The Night She Died

[Robert]

Hi Michael

I know you agree with me that the killer didn't come in and hang around before killing, and also that the cry heard was Mary's cry. But this business about someone known to her coming in enraged - well, the logical man for that scenario is Hutchinson. I thought you were writing out Hutchinson.

[Chava]

Hi Marlowe! I was just deadpanning it for a lark!

There is one aspect of Sarah Lewis's evidence that struck as I was reading the thread. Everyone always looks at her evidence because she saw a man standing at the entrance to the court. May have been Hutchison. May not have been. But because of the Kudzu Kontoversy we don't pay any attention to the other part of Lewis's evidence: she didn't see or hear anything from #13.

Let's believe Kudzu for a minute. He sees Mr A go into the court with Kelly and one assumes they go into #13. He then waits outside and is seen by Lewis. But Lewis hears and sees nothing from #13 as she proceeds into the court. If Mr A is in there with Kelly, I suspect she would see or hear something--movement, the flicker of a candle flame, a slight murmur of voices. There are two people in that very small room. But she doesn't see anything. Now it's certainly possible that she was preoccupied and so didn't notice stuff. In fact it's probable. But no one else sees or hears anything from that room after Cox leaves at roughly 1.10 am either. No singing. No talking. No moving about. No door banging. At 11.45 pm on the night she died, Mary Jane Kelly was drunk, loud and thoughtless. She remained that way until 1.10 am, pissing off at least one neighbour in the process. And then, even though Hutchinson described her as still half-cut, she transformed into the soul of discretion, thoughtfulness and quiet.

I do find that unusual.

Gareth, we can't avoid Kudzu in this conversation. It's impossible. If you believe him, then he saw the Ripper pick up his last victim. If you don't, then his evidence has to be discounted. He is the most argued-over character in the whole case, but I don't think you can discuss the timeline of Kelly's last hours without discussing him.

[Ben]

Kennedy among others, were likely to be called, but the inquest was closed, abruptly.

Irrelevent as far as Kennedy was concerned, because we know for certain that she was known to the police at least two days in advance of the inquest. There's absolutely no way that the police would interview Kennedy on 10th, and yet fail to call her for the inquest two days later.

You can't argue that they were one and the same, with Sara telling the truth and Kennedy not telling the truth.

I'm not arguing that they were one and the same. That's possible, but it's more likely, as far as I'm concerned, that she got wind of Lewis' testimony and tried to pass it off as her own account, since we have a press statement to the effect that women were doing precisely that with an "Oh murder" account.

Kennedy said she saw Kelly, while Lewis never said that

She said that in one of her accounts. By the 12th, Kennedy had changed her story and dropped any mention of having seen Kelly. In all other respects, the Kennedy and Lewis stories are suspiciously similar and clearly the result of a bad attempt to "Chinese Whisper" a genuine account.

George Sims may not have been an idiot, but he could easily have been someone who read "Kennedy's" account in the press in the wake of the Kelly murder, before she was very clearly smelt out as bogus.

[perrymason]

Oh, Christ! Don't tell me we have to add Kudzu kennediensis to the list...

At last...a shared sentiment.

I can say Marlowe that I believe that the evidence provided at Mary Kellys brief one day Inquest was the evidence that they felt to that point in time was relevant to the proceedings, and any claim that the Inquest would be re-opened and new witnesses called is really just that...a claim, it doesnt happen. Which means, that no evidence that was discovered or offered after the initial one day Inquest, or evidence that was presented to them before the Inquest was opened but not chosen as "presentable" at that time, was enough to warrant re-opening it later.

"Kennedy's evidence" had no perceived value to them...so why should it to us?

All the best

[Marlowe]

"Oh Christ!"....

I'm right here Sam!

[perrymason]

Hi Michael

I know you agree with me that the killer didn't come in and hang around before killing, and also that the cry heard was Mary's cry. But this business about someone known to her coming in enraged - well, the logical man for that scenario is Hutchinson. I thought you were writing out Hutchinson.

Actually I do think the killer was there for enough time to allow for the two ear witnesses to have moved on from to concern initially to sleep Robert, and I believe the most likely man or men that could be enraged about Mary having sex with a man in her bed paid or unpaid...as we have no records she did that before, might be a man or men that have to sleep with her in that same bed, and that give her money to live on. Men that might feel some entitlement to Mary before clients or other male friends.

For example, and I dont buy this particular scenario....but what if Barnett shows up after his gambling, bringing Mary the money he didnt have when he saw her the night before, and he finds her half undressed, still bombed, and the room smelling of sex and booze. Maybe with Mary not even being paid to do it. Could a man who has uncontrollable violence in him at times lose his temper at that...but wait until she falls asleep....passes back out... so he can kill her more quietly? I think its possible, and I dont think Barnett is that man.

Cold hearted killers can show extreme rage in acts, but also some self control leading up to those acts.

Maybe "oh-murder" is Mary opening the door and realizing that she has just been caught cheating on a "boyfriend".

All the best.

[Marlowe]

Perrymason: don't take up tap dancing, you'll hurt yourself. Last try: Were Kennedy and Lewis the same?

Ben: It doesn't matter if it was one account or ten: Kennedy can't be accused of "parroting" an account (seeing Kelly) by a person (Sarah Lewis) if that person never gave that account!!! That's not a difficult concept to understand. Hence, if Lewis and Kennedy were the same -- you can't "keep" Lewis' account to help your theory while then dismissing Kennedy's account. This leaves you with only one option: the unprovable "parroting" theory. And BECAUSE, Kennedy said she saw Kelly--while Lewis did not, the "parroting" theory is dead. Next.

