Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MJK Murder Oddities

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    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.
    ...neighbours, Ben? Only one neighbour saw her with Mr Blotchy, and that was only because she happened to be returning to Miller's Court at the same time as he and Kelly. If Mrs Cox hadn't enjoyed this particular coincidence, we'd never even have heard of Mr Blotchy.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • #77
      Only one neighbour saw her with Mr Blotchy, and that was only because she happened to be returning to Miller's Court at the same time as he and Kelly
      True, Gareth, but that was before Lewis and Prater returned. Had they both been there at 11:45pm, I'm sure they'd have heard the sozzled pair as they entered the room.

      Comment


      • #78
        I don't believe the cry of 'Oh murder! had anything to do with the Kelly killing, I have never thought that.

        The reason why I think an attack from the side is beyond difficult is this: I can't see the killer attacking her while she's facing him. She's lying over by the wall, so if she's facing him she's on her left side. Even if he is left-handed, killing her quickly would not be an easy thing to do. She could struggle and thrash and attract attention. It's just not a cost-effective way of approaching her. If she is lying on her right side, facing the wall, it's easier. But not if you yourself are lying on your side as she is, because you need the upper-body strength to support yourself basically only on your lateral abs as you grab her and cut her. You need two hands free for that.

        This is what Bagster Phillips says:

        The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner.
        If she is lying asleep, she's probably not lying straight. When people lie on their side, they tend to hunch their upper shoulder, and their lower arm has to go somewhere as well. Often you'll find they lie in a somewhat hunched position, and their lower arm covers their neck. Take notes next time you lie on your side in bed. I doubt you're presenting an easy target for a throat slash. Strangulation, yes. But the amount of blood spatter looks to me like there was no strangulation involved. However if she is lying on her side in bed, and he kneels on that bed beside/behind her and pulls her head back suddenly, he's got a clear shot at cutting her throat and he can hold himself steady while doing so. Also he now has the strength to easily direct the body immediately after the cut so that it's facing away from him and at the mattress.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          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..
          Well, you didn't misunderstand me, but it was only one possible scenario of how a punter, previously known to her or otherwise, might make their way into Miller's Court that night. Playing through my mind this morning was that whole thing about Fiona Kendall's assertion that the McCarthys *did* know who JtR was or, more specifically, who killed MJK. Why not this guy? Or the guy who followed him? Also, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Jack McC or one of his operatives dropped in to Mary that night ('oh, murder!'), and 'suggested' she might nip out even as far as the archway to get a bit of business.

          You know, these are really just scenarios. But it's also possible that what you term 'this otherwise unseen, unknown, stealth-like nemesis of neglect' might be as mythical as your description is poetic.
          best,

          claire

          Comment


          • #80
            Well you know, I've always suspected that McCarthy might have killed Kelly himself and faked a Ripper murder. She owed him a hellova lot of backrent, and could well have had something on him. He was there. He could have gotten in and out quickly and quietly. But if he didn't do it, I very much doubt he knew who did. Unless he himself hired it done as a contract. Every so often some East End person seems to have poked his/her head over the parapet and said 'I know whodunnit'. But if they did, why didn't they tell someone? If McCarthy knew who killed Kelly--and he lived for a long time after the murders, why didn't he say who it was?

            McCarthy is a very tempting suspect for me. and I can make a fairly good case. But I suspect the reality is the anonymous East End Working Man with a nice line in patter and a fast hand with a knife.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Chava View Post
              I don't believe the cry of 'Oh murder! had anything to do with the Kelly killing, I have never thought that.
              Hi Chava,

              While I'm not totally on the page with you on this one yet, I can see how it would free us to concentrate more fully on other possibilities, like the fact that no one but Blotchy, pint pot and all, heard a peep out of Mary after Cox left for the last time.

              Best,

              Cel
              "What our ancestors would really be thinking, if they were alive today, is: "Why is it so dark in here?"" From Pyramids by Sir Terry Pratchett, a British National Treasure.

              __________________________________

              Comment


              • #82
                Who knows, if not a peep, then Mary Jane just went to sleep. And Mrs. Maxwell was telling the truth about the next morning when she saw her.

                Roy
                Sink the Bismark

                Comment


                • #83
                  Hello all,

                  Just a quick reply to Sam, perhaps I shouldnt have said at the Inquest, as I dont recall all the various versions of her statements reported, but she did say to the press that she heard it when furniture was moved about in Marys room.

                  On the issue of her alledged departure that night Sam, you are incorrect when you say it is more probable that she went out based on the gaps of coverage of her rooms state.

                  If we disregard George Hutchinsons after Inquest story...as the police did by November 16th, and we discount the credibility of Mrs Maxwell, based on the evidence submitted that directly contradicts her, the opinion of the Inquest on her remarks, and her overall knowledge of Mary Kelly and vice versa, which is evidently the official line on her....then we have no witnesses that saw anything but darkness, and heard no noise, when they happened by her room 13 after 1:30 am. The room could have been reported on 4 times,...first by Cox leaving after 1, then by Prater at 1:30, then Cox when she returns and by Sarah when she has entered. The first has her singing around 1:15...the second has her room dark and quiet, the 3rd has her room dark and quiet still, and the 4th didnt mention anything...leading one to surmise there was nothing to draw her attention to her right when she entered the court, including any light cast upon the wall opposite Marys windows. (edit) I do not mean to say Sarah was the last one into the courtyard, Mary Ann was.

