MJK Murder Oddities

[Wickerman]

Hi WM,
As to the first, I think it's pretty easy to envisage her undressing to go to sleep, and then being woken by one of Jack McC's punters that he'd sent down there since he knew he'd be needing some rent from Mary pdq.

Did I just understand you right??, are you suggesting this otherwise unseen, unknown, stealth-like nemesis of neglect has now arranged to have his next victim served to him on a platter so to speak by her pimp? (witness, witness, witness!!!).
Jack the Ripper has now given his identity and whereabouts to some backstreet landlord who can run straight to the peelers and hand him over ($$$$$) after her remains are seen to be served up for breakfast at sunrise?


I must have missunderstood you..

[Sam Flynn]

I've said before - and without wishing to engage in an interminable debate along those lines again - I'd also expect at least some indications of a client in the room with Kelly after 1.00am as there was with the Blotchy man, but there wasn't.

And as I've pointed out before, there were precious few witnesses in a position to confirm that there was or wasn't anyone in there with Kelly after 1.00am. Unless Blotchy was her killer, there quite evidently was somebody else in there at some point, but - assuming Hutchinson was wrong - nobody witnessed his arrival. Hardly surprising, given the lateness of the hour and the paucity of witnesses.

[Ben]

And as I've pointed out before, there were precious few witnesses in a position to confirm that there was or wasn't anyone in there with Kelly after 1.00am

And I've tended to disagree.

It wasn't as though there was an entire army of nosey-neighbours outside the door, but between Kelly's close neighbours (whether they were inside or to-ing and fro-ing), I'd say there were enough witnesses to arrive at a reasonably informed conclusion as to the likely degree of activity in #13.

I wouldn't say that nobody witnessed his arrival. He may well have been seen at or near the crime scene.

Best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I'd say there were enough witnesses to arrive at a reasonably informed conclusion as to the likely degree of activity in #13.

I can't see how one can believe that, Ben, when one considers that Kelly was ripped apart that morning and - out of all the residents of Miller's Court - only two women and a cat seem to have heard anything. Furthermore, they might have nicked their stories off one another, cat excepted. In addition, Kelly was singing rather loudly before 1am, but only three witnesses seem to have reported it, whilst another (cat-woman) heard nothing at all, despite her being there or thereabouts at around the right time.

[Wickerman]

.....if we're prepared to accept that he could change the type of venue, we ought to make the same sort of allowances for the manner in which he approached them. If not, I'm afraid you're giving "Kelly wasn't a ripper victim" theorists with a stick to beat you with...

This view has more to do with upholding some tradition than being objective with the known evidence. Kelly's murder is, to some degree, held as the epitome of the Jack the Ripper killings, and yet, in this murder, more so than any other, the differences are so untypical from what has gone before. So much so that we are compelled to view this particular murder with what maybe an unpopular yet unbiased eye and read the evidence for what it suggests rather than defend the more popular myopic interpretation.

.....
If we have examples of serial killers entering homes and surprising their victims as they slept, the type of victim isn't of immediate relevance. They probably reasoned that a sleeping victim was easier to murder that an awake one, and that will hold true of prostitutes and non-prostitutes alike.

More than one problem with this, anyone living in this environment knew that several people shared accomodation, Kelly had been living with Barnett up until the previous week. Maria Harvey then stayed with her Monday & Tues. night. Residents were coming and going at all hours to different houses, e.g., Sarah Lewis visiting No. 2 at 2:30 am.
Breaking in while 'any number of occupants' were presumed to be sleeping is a risky endeavour. How did the intruder know there was only one occupant?
Breaking and entering is not the typical JtR modus operandii. You are perhaps unduly influenced by modern serial killers who can break into premises silently because modern homes have windows that open quietly once unlocked, not so with Kelly's door, and we don't even know if her window opened at all.
The mechanic's of such scenario's need to be thought through not just thrown together willy-nilly, "Bundy did it today so Jack could have done it yesterday!!"

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sam!

And that could indicate, that many witnesses were in a "oooh... I do not rememba... for sure..." -mood!

All the best
Jukka

[Ben]

I can't see how one can believe that, Ben, when one considers that Kelly was ripped apart that morning and - out of all the residents of Miller's Court - only two women and a cat seem to have heard anything.