Chava, delayed cymbal crash.

[perrymason]

[QUOTE=Marlowe;60080]
Perrymason: don't take up tap dancing, you'll hurt yourself. Last try: Were Kennedy and Lewis the same?
QUOTE]

I do not believe that they were the same person. I do believe that only one of them matters to the investigation in any way, shape or form, and there is evidence in existence to back that statement up.

Or rather the lack of any presentation of her "evidence".

Im not much of a dancer anyway.

[Ben]

Ben: It doesn't matter if it was one account or ten: Kennedy can't be accused of "parroting" an account (seeing Kelly) by a person (Sarah Lewis) if that person never gave that account!!!

Yes she can, easily.

The details of the account are far too implausibly similar to apply to two individuals, suggesting very strongly that someone had learned of Sarah Lewis' evidence and attempted to pass it off as her own experience, getting a few details wrong in the process. We have independent support from this in the form of an observation from The Star that certain women were passing an "Oh murder" account off as their own experiences. Since we have no evidence that anyone tried to copy Prater's, the "Oh murder" account in question must refer to Lewis', and since Kennedy's account is implausibly similar to Lewis', it's simply logical to deduce that Kennedy was one of the "copiers" referred to.

Why are you regurgiating this nonsense again when it was only discussed very recently?

[Sam Flynn]

I'm right here Sam!

Marlowe, I would rather be
Marlowe, in an apple tree
Marlowe, than a naughty boy
Marlowe, in adversity

(Latin mnemonic, albeit the spelling was "Malo" in the original )

[Marlowe]

Ben,

What does the word "parroting" mean? I suggest you look it up. Kennedy said something that Sarah Lewis NEVER SAID!!!! That's NOT PARROTING. Are you drinking, man, or what?

Why did I bring this up, you ask? I was trying to have a nice conversation with a nice girl when you, ahem, got in the way!


Perrymason,

So you think that Kennedy and Lewis were different people, huh? Perhaps you will explain what you meant by writing on Dec 4, "Sarah's relatives are across the narrowish walkway..." Sarah who? What relatives? Kennedy had relatives...Sarah had friends.

Interesting Sam, very...interesting hmm :-)

Malo...er, Marlowe

[Chava]

Guys, guys, let's put down the vested theories and walk away for a minute.

Marlowe, is there a handy digest anywhere of all the non-authenticated Kelly sightings? The witnesses that didn't make it into the inquest?

Also, we haven't discussed Caroline Maxwell. Her testimony is wildly at odds with all the others and with the medical evidence. I think she was mistaken as to who she spoke to or when she did the speaking. But she was called to testify at the inquest. Even though the coroner basically told her ahead of time he thought her evidence was a load of shite. What in hell was that about?

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Just a quick address of the last post addressed at me Chava, honest....

Marlowe, I cant remember what I wrote on Dec 4th or why I phrased it as I did, but if as you said I wrote what you quoted then its because Im not 100 % convinced that The Keylers were not related to Sarah Lewis in some form...sounds something like a favourite niece seeking shelter to me, and it leaked out in my post.

She says only that she "knew" Mrs Keyler...not how, or to what extent. She could be an aunt, as represented by the fact she doesnt use Mrs Keylers first name. She'd be "auntie" whatever to Sarah in conversation, but Mrs Keyler if Sarah was telling someone about her who didnt know Keyler herself...."auntie" such and such would mean nothing to someone like that.

Anyway, weve skirted being adversarial here, and although I dont agree with your "believeable witness" choices in this case, Ive no issue with you....so were clear.

Best regards.

[Marlowe]

Chava,

No, I'm not aware of any collection of sightings. I thought one your posts on the "Rent Arrears" thread was interesting; the one where you mention a possibly complicit, Mary Jane Kelly. Isn't it possible that Kelly was friends with any number of these suspects -- either Sun Burn man, or Astrakhan, or Hutchinson? If so, then what? "Sara", on a different thread, made some interesting observations about this possibility, too, re: friends and drinking.

All's cool, perrymason.

[Chava]

Chava,

No, I'm not aware of any collection of sightings. I thought one your posts on the "Rent Arrears" thread was interesting; the one where you mention a possibly complicit, Mary Jane Kelly. Isn't it possible that Kelly was friends with any number of these suspects -- either Sun Burn man, or Astrakhan, or Hutchinson? If so, then what? "Sara", on a different thread, made some interesting observations about this possibility, too, re: friends and drinking.

All's cool, perrymason.

Yes, I think it's entirely possible she was involved. We've had two murderous male/female partnerships in the past 50 years--Hindley/Brady and Homolka/Bernardo. I doubt the Hindley/Brady duo were the first. they were just the first we'd heard of. And both Myra Hindley and Karla Homolka claimed they had been abused by their homicidal lovers.

All the victims, I believe, had close ties to the area around Millers Court. I don't think they were lured to their deaths--the evidence really doesn't suggest this. But I do think it's possible that more than one person was involved in catching them and setting them up. Especially given the fact that they were killed in the open air with people all around who could walk in on a murder at any moment. Having an accomplice to keep watch could be invaluable. And a man walking late at night with a woman wouldn't be nearly as suspicious as a man walking alone. Also a woman could carry the all-important knife concealed more easily than a man. She could just hold it in her shawl or her skirts.

If, however, these two fall out in a bad way, I think it's highly likely that the man would turn on the woman. And after she has died find himself unable to go on killing alone. I've always thought there was something different and personal about the Kelly killing.