The Night She Died

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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!

[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]

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,
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]

Small thing from Cox's testimony at the inquest:

By the Jury: There was a light in the window, but I saw nothing, as the blinds were down. I should know the man again, if I saw him.

Does that mean that there was a light burning in the room as she went in? Or did Kelly lit a candle or whatever when she got in the door? Either way, I don't think the inch or so of candle that was found in the room would have been sufficient to cast a light that could be seen through the 'blinds' (old clothes)...

[Sam Flynn]

Either way, I don't think the inch or so of candle that was found in the room would have been sufficient to cast a light that could be seen through the 'blinds' (old clothes)...

What if there was a chink in them?

[Chava]

What if there was a chink in them?

It's possible. But the light cast by a small candle doesn't radiate worth a damn! I light Shabbat candles every Friday night. I use 2 new candles. In a dark room, they really only cast light in a small circle around themselves. It wouldn't be nearly light enough, I think, to penetrate the windows unless the candle was held right up to the glass. Now that having been said, if there was no other light in the court, you might see something glimmering.