MJK: Crime Scene Analysis

[Dan Norder]

While I accept Dan's point that none of us know for certain why Hutchinson was discredited, I think we can safely rule out the possibility that he was discarded purely on the grounds of uncertainty over Kelly's time of death. Even if the police suspected that Kelly may have encountered someone _after_ Mr. Astrakhan, they couldn't prove that was the case, and for that reason, they had every incentive to use Hutchinson in identity parades and so and on so forth *if* they believed his account.

You've got the concept of proof exactly backwards here. Nobody would need to prove that Kelly had seen someone after Astrakhan Man, because to convict someone of a crime you have to prove someone was the culprit beyond a reasonable doubt. Without proof that the sighting was relevant to finding the killer it served no legal purpose. Compare that to Lawende or Long where the timing was believed to have been so close to the killings that there would be every reason to think the man seen with the victim minutes before the murder happened had to have been the killer.

The last sighting of Carrie Brown with a suspect occured - if I recall correctly - some time before the generally accepted time of the murder, but the police there didn't discard the evidence on the basis that the real killer _must_ have arrived later.

The major difference between the two cases is that Carrie Brown was not in a private room with its own private access. She went with a man to a room in a lodging house, and the people who provided a witness description of a suspect saw her go in with the man and never come back out again. She simply did not have the option of leaving unnoticed and returning unnoticed with someone else later. Mary Kelly did.

[Chava]

One thing I've never seen is any reference to Mary Jane having a pimp. Neither it seems did any of the others--which I would expect. But they all seem to have been able to carry on their business completely unharrassed by the gangs that we know preyed on the tarts in the area or by anyone else. Nicholls, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes would probably not hold much appeal for a predatory pimp. But Mary Jane Kelly would. She had her own piece of pavement after all. Not that I'm suggesting she was killed by a pimp. But that man in the court is exhibiting what could be called pimp behaviour...

[Ally]

ChristopherAS has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
I skipped a couple of pages so I hope I am not repeating anything already said...
My issue with a jealous lover theory for Mary Kelly's killer is that her attack is so gruesome that it fits more in my head with a psychotic serial killer who's "getting better", and add to that a killer who hadn't worked in a bit, than a jealous lover who has maybe never cut into more than an orange. The OJ crime scene looks like a jealous rage. MJK's crime scene is the work of a maniac. I don't think a jealous lover who snaps is going to be rational enough to stop and make it look like a JTR crime. And as someone else said earlier, she probably could have been disposed of easily enough. And faking a JTR crime would mean more cops and attention than any other senario. Was that really the best way? MJK may have had drama in her life but from the jealous lover's point of view it doesn't add up for me.

There's hesitation here about when she could have picked Jack up, if she would have brought him to her room, if she stayed in, and so on... In my head what would fit all the details is Jack taking notice of her earlier (maybe even approaching her and getting rejected), following her to her room, and waiting in the dark for her to fall asleep (which would have been easy to know if she kept singing), then letting himself in, the cry of "murder" and so on...
***************

[Ally]

under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
---Quote (Originally by ChristopherAS)---
My issue with a jealous lover theory for Mary Kelly's killer is that her attack is so gruesome that it fits more in my head with a psychotic serial killer who's "getting better", and add to that a killer who hadn't worked in a bit, than a jealous lover who has maybe never cut into more than an orange. The OJ crime scene looks like a jealous rage. MJK's crime scene is the work of a maniac. I don't think a jealous lover who snaps is going to be rational enough to stop and make it look like a JTR crime.
---End Quote---

This is probably one of the worst misconceptions that is floating around out there. There exists a number of cases where these kinds of extreme mutilatons have been performed by spouses who hadn't kill before. It is a mistake to believe that one serial killers are cpabale of this stuff.
In fact, the crimes that are personally related often can look even worse and moe bizarre than the works of any serial killer.
Former lietuenant Vernon J geberth of the NYPD also mentions in his crime manual as well as in articles several examples where he has investigated cases where it was first assumed that the crime was perpetrated by a sexual predator or serial killer because they 'looked the part', but in the end it was the spouse who did it. These crimes involved severe post mortem mutilations, eviscaration, signature elements like inserting of things into vaginas etc.
So please let's not take things for granted here about what we assume people are or are not capable of.

All the best
***************

jukka ruskeeahde has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Hello Glenn!

I'd like to add this thing to your thoughts;

some of these (maybe seemingly) family persons are sometimes also capable of turning the blame on the others.

One example being Jeff "Fatal Vision" McDonald. Who killed his pregnant wife, two daughters and got away with it for nine-tine years!

