The Night She Died

[Ben]

Mary was more than likely awakened by the arrival of her killer.

I wouldn't go with "more than likely" there, Mike.

It's certainly no less likely than the premise that she was woken up by a killer who simply intruded upon her, rather than knocking on her door and being invited in. She could easily have been surprised in her sleep and let out an "Oh murder" before being murdered, just as he could easily have opened the door without alerting Kelly to his presence and arrived at the bed with her still in a supine, sleeping condition.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

What explanation do we have for the other victims, whom we know the Ripper picked up outdoors (and who presumably didn't know their killer), not screaming their lungs out?

1. Surprise
2. Proximity

They turn their back, and are unconscious and on the ground in no time...air and voice suppressed by the method of getting them incapacitated. He is there, (behind them) with their knowledge, with an agreed action to take place. The women believe they know what comes next.

If Mary didnt leave after 11:45pm on the 8th, or she did but was home again in her room at approx 3:45am when someone arrives at her door, then he either opens it and enters himself, or is let in by Mary. It is only at this point does he have the same proximity as the previous killer did. When trying to get into the room, he doesn't.

The main difference here....the killer of the first 4 met the women likely while they were working the streets, they expected and invited strange encounters...it was what they did to eat, drink and sleep.... as long as the money "spent the same" as from a known client. If Mary was already asleep in her bed, in her room, there is no open invitation for him to accept, she is not obviously working at that time, nor does it appear she was expecting anyone, she is asleep...so he must acquire that invitation. He cannot force her to allow him to enter silently if he is unknown to her. And no sounds followed "oh-murder"...translating to a conclusion if it was Mary, she was not attacked the second after she cried out. Or even within a few minutes...Prater fell back asleep in a few minutes.

Cheers Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

1. Surprise
2. Proximity

... can't see how one can't be both surprising and "proximal" indoors as well as outdoors, Mike.

[perrymason]

There is a good possibility... to both Ben and Sam, that this killer arrived on Marys doorstep by himself. That doesn't give him surprise or proximity....he isnt able to physically suppress any reaction she might have. For him to gain access...either by letting himself in or by Mary letting him in...the net result is the same thing...he is allowed to enter... with permission. He cannot physically control a vocal objection until he has the "proximity" required, and that requires her granting his entrance.

The only "reaction" we potentially have on record is the possible cry of "oh-murder"..and that is followed by silence...not attack sounds and scuffling. Mary did defend herself remember, the reason she didnt cry out at that time was probably because she was surpised....slipping back to sleep would be one explanation. So he could only surprise her when given the proximity to manage her response....and in this case that looks like it also required permission to enter and stay.

If Mary was asleep, and alone, and that was her cry at 3:45am, the lack of supplementary sounds should indicate that she was awake enough to cry out, but also that she allowed him entrance without further fanfare. Since she was likely dressed as found at that time, again, the situation speaks to a known Man.

Thats a few ifs, but not far astray from any facts. The cry at 3:45am if Mary, logically cannot be her discovering she is being attacked in her room. There is no sound that follows that cry, and we know that Mary did use her hand to try and fend off slices or slashes. So if "oh-murder" was her greeting the arrival, the lack of any sounds that might be construed as struggles or screams indicate the guest enters without resistance.

Standing behind a whore who is expecting a sex act might be an easy surprise victim, getting into a room to get at one without noise is a different kettle of flounder...not so much though if you know the person inside the room.

Best regards gents.

[Sam Flynn]

getting into a room to get at one without noise is a different kettle of flounder...not so much though if you know the person inside the room...

... nor if you were in the room already, and she had led you there.

[perrymason]

... nor if you were in the room already, and she had led you there.

No argument there Sam,...although there might be on whom of our illustrious "suspects" that might be. I personally haven't ruled out Blotchy Face using that very same parameter.

All the best Sam...

[Robert]

I'm not so sure a woman would be able to scream the place down if, say, someone gave her a slug on the chin and then threw a sheet over her face and furiously stabbed her face through it.

[Sam Flynn]

I have a huge issue with that "stabbed through the sheet" stuff, Rob - namely, that I firmly believe Bond to have been wrong. I shan't elaborate here, 'cos there's an existing thread on the subject.

[perrymason]

I'm not so sure a woman would be able to scream the place down if, say, someone gave her a slug on the chin and then threw a sheet over her face and furiously stabbed her face through it.

Hi Robert,

That may explain how it may have happened once he was in the room, however he needs to get into the room without noise that would wake Mary and get literally to her bedside without her waking. If the voice at 3:45am was Marys....and I dont see any reason why it couldnt have been...then she was alive, and she wasnt fending off an attack at the time....there are two witnesses that heard the cry but none that heard anything immediately following it.

My deduction is that it was Mary, she had been sleeping...and whomever arrived was allowed to enter...or if he entered using the pane/latch method or just opened an unlocked door, he was not unknown, her cry is not immediately followed by an attack, nor made during one. If he is unknown and therefore unwelcome, he attacks as soon as she stirs or he can get at her...he has to. If she had already stirred, and there is no attack immediately following, then the guest may have been invited in.

Cheers Robert.

