had been asleep and the bed cover could have been rolled up and placed on the bedside table by the killer.

The police had the impression that the murder was committed in daylight.

I would like to know where you got this information, richardnunweek.

The police commented that her velvet jacket and bonnet, were burnt because they were bloodstained.
Explanations please?

Actually, Inspector Abberline (not the brightest to be sure) thought Kelly's clothes were burnt by the murderer to provide light, as the room was otherwise only dimly lit by a single candle (Inspector Abberline's inquest testimony, 12 November 1888, quoted in Evans and Rumbelow, p. 185; Evans and Skinner, pp. 375–376 and Marriott, p. 177; Fido, p. 95). Again highly speculative on his part as burning clothing would not provide much light and there was a candle in the room not even half used.

For Kelly to be included in the sequence (which I take as read) it doesn’t make sense to me that the killer (Flemming or Barnett or even Hutchinson) knew her but not the others.
While it was a small area, it was very heavily populated, with lots of street walkers and itinerants. Apart from people in her immediate vicinity I doubt that many people knew her.

But the prostitutes did know each other, sharing dwellings and drinking in the same pubs. Joseph Barnett mixed in their circle and he tells how Mary Kelly would invite them to their shared room.

If she unclothed herself and went to sleep why did she leave one stocking on?

There is no contemporaneous mention of a sock and what looks like a sock in the poor resolution pictures could be something else, perhaps one leg of pulled-down drawers.

Incidentally it seems very likely that Nichols met her killer somewhere on Whitechapel Road and walked him around to Bucks Row. It also seems likely that Eddowes met her killer on Dukes Place or Bevis Marks and walked him into Mitre Square.
Kelly meeting her killer in Commercial Street and walking him back to Millers Court is surely the most likely scenario.

These boots were made for walkin'.

[Fisherman]

On the Barnett suggestion:

What Curious writes about Barnett sustaining a long-term relationship (presumably involving sex) with Kelly is important, as is the mentioning of his latter marriage (also presumably involving sex).

Let´s have a look at the Ripper. Was he a person that would reasonably uphold a "normal" relationship, involving normal sex? Does he come across that way?

Of course, people like Ridgway and Rader and Kürten tell us that there are serialists around that uphold a marriage on the one hand while killing heaps of other women on the other. Bundy and Collins also upheld long-term relationships with women they cared for.
Typical for all these men, as far as I can tell, is that they are NOT wife-abusers. Instead they honour their wifes and spouses by treating them affectionately. The sex, though, is not always there in their marital companionships - Kürten and Collins were not keen on sex with their chosen women, whereas they were very sexually oriented when they could add sadism and violence to the agenda - with women THEY DID NOT KNOW OR CARE FOR! Others, like Ridgway, had a voracious sexual appetite in their marriage, and likewise, but with criminal spices added, in their killing sprees.

The common factor for these people, though, is that much as they were ready and able and willing to inflict horrendeous damage on strangers, THEY NEVER DID ANYTHING TO HURT THEIR WIVES AND SPOUSES!

Maybe there is the odd exception to this rule - there always seems to be - but that does detract from the general picture: If Joe Barnett killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes out of lust, then he would statistically NOT have killed Kelly. He would have been fond of her and protected her as any normally functioning husband - and that is exactly how he comes across at the inquest and as a married man in later life: A normal, caring husband type of man.

If we look at Fleming, on the other hand, and apply Curious´ four points on him:

1. Have early arrest records - we DO have a young Joe Fleming on record, that may be our boy, in the police records.
2. Cannot sustain long-term relationships - and look at what happened with him and Kelly...
3. Cannot keep a job - and he did go from plasterer all the way down the line of odd jobs, apparently.
4. Not traditional - fits the bill there too, with delusions, namechanges, incarcerations and all.

Just as an example, Fleming seems a far better bid in the Kelly case than Barnett. That is not to say that it was him - any closely aquainted man (or any man who believed himself to be closely aquainted) to Kelly will do nicely for me.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

I should say not but a sociopath could.



The phrase banality of evil comes to mind.

Good Morning, Henrich,
I agree with you that a sociopath could -- if that word were even still being used.

My research indicates it is now out of favor in the field of psychology, but it's good to know that you and I are both on the same level here.

By what facts of Barnett's life might he be considered a sociopath? Everything in his life screams to me that he is not a sociopath according to the slight amount of research I've done. LaGrand on the other hand . . . if you're looking for a sociopath to suspect.

Here is why Barnett is not:
1. Sociopaths usually have arrest records before they reach 15 and are always in trouble with the law -- not Barnett.
2. Can not sustain long-term relationships. Not Barnett. He had been with Mary Kelly for 18 months and would later marry and stay married.
3. Cannot keep a job -- not Barnett. Had his fish porter license by the time he was 20. Did have job troubles in 1888, but most normal folks can go through job difficulties a time or two in their lives.
4. Not traditional. Barnett seemed very traditional. He was a man who did not want his woman selling herself to other men. A sociopath on the other hand would have been likely to be pimping her out so he could have the money, then beating her when she did not bring home enough money. Joe was still coming around, giving Mary Jane some money when he could. And she is the one who kept the room at Miller's Court. I think a sociopath would have been keeping the best for himself and kicked her out.

Now for banality of evil


You and I must read things very differently. Banality of evil seems the opposite of what was going on in Whitechapel.