                  If you follow the contemporary investigators lead and discard both Hutchinsons and Maxwells testimony about seeing Mary Kelly out of her room after 11:45am the 8th, then you have zero evidence with which you may suggest a trip out, and multiple room sightings that would make a departure and arrival unseen or heard even less likely.

                  When coupled with a lack of need to secure any doss for the bed that night, the fact that she was hammered and singing for an hour since she arrived home during which time the rain intesified outside, you have very little in the way of plausible motivation for a street whore with a record of not giving a fig about rent arrears resulting in her eviction elsewhere, to bundle up drunk and go stand in the rain to earn money she had nowhere to spend that night, and no need for, having eaten and drunk her fill already.

                  Kate was passed out by 8pm,...when these girls go on a tear they drink till they are broke or cant drink anymore...thats why she is home before the pubs closed I believe.

                  My best Sam, all.
                  Last edited by Guest; 10-20-2008, 03:05 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by perrymason View Post
                    Just a quick reply to Sam, perhaps I shouldnt have said at the Inquest, as I dont recall all the various versions of her statements reported, but she did say to the press that she heard it when furniture was moved about in Marys room.
                    Perhaps you could point me to a specific source for that, Mike? Most of the press reports detailing Mrs Prater's evidence refer to her "interview" at the Inquest, and as far as I can recall she never said that she had on previous occasions heard furniture being moved about in Kelly's room.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Perhaps you could point me to a specific source for that, Mike? Most of the press reports detailing Mrs Prater's evidence refer to her "interview" at the Inquest, and as far as I can recall she never said that she had on previous occasions heard furniture being moved about in Kelly's room.
                      Hi Sam,

                      To be honest I dont recall offhand which it was either, but I am sure I read it. I know the Telegraph said she could hear Mary move about through the partition wall, and the Times reported on the 13th that "Elizabeth Prater, a married woman, living apart from her husband, said she occupied No. 20 room, Miller's-court, her room being just over that occupied by the deceased. If deceased moved about in her room much witness could hear her."

                      The St James Gazette said on the 13th that "She used to hear the deceased walking about in her room." The Telegraph said on the 13th that she was asked about furniture moving when she awoke from the Diddles incident, and it says "Did you hear beds or tables being pulled about ?"... Prater "None whatever. I went asleep, and was awake again at five a.m. I passed down the stairs, and saw some men harnessing horses. At a quarter to six I was in the Ten Bells."

                      The Daily News on the 13th reported that she said "I live in No. 20 Room, Miller's-court, and the deceased lived below me."

                      Being Sunday night here Sam, Ill give another look tommorow and see if I cant find it, but hopefully Ive given you some support above for that kind of remark.

                      Best regards Gareth.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by perrymason View Post
                        I am sure I read it.
                        No such article exists on the Casebook press reports section or any book. Unless you've done first hand research and found an article nobody else has seen, which of course you haven't because your research is limited to reading what other people post on this site, you did not read it anywhere.

                        Looks like you were confused about something you saw, stored a faulty version in your memory, and are now unwilling to admit making a mistake.

                        So what else is new?

                        Dan Norder
                        Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
                        Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Chava View Post
                          Well you know, I've always suspected that McCarthy might have killed Kelly himself and faked a Ripper murder. She owed him a hellova lot of backrent, and could well have had something on him. He was there. He could have gotten in and out quickly and quietly. But if he didn't do it, I very much doubt he knew who did. Unless he himself hired it done as a contract. Every so often some East End person seems to have poked his/her head over the parapet and said 'I know whodunnit'. But if they did, why didn't they tell someone? If McCarthy knew who killed Kelly--and he lived for a long time after the murders, why didn't he say who it was?

                          McCarthy is a very tempting suspect for me. and I can make a fairly good case. But I suspect the reality is the anonymous East End Working Man with a nice line in patter and a fast hand with a knife.
                          I agree, Chava...I go through scenarios where McC Jr. kills Mary in a rage and then stages it to look ripperish. But then I think, wow, you'd need a pretty strong stomach. (And things like, 'get a grip, you've been reading too much fiction!') And, yes, I tend to the anonymous working man, too.

                          But I just can't believe, as noted by others here, that someone absolutely sauced could be bothered hauling themselves out of their room to turn a trick unless they were pretty much badgered into it. McCarthy would be one person with a vested interest in badgering her into it.
                          best,

                          claire

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            There were a couple of other things that led me to McCarthy back in the day. One thing was that he didn't open the door to Kelly's room with the key he must, as landlord, have had. Then there was all that money she owed him. People explain it by saying he was trying to get her into a situation where she had to go out hooking for him. But these girls moved around. All she'd have to do to avoid that was flit! I think he could have done it. If he was consumed with anger, and started trying to 'do a Ripper' I could see how that could get out of hand. There has always seemed something personal to the Kelly murder which you don't see in the others.

