The Night She Died

[richardnunweek]

Hi Chava,
Forgive me for the error in address.
Regarding the Rigor argument, that has never been confirmed as accurate, any modern day medical expert, would agree that going by the body disfigurement,and room temperature, a good deal of educated guesswork was obviously used, and the progression of rigor mortis would not have been any guide in this case.
For arguments sake, if one looks at the Hanbury street murder, for the doctors to have been accurate, Mrs longs statement, and Albert Cadouche, would have been insignificant.
As i have recently mentioned on another thread, if the doctors on the scene at millers court were convinced of the time of death, why was Abberline even bothered with Mrs Maxwell , and her strange tale, and why was she brought foreward at the inquest, when all it would achieve was the level headed Maxwell[ a woman of good character] perjuring herself and the police doctors
made to look foolish.
I feel T.O.D in this case, should not be classed as cast iron.
Regards Richard.

[Chava]

Hi Richard,

I think that's a wonderful hypothesis, if it were not for the fact that she was going into full rigor during the PM that afternoon. Otherwise I would agree with you wholeheartedly!

(By the way, I'm Madam, not Sir!)

The best, Richard,
Chava

[richardnunweek]

Hi Chava,
You are correct sir, nothing can be explained about the kelly murder, unless one simply listens to the witnesses, and one does not attempt to be clever in trying to scratch out statements just because it does not flow true.
The fact is just by listening to all the witnesses connected we simply have the following.
Mjk leaves her home around 9am, she is then dressed in jacket and bonnet.
Mjk arrives home and swops clothing sometime after.
Mrs cox observes her with Blotchy
Blotchy leaves
Gh sees her with Astracan.
Astracan leaves.
Around 4am, kelly awakes from a reoccurance of a bad dream, that she was being murdered. she crys out 'Oh murder'
At 730 am Kelly is awaken by her door being knocked by Catherine pickert.
She dresses, lights her fire, rolls back her bedroll, and leaves just after 8am, where she is observed by Maurice Lewis, and shortly after by Mrs Maxwell.
She informs her about her recent vomit, and refers to the 'Horrors of drink'
She is then seen by Maxwell talking to a man dressed like a market porter, she makes an arrangement for this man to return to her room, but to give her time to ger prepeared.
She is unaware that this man, is about to place her in history, being put in a false sense of security by the time of day, and feeling safe in the knowledge that the killer strikes outside, at night.
As you can see Chava, its that easy, that is if one ignores the T.O.D, and yours truely is prepeared on this occassion to do just that.
Regards Richard.

[Chava]

I have to say that there is nothing about this murder that makes any kind of sense.

- She's found in a nightgown/under-chemise. So either she was in bed and prepared to sleep or she had engaged to stay the night with a trick who turned out to be a murderer. But if he was the Ripper, why did he wait until she was completely undressed before he jumped her? Even if he thought 'easier if she gets her stays off!' she would have been more vulnerable to him while she was occupied with her clothing than she would be if she was basically completely undressed. Why hang around? He didn't waste time in the other killings. If she was expecting to go to sleep by herself, how did her killer get in? If he had the key, that wouldn't help if she'd bolted the door--and she may not have done that when she went out, but I would be amazed if she didn't do it when she was actually in the room and sleeping. If he pushed the rags out of the window to get at the bolt, they would have fallen on the floor and possibly woken her up. If I were him, that's a chance I wouldn't take. And it's a piece of knowledge that speaks to the killer knowing about how the victim lived. Which argues prior contact and familiarity.

- I've said this many times. If she was loud at 1.00 am, why did she then go quiet after 1.10 am? She comes in like a lion, but tiptoes out like a lamb.

- If Kudzu is telling the truth, then Mr A is an idiot. I put this on a thread about Kudzu but I'll echo it here. Mr A sees Kelly talking to someone she knows, who then pays a great deal of attention to Mr A a nd follows the couple and watches them. If he's an ordinary punter, why does he take a chance on a whore who seems to have a bully-boy boyfriend hanging around? If he's the Ripper, ditto?

- Is it possible that her murderer may have been Barnett? And why was he giving her money after they split up? We only have his account that her ex-boyfriends gave her a bob or two. Maybe it was just him. Why did he do it? Because it seems to me that the only way the Ripper gets in under the circumstances of the crime is if Kelly, dressed for bed and half-asleep, lets him in and then goes back to bed...

- But the other male/female sk partnerships were known as couples by their friends and relations. So if Kelly was involved, I doubt it could be with anyone other than Barnett. But Barnett seems to have been ruled out by the police, so I assume he had an excellent alibi for the night she died.

Like I said, nothing here makes any kind of sense!

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Robert,

I agree with the part in bold for sure, and I think that we can mark that time by a cry from what is very likely an open door to room 13 at around 3:45am. At least me and the two court ear witnesses think it was "from the court".