Hi Gareth - The crucial distinction here is that the killer was able to be as surreptitious as he wanted to - within reason - once Kelly had been dispatched. He didn't have any control over Kelly's vocal antics before she was murdered, which, as we learn from Cox's evidence, were the very opposite of hush-hush. I can't see her suddenly changing behaviour between clients from loud, boozy and sing-songy to silent. Kelly may have stopped singing before cat-woman arrived on the scene; either she was too drunk or too tired or both.

He only had control over this variable if he had a reasonable degree of assurance that she was asleep at the time of the attack.

This view has more to do with upholding some tradition than being objective with the known evidence.

If you'd read the thread properly, WM, you might have noticed that I was specifically challenging the "traditional" view associated with Kelly's murder.

Breaking in while 'any number of occupants' were presumed to be sleeping is a risky endeavour. How did the intruder know there was only one occupant?

Probably by resorting to the same sort of prior surveillance that had proved successful with the likes of Ted Bundy, Dennis Rader, and, more recently, Robert Napper, whose trial is next month.

Again, you may also have noticed that I've already endorsed the view that the neighbours/witnesses potentially posed a problem, but that precise factor would have rendered intrusion far less susceptible to the attention of neighbours than if he'd chosen to advertise his presence in vocal fashion with a demonstrably vocal victim.

Breaking and entering is not the typical JtR modus operandii.

Nor was killing indoors.

You are perhaps unduly influenced by modern serial killers who can break into premises silently because modern homes have windows that open quietly

Hang on. Are you seriously suggesting that modern premises are easier to break into than single-room hovels in the Victorian East End? A mistake, surely? We don't even know if Kelly's door was locked at the time of the attack. It clearly wasn't when she returned home with the Blotchy client, and we know from Inspector Moore that East Enders were in the habit of not securing their doors properly.

[Wickerman]

And I've tended to disagree.
I'd say there were enough witnesses to arrive at a reasonably informed conclusion as to the likely degree of activity in #13.

And yet if her killer lit the fire for light, then surely that fire must have run for something like an hour (the duration of the mutilation?), yet no-one reports a fire in her room.
The very act of lighting a fire is like raising a red flag "someone's home!", an inexplicable thing for a stranger to do, especially one who does not wish to be interrupted, but not so inexplicable for someone who has been there before and is known to her neighbours, who's presence would not raise alarm.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth - The crucial distinction here is that the killer was able to be as surreptitious as he wanted to.

I rather think the crucial point is that very few people noticed anything that night, Ben - even whilst Kelly was very much alive. That nobody noticed any goings-on after 1am can hardly be deemed all that significant, given that so few people noticed anything going on before that time.

[Ben]

And yet if her killer lit the fire for light, then surely that fire must have run for something like an hour (the duration of the mutilation?), yet no-one reports a fire in her room.

Some of them referred to a "light" which could well have been that emitted by the fire. There's no reason to suppose that if was definitely the killer who started the fire anyway, or if he did, certainly no reason to suppose it was the roaring blaze of popular ripper-lore. Why would a fire announcing "someone's home" be a "red flag" anyway? Wouldn't they just assume it was Kelly? Hardly alarm-raising stuff.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth -As witnesses go, the Miller's Court saga wasn't all that under-furnished in that department in contrast to other murders, but I'd agree that there are gaps and uncertainties as one might expect. There's enough there, though, to establish tentative assumptions rather than iron-clad conclusions.

[Sam Flynn]

There's enough there, though, to establish tentative assumptions rather than iron-clad conclusions.

Tentative at best, I'd say, Ben. So tentative, in fact, that it would be indefensible to maintain that there's evidence that suggests Kelly didn't venture out after 1am.

[Ben]

I'd say there are indications that she didn't, Gareth (defensible ones, at that), but with many possibile scenarios available, I'm not closing any doors.

[Sam Flynn]

But, Ben, those indications are based on witness coverage so patchy that they're little better than having had no witnesses there at all. You can't defend an argument that Kelly stayed indoors by citing the "non-observations" of such a threadbare collection of witnesses, who only popped in and out of Miller's Court three or four times, fleetingly, over a span of a few hours. It just can't be done.

[Ben]

I wouldn't say they were quite as patchy as all that, though, Gareth. Not ideal, by any stretch, but sufficient to provide reasonable indications. I'm not as bothered by the "going out after 1.00am" issue, and would agree that there aren't any compelling reaons to rule out the possibility of her venturing out afterwards. I'm more concerned about her returning home with a client and neither being detected, despite neighbours being either awake and close-by, or passing close to her door. It would necessitate an odd departure from her earlier behaviour when bringing Blotchy home.

Best,
Ben