                            But I'm in agreement with you and everyone else. If Kelly was as drunk as Cox suggested, I don't see her going out after bringing Blotchy-Face back home. So Blotchy has to be considered a suspect--especially with the handy pot he brought with him which, as I observed in another thread, could carry some bits and bobs quite nicely and privately...

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Dan Norder View Post

                              1. No such article exists on the Casebook press reports section or any book. Unless you've done first hand research and found an article nobody else has seen, which of course you haven't... 2.... Because your research is limited to reading what other people post on this site, you did not read it anywhere.

                              Looks like you were confused about something you saw, stored a faulty version in your memory, ...3......and are now unwilling to admit making a mistake.

                              So what else is new?
                              Daniel, Daniel....so quick to start a pile-on,....you must have confused me with yourself Dan, because I never claim to know every bit of every article or press report ever written about these cases....see 1.....and 2, I have read a great deal on this site, and on others, and in paperback and hardcopy, though I wont contest your more intimate knowledge with things that have little or nothing to do with the murders themselves.....and 3, I have made mistakes here and acknowldeged them readily, since I am not infallible. I guess that makes one of us huh?

                              I will continue to look for an article that says Elizabeth could hear furniture moving about in Marys room specifically, if I am mistaken that it was worded that way, you have my apologies, ....but only you would by-pass the quotes I quickly provided, including her being asked directly IF she heard furniture move in Marys room after the "oh-murder"...not WOULD she HAVE heard, or COULD SHE hear that sort of noise. It seems clear by the other quotes and snippets that Mrs Prater said she could hear Mary moving about in her room, which was below hers according to those quotes.....(which is Sams sticking point I believe, not the idea that she could hear things from Marys room)......and when she was asked that question, it's phrasing alone indicates that the person asking the question believed the respondent could comment legitimately on noise such as that. Since she had acknowledged that ability in other context, such as hearing Mary "moving about" in the room.

                              In your leap to rub someones face in a mistake, which it may still be, you neglected the subtext of the posted quotes plus all the others not posted, which support the possibility that somewhere "furniture moving" and "Mary moving" might be intermixed in quotes, you asserted beyond any doubt that all possible sources that exist in the world do not have that quote....inferring you are an expert on the totality of data ever written on, about, or regarding the Ripper, .....and you made accusations about someone that can be proven wrong simply by some back reading here on Casebook.

                              Ive never encountered someone so happy to be belligerent, and so emphatic about being seen as an "expert". Got a hint for you Dan, the experts here are mostly the ones that act like gentlemen....maybe just try and emulate their style.

                              Ill let you know if I find the quote, but suffice to say, if not, my apologies, but again, the quotes that are available support Elizabeth feeling she had that kind of ability...to hear Mary, and furniture, which of course would be much louder than bootsteps.....from her room.

                              Cheers.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Found it!

                                Mike, here ya go:
                                The Times, 13th November 1888
                                "Elizabeth Prater, a married woman, living apart from her husband, said she occupied No. 20 room, Miller's-court, her room being just over that occupied by the deceased. If deceased moved about in her room much witness could hear her. Witness lay down on her bed on Thursday night or Friday morning about 1:30 with her clothes on, and fell asleep directly. She was disturbed during the night by a kitten in the room."

                                That doesn't say directly that Prater had heard Kelly moving about on previous occasions, but it's probably where you may have got the idea from. However, that's clearly a rather potted précis, written in the 3rd person. Here's the more "verbatim" report in the Daily Telegraph of the same date.
                                The Daily Telegraph, 13th November 1888
                                Elizabeth Prater, a married woman, said: "My husband, William Prater, was a boot machinist, and he has deserted me. I live at 20 Room, in Miller's-court, above the shed. Deceased occupied a room below. I left the room on the Thursday at five p.m., and returned to it at about one a.m. on Friday morning. I stood at the corner until about twenty minutes past one. No one spoke to me. McCarthy's shop was open, and I called in, and then went to my room. I should have seen a glimmer of light in going up the stairs if there had been a light in deceased's room, but I noticed none. The partition was so thin I could have heard Kelly walk about in the room. I went to bed at half-past one and barricaded the door with two tables. I fell asleep directly and slept soundly. A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four."
                                Note that the greater detail conveyed by the phrases flanking the Telegraph account (viz., "I should have seen a glimmer of light", "in going up the stairs" and "the partition was so thin I could have heard") give crucial contextual information that shows the inadequacy, and potential to mislead, of the corresponding section in the Times. Reading the fuller accounts given in the Telegraph (and some other "verbatim" reportage in other papers), as well as the official inquest records, shows that Prater's statement about being able to hear Kelly was made in the context of her passing the thin partition on her way up the stairs.
                                Last edited by Sam Flynn; 10-20-2008, 11:33 PM.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X