[perrymason]

So the position is clear, and I dont suffer "the slings and arrows"...

Its my opinion that the accepted evidence suggests that Mary did not go out after arriving home, leaving Blotchy Face as the last man seen with her...and actually entering the scene of the soon to be murder itself.

The quiet and dark state testified to after 1:30am seems to me to indicate that her "entertaining" had ended. Since nothing is seen or heard concerning the courtyard until approx 3:45am, I conclude that if it was Mary, she had likely been sleeping from around 1:30 until then... based on the prior evidence mentioned. I feel the cry described is inconsistent with a cry for help or of danger, Elizabeth Prater herself said she could hear cries like that all the time at night around there. I would think the tone, volume and urgency would be what a witness might try to discern to assess the actual danger...and apparently Elizabeth was not concerned this was a call for help.

The fact that this cry is not followed by sounds of beds creaking or furniture moving about...which one likely would hear when a strange man pounces on a woman on her doorstep, makes me believe that there was no immediate threat. Yet something woke her and caused her outburst.

My conclusion is that it was an unexpected, but not totally unwelcome, male friend.

If you feel she did make the cry....then you cannot believe it was as her stranger/killer pounced...there is no evidence that suggests anything after that cry. The opposite, in fact. If you feel she made the cry as she meets her killer, either with him entering alone, or with her opening the door...then the lack of any noise following would indicate that he was not a stranger. If you feel someone else made the cry, you have to assume there were witnesses in that court that night that were not residents that never came forward, because we can be certain all females living in that courtyard were interviewed, they locked it down and kept everyone there most of the afternoon and evening. None of them claimed that cry.

The only resident that we cannot be sure of in terms of that cry is Mary. But as she is the only female we know that was a resident and didnt get questioned, none of the others said "boo"...., Mary is a likely source of it.

If you look at the evidence from the standpoint that Mary did make that cry out...and start extrapolating from there, a stranger seems pretty unlikely, considering everything....the location.. her bedroom essentially, her state of undress, and a cry that doesnt seem to be directly linked to an attack.

Cheers all.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

He cannot physically control a vocal objection until he has the "proximity" required, and that requires her granting his entrance.

But he has the best chance possible of minimizing the risk of any vocal objections if he's reasonably secure in the knowledge that the victim was asleep, and he could acheive that best by entering without Kelly's knowledge while she was sleeping.

If Mary was asleep, and alone, and that was her cry at 3:45am, the lack of supplementary sounds should indicate that she was awake enough to cry out, but also that she allowed him entrance without further fanfare.

Why couldn't also indicate that she was surprised in her sleep by someone she didn't let it and wasn't expecting? I'm just not sure why you'd expect more "supplementary sounds" from the sleeping victim of an unexpected intruder, but less from someone who was fully awake and aware of someone in the room. Logically, the reverse would make rather more sense.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I'm just not sure why you'd expect more "supplementary sounds" from the sleeping victim of an unexpected intruder, but less from someone who was fully awake and aware of someone in the room.

... or someone who was awake, but was caught unawares. Like Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, for example. Incidentally, as Chapman was awake and seemingly could only manage a feeble "No!", then quite how an allegedly drink-anaesthetised, sleeping Kelly managed a loud-ish "Oh, Murder!" is rather baffling.

[perrymason]

Why couldn't also indicate that she was surprised in her sleep by someone she didn't let it and wasn't expecting?

Hey Ben,

Because the obvious struggle that does occur during the actual attack, by Marys defensive wounds, would have created noise that Elizabeth was now awake and listening for. That noise never came. Which makes me believe the attack happened when both the soon to be victim and the ear witnesses were not awake. That addresses Mary's surprise factor, and the lack of anyone else hearing noises.

When the cry is heard, 3 people are awake....Mary, if she called out, .. Sarah and Elizabeth. If that isn't the beginning of an attack...which it seems it wasn't, then her killer has to remain in close proximity to her while she falls asleep again.

How many men would she let sit in her dark room while she falls asleep in her underwear? Any strangers fit that mold?

Im trying to "Holmes" this one ...by following logical thought progression.

Cheers Ben

[Sam Flynn]

When the cry is heard, 3 people are awake....Mary, if she called out, .. Sarah and Elizabeth. If that isn't the beginning of an attack...which it seems it wasn't

It seems that it wasn't? What makes you think that, Mike?

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Which makes me believe the attack happened when both the soon to be victim and the ear witnesses were not awake

That's precisely my point.

Kelly wakes up at the beginning of the attack after being surprised by her killer while sleeping. She calls out, and is heard by a couple of witnesses. After that, he doesn't have to wait for her to "fall asleep again". He just kills her.

Incidentally, as Chapman was awake and seemingly could only manage a feeble "No!", then quite how an allegedly drink-anaesthetised, sleeping Kelly managed a loud-ish "Oh, Murder!" is rather baffling.

Depends on the severity of the interruption, I'd say, Gareth. Strictly speaking, it isn't proven that Chapman's "no" was exclamatory. It was simply one word that Cadosch was able to discern, and could have formed part of the pre-crime "inveigling" act:

"Does this deerstalker make me look shabby-genteel?"

"No."