All the best
Jukka
***************

Fisherman has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Ben writes:
"My belief that Kelly ventured out chiefly centres around the fact that we have no reliable evidence of her venturing out again. To me, that means the simplest and most parsimonious explanation is that she didn't."
And much as you are entitled to that view, Ben, I think that it is reasonable to call it into question. For the evidence you are using here is in fact a lack of such. If three people jump off the roof of skyscrapers, and only one of them is witnessed doing so, it does not make the other two more alive afterwards.
And surely you can recognize simplicity in the statement that prostitutes more often than not take advantage of the night-life of the city by going out to find themselves punters, canīt you?
What you suggest is in no way an improbability, of course, and I am not saying that it should be in anyway ruled out. But I AM saying that if she was a prostitute along much the same lines as the other unfortunates of the court, then staying home would - on any given night - be a deviation from the normal behaviour of a streetwalker. I donīt see how this can be denied.
The best, Ben!
Fisherman
***************


jacks friend has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
It was raining. She'd been out. Wouldn't you want a bed especially when you have a client and you can take him there. Do the job and he leaves. except he doesn't. And Jack does what he does. Forget about the broken lock on the door ( of course she can get in). Barrett didn't do it. Hutchinson didn't do it. Carrotty blotchy didn't do it. She goes out after she gets rid off Blotchy face. It may be Jack she comes back with while Hutchinson is outside but who knows.Prater et al here the 'murder' call about 4 am. They were there. She was against the right side of the bed with the blood sprays to her right. She had defence wounds on her forearms so she tried to stop him. Poor creature. Imagine how terrified she must have been What had she ever done to deserve this. Jack did what he did and left.
Bye
***************

[Ally]

Hello,
Ben has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
While I accept Dan's point that none of us know for certain why Hutchinson was discredited, I think we can safely rule out the possibility that he was discarded purely on the grounds of uncertainty over Kelly's time of death. Even if the police suspected that Kelly may have encountered someone _after_ Mr. Astrakhan, they couldn't prove that was the case, and for that reason, they had every incentive to use Hutchinson in identity parades and so and on so forth *if* they believed his account.
The last sighting of Carrie Brown with a suspect occured - if I recall correctly - some time before the generally accepted time of the murder, but the police there didn't discard the evidence on the basis that the real killer _must_ have arrived later.
So Hutchinson's discrediting must have been prompted by other considerations.
Best regards,
Ben
***************
PerryMason has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Hi Ben,
Although being Devils Advocate, he might have been discreditted because they concluded Caroline Maxwell was actually correct, and it wasnt Mary Kelly in the bed when they opened the door.
So many different patterns one can weave into a rug, thats why we all make different rugs using the same materials.
Nite folks. My best Ben.
***************

Jez has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
---Quote (Originally by dannorder)---
And there's another claim made without real proof. All we know is that eventually the police at some point for some unknown reason decided not to use Hutchinson's description of the man he says he saw as a description of the killer. We don't know at all that they disregarded his story of having seen Mary Kelly -- the only piece of evidence making a clear statement one way or another says they *did* believe it -- all we know is that they stopped using it to try to find the murderer. This could be for as simple of a reason as not knowing the time of death for sure and not knowing if Kelly could have picked up another client later on in the night. The assumed time of death and this alleged sighting were hours apart, so they had little reason to depend on it when other witnesses were thought to have seen the killer with a victim within minutes of her death. It could also be that they took Hutchinson out to try to identify a suspect and that he picked someone out who provided an alibi, thus making his testimony about the man he saw worthless. It could be lots of things. You just dismiss him totally and provide no evidence of your own to replace it and expect your version of events to stick.
---End Quote---

This has to be about the best analysis I've read on these boards regarding the police reactions to Hutchinson's statement. Wonderful to see common sense prevail in this sea of hysteria.

ChavaG has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
*Ichabod*, you're right. For some reason my eye skipped over the 'there was no one in the court' bit! Given that, all we're left with is the man in the wideawake hat waiting or looking for someone.
Whether this is Hutchinson or not, Lewis did see a man in the mouth of the court, hanging round as if he had some kind of business with someone who was at present up there. If I didn't know better, I'd say that was pimp behaviour. Keeping an eye on the merchandise and being there to take your cut before the merchandise drank the profits. However there is no suggestion that Kelly had a pimp.
Which brings me to *Sox's* comment above. Whether Kelly was occasionally on the game to pay the rent (and if she was she wasn't very good at it, so much rent did she owe!) or she was a full-time prostitute, is a discussion which troubles me a great deal. Because it really doesn't matter what she was or wasn't at any other time of her life. On that night , if any part of Hutchinson's statement is to be believed, she was available for sixpence. She wasn't working out of a bordel. She wasn't taking her clients to a disorderly house. She was trying to earn some money and she was probably drinking some of what she earned because she was certainly in drink that night if she wasn't completely drunk. And none of this matters. She is not a more or less deserving victim than the others. They were all poor women on the streets trying to hustle up some money. She was in a better position than the others because she at least for the time being had a roof over her head. But she isn't morally superior to them. She isn't romantic. She's a murdered prostitute and unfortunately there have been far too many over the centuries.
***************