That phrase was apparently coined to describe how the German people could be ordinary folks doing such horrible things at the direction of the state during the holocaust in the 1930s and 1940s. Normal people did very evil things because 1. they were ordered by the state; 2. all their neighbors were doing the same thing; 3. therefore their horrible acts were considered "the normal thing to do" because other "normal people" were doing them.

However, in Whitechapel, the murders were considered evil and something only a fiend could do. Something no ordinary Englishman would be capable of.

I can't understand "banality of evil" coming to mind when you consider Joe Barnett or the WM.

I have learned a couple of things I consider valuable, so thanks, Henrich.

curious

[Ben]

Kelly meeting her killer in Commercial Street and walking him back to Millers Court is surely the most likely scenario.

I disagree, Lechmere.

Again, there is no evidence from the inquest to suggest that Kelly did anything other than remain indoors after Mary Cox saw her enter the room with the blotchy client at 11:45pm. Kelly was apparently so intoxicated at this time that she was barely capable of saying "goodnight" to her neighbour, and the likelihood is that Blotchy's ale pail contained yet more booze for her consumption, and thus a major disincentive for venturing out into the cold and largely clientless streets again.

If she unclothed herself and went to sleep why did she leave one stocking on?

Because she was drunk.

It certainly points away from a "client" scenario. Why would such a client "disallow" the removal of one final piece of clothing?

There is nothing remotely unusual, incidentally, about a prostitute killer being mildly acquainted with some of his victims. Serialists who target prostitutes are invariably prostitute users, and it isn't remotely unlikely that the ripper encountered some of his future victims under more "contractual" circumstances.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"For Kelly to be included in the sequence (which I take as read) it doesn’t make sense to me that the killer (Flemming or Barnett or even Hutchinson) knew her but not the others.
While it was a small area, it was very heavily populated, with lots of street walkers and itinerants. Apart from people in her immediate vicinity I doubt that many people knew her."

Are you not contradicting yourself here, Lechmere? You think that only people in Kellys immediate vicinity would have known her, but you think it strange if the killer did not know all the victims...?

Many serialists objectify the people they kill. They kill strangers that only have a symbolic meaning to them, but no personal meaning at all - it makes it a lot easier to kill. Some of them do not uphold "normal" relationships with women, while others do (like Kürten, Bundy, BTK etc). Typically, these killers target women they do not personally know. They don´t start out with the closest prey - their spouses. Our best bet would be that the Ripper did not harbour any deeper emotions for Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. They would have been prey to him, nothing more, if I am correct. Unvoluntary donours, as it were.
So why would he target Kelly? Well, he didn´t, if my hunch is correct. The Kelly killing was not premeditated, methinks. Once again, she was the wrong age, the wrong type and all that - plus she was somebody the killer felt affection for, trusted in. A good deal of material points to her snuggling up in the far end of that bed, undressed, feeling at ease and safe and moving over to allow space for somebody else ...
Something went wrong, that´s what I think. Ripperologist 97 outlines one possible such scenario.

"If she unclothed herself and went to sleep why did she leave one stocking on?"

IF she did - we don´t know - how about it was November, it was an awfully cold and rainy night and she may have felt cold? How about she was drunk, and it is hard to balance on one leg while you take the stocking from your other foot?

Surely the more important factor is that she DID undress and go to bed, by the looks of things - and she did that while the Ripper sat tight and watched, waiting ...? Not in my book!

"Maybe she momentarily disarmed him by talking away or even singing."

Have another look at Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. No momentarily disruption of the plans there! And that lays down the lines along which I look at him. He seems not to be the waiting, biding type if you ask me. The quicker he got to work the better, seemingly.

"Would he have been worried about someone else arriving?"

Who can tell? But IF he was, then why not be swift about things?

"How long would he have been in there? Half an hour at most?"

Impossible to say, but I remember that Sam Flynn sketched a timeline that was surprisingly short and still allowed for all that carnage.

"Kelly meeting her killer in Commercial Street and walking him back to Millers Court is surely the most likely scenario."

It is a useful starting point - but then you run into her undressed state, the folded clothes, the fire, quite possibly started by herself and as such a pointer to her not planning any further nightly excursions, and the position in bed in which she was originally attacked. It all speaks another language.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

For Kelly to be included in the sequence (which I take as read) it doesn’t make sense to me that the killer (Flemming or Barnett or even Hutchinson) knew her but not the others.
While it was a small area, it was very heavily populated, with lots of street walkers and itinerants. Apart from people in her immediate vicinity I doubt that many people knew her.

If she unclothed herself and went to sleep why did she leave one stocking on?
I think the most likely explanation is she picked her murderer up in the street nearby and took him back. He allowed her to partially undress – it would have been a novel situation for him (in killing terms), so maybe he wanted to see what happened. Maybe she momentarily disarmed him by talking away or even singing.

Would he have been worried about someone else arriving? If a prostitute took a client back to her room for sex then I suspect someone else just turning up out of the blue would be an unlikely expectation.
How long would he have been in there? Half an hour at most?

Incidentally it seems very likely that Nichols met her killer somewhere on Whitechapel Road and walked him around to Bucks Row. It also seems likely that Eddowes met her killer on Dukes Place or Bevis Marks and walked him into Mitre Square.
Kelly meeting her killer in Commercial Street and walking him back to Millers Court is surely the most likely scenario.