Which would mean that Mary Ann could be the last one to see her, that she and Blotchy perhaps ate while she sang off and on, that when the room goes dark and quiet its what it usually means when you dont see or hear them leave, and it allows for Blotchy to have left before she dies, allowing another man, her killer, one known to her much better, to enter the room.

One who might become enraged that he is arriving just after she has had sex with another man in her bed, the one he is then going to share with her....and we dont even know if she did it for a fee.

All the best Robert.

Happy New year Micheal,

Yes I beieive this is one possibility that Chava did not include in his first assessment. That the killer had been an early client of MJK and witness how the door was open. So almost anyone might have known how to access the room, wich leaves the door wide open...

Except that this would also mean a major change in pattern by Jack, all the other murders we presume Jack picks thenm up on main road and the victim takes him to murder scene...

Just some thoughts

Pirate

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael,
You addressed my post with fair points, however I still maintain that it would be foolish to dispute statements made by important witnesses such as Prater/Maxwell simply because we have no proof that what they said was accurate..
Of course we have no proof, one can only rely on ones interpretation of certain related snippits , in order to justify an opinion, and that is what I have done.
For eg.
closely inspecting Praters statements press, and inquest, and looking for hints of truthfullness in the wording, for eg.. She had her bonnet and jacket on , i do not own one', and she said 'Goodnight my pretty' she always called me that, and her vocal interpretation of a nightmare at the inquest.
Using that as a base, and taking Lotties words [ three years later] one could form an opinion very much like I have.
Also my discovery some thirty four years ago which was obviously a lost part of Maxwells original statement which stated, quote' Her eyes looked queer , as if suffering from a heavy cold' I relayed this to Colin Wilson at the time, and he was intrested, albeit hesitant. without absolute proof[ which does not exist].
The reason why that phrase was so intresting is that it did possibly have relation to part of Hutchinsons statement 'Oh I have lost my hankerchief', the possible hint of a cold springs to mind.
That my friend is how I tend to look at this case, looking for trends in witnesses, that have back up , or traces of truth which is evident in words used to describe an event.
Best Regards
Richard.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Chava!

I find it possible, that MJK might have had a hunch about the identity of the killer.

But being involved; OK, I have participated into the discussions about "Mary the Ripper". At the moment I find only as a theory, but not plausible!

All the best
Jukka

[Chava]

Jukka, I didn't suggest a 'harlot conspiracy'. I did suggest that it wasn't impossible that Kelly was involved in the previous killings.

But be assured that, if she was, it would be for nasty but mundane reasons. I don't expect Sir William Gull, or Prince Albert Edward or whatever to prance into the picture.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't think I said 'physical connection' I said 'connection'.

Indeed so, Chava - but there was a risk that somebody reading the post in question might have got the wrong idea, and gone off on a speculative tangent about conspiracy theories, or whatever. I merely chipped in to do some pre-emptive Kudzu-pruning

This thread is about the night of Kelly's death, after all, rather than feverish speculation about connections between victims.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Chava!

That is the thing, probably; the victims knew each other by sight, but an idea about a harlot-conspiracy belongs to the movie-script writers...

All the best
Jukka

[Chava]

Good catch, Chava. However, Eddowes' use of that false name/address for a pawnbroking transaction doesn't mean that she had any physical connection with Dorset Street at the time. On the contrary, we know that she didn't, anymore than she had a connection with Fashion Street, despite the (different) false name/address she used at Bishopsgate Police Station on the night of her death.

I don't think I said 'physical connection' I said 'connection'. Eddowes lived round the corner on Flower and Dean St and used Fashion St on another ticket. Those three streets lay very close together. I am not suggesting at any point that there was any kind of prior conversation between killer(s) and victim. I am not suggesting they all knew each other. But I would not be surprised if at least some of the victims knew Kelly by sight.

Good catch, Chava. However, Eddowes' use of that false name/address for a pawnbroking transaction doesn't mean that she had any physical connection with Dorset Street at the time. On the contrary, we know that she didn't, anymore than she had a connection with Fashion Street, despite the (different) false name/address she used at Bishopsgate Police Station on the night of her death.

Hi Sam,

To be fair here I dont think that there is anyway that we might "know" she had no connections to Dorset Street other than she didnt reside on it at the time, and there are connections by other Canonicals and witnesses to Dorset Street that we know of.

I think it would be fair to say that we have about as much reason to suggest she had a link with Dorset Street as there is that she had one with Mitre Square before Sept 30th, or that she would go there just after being released from jail after midnight.

All the best Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Wait a minute, according to this board and other research I've done, she was found with a pawn ticket in her possession when she died and it said: Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street.

Good catch, Chava. However, Eddowes' use of that false name/address for a pawnbroking transaction doesn't mean that she had any physical connection with Dorset Street at the time. On the contrary, we know that she didn't, anymore than she had a connection with Fashion Street, despite the (different) false name/address she used at Bishopsgate Police Station on the night of her death.

Hi Guys,
What it all boils down to, is the time of death, is it not?
1.Question.. Do we trust the medical reports findings.?
2.Question.. If Yes, how do we account for Maxwells statement,without using the same old argument 'she was mistaken' wrong day, wrong person etc , etc. when her account was verified by the police[ which surely would have included clothing found in her room which may have still been relatively damp]
3.Question.. Do we dismiss a possible explanation for the cry heard, that being Elizabeth Praters inquest account[ awakening from a nightmare]
4.Question.. Do we dismiss Kit Watkins interview with the woman lottie, who was aquainted with Mjk, in which the latter suggested that Kelly had during the month of october a nightmare , the subject that she was being murdered. would it not be then possible that a reoccurence of that dream, taking into account her fear of being in room 13, where the original dream had occured, could have led to a obvious cry of 'Oh Murder'.
5.Question.. Do we ignore the bedroll position and its possible indications.?
6.Question.. Can we ignore the last person seen alive with Mjk. ie, the market porter dressed in plaid, seen talking to a alleged dead woman?
So many questions, however this case is not straightforeward, and personally have never gone with the Astracan Killer[ although I believe GH] i have always however believed Ma Maxwell, and I have always believed that the police did also, even if it went against the medical judgement from the police doctors who were present, if not, 7. why did they order her to give that contradictory evidence at the inquest,would it not have been easier all round to have settled for less hassle.
Best regards, and a happy new year to everyone,
Richard.

Hi Richard,

I numbered your points to address them properly.

My answers would be...

1. Why would we not trust them, the state of the body when first examined is consistent with a death time that is suggested by the stomach contents. Rigor had begun and was increasing, something that takes anywhere from 8 to 13 hours, not 5.

2. Carrie Maxwells statement deserves no more or less attention than given by the authorities, and the same credibility.

3. Since Elizabeth had been awake only seconds, and didnt even know where the cry was coming from or who specifically, shes hardly in a position to guesstimate that Mary was waking from a nightmare.

4. I dont know if that story has any value, and to assert that this may be a recurring nightmare requires a story beyond repute and some evidence that Mary made the cry herself, before any conjecture in that area could be entertained.

5. The implications of the bedroll include being placed there by the photographers to shoot MJK3, and there is no indication anywhere that it was used every night, or wasnt just to muffle noise that the bed might make banging into the wall when being moved about.

6. The last person seen with Mary Kelly according to the officials and the records was a Blotchy Faced Man, at 11:45pm on Nov 8th.

7. There is no indication that Carrie Maxwell was "forced" to testify at the Inquest, and for all we know she had a cousin who was in Law Enforcement and she made him plead for her to be allowed to speak. The only thing that is provable about Carrie Maxwells story is that the police and Inquest officials didnt believe her evidence from the records of her statement, and told her so before she even opens her mouth. Why didnt they believe her? Well for one, her story takes place when Mary Kelly is already dead for one, by medical evidence, and her knowledge of Mary Kelly, claimed conversations with her, and even that Mary knew Maxwell enough to call her "Corrie/Carrie" are all unproven and unsubstantiated.

This night is tricky Richard, but it gets far trickier than it needs to be when you use the statements that were discarded by the men that took them, not the ones that were accepted.

Before any of your ideas regarding November 9th in Millers Court can be discussed seriously, evidence that discarded statements warrant re-consideration must be found, and evidence to support stories like Prater being able to guess Mary had a nightmare and woke, without even knowing that she even heard Mary at all or where the call came from.

Cheers Richard

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
What it all boils down to, is the time of death, is it not?
Question.. Do we trust the medical reports findings.?
Question.. If Yes, how do we account for Maxwells statement,without using the same old argument 'she was mistaken' wrong day, wrong person etc , etc. when her account was verified by the police[ which surely would have included clothing found in her room which may have still been relatively damp]
Question.. Do we dismiss a possible explanation for the cry heard, that being Elizabeth Praters inquest account[ awakening from a nightmare]
Question.. Do we dismiss Kit Watkins interview with the woman lottie, who was aquainted with Mjk, in which the latter suggested that Kelly had during the month of october a nightmare , the subject that she was being murdered. would it not be then possible that a reoccurence of that dream, taking into account her fear of being in room 13, where the original dream had occured, could have led to a obvious cry of 'Oh Murder'.
Question.. Do we ignore the bedroll position and its possible indications.?
Question.. Can we ignore the last person seen alive with Mjk. ie, the market porter dressed in plaid, seen talking to a alleged dead woman?
So many questions, however this case is not straightforeward, and personally have never gone with the Astracan Killer[ although I believe GH] i have always however believed Ma Maxwell, and I have always believed that the police did also, even if it went against the medical judgement from the police doctors who were present, if not, why did they order her to give that contradictory evidence at the inquest,would it not have been easier all round to have settled for less hassle.
Best regards, and a happy new year to everyone,
Richard.