The Night She Died

[celee]

A couple of pretty unjustifiably bold statements there, Brad.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi all,

I guess my new bold attitude is not making any new friends. However, I am just trying to stop over thinking the case. I still love you all. The solution is simple Tumblety did it with a little help from a friend.

Hi Ben,

I have never read were any detective discredited Hutchinson's statement. I bet Hutchinsons Descrption of the man he saw with Kelly led to a few men being questioned.

Your friend, Brad

[richardnunweek]

Hi BW,
I am also of the belief that a person like Joe Barnett could have killed Mary and still remained able to carry on with his life.
If infact he was JTR, he once disposing of Mary, could have in his mental state cleansed himself of blame, with the attitude that she was to blame for all the others.
If we take Paleys case that the murders happened in an effort to contain Marys urge to commence streetwalking, after Barnett lost his proper job, then it would be entirely possible that once he realised that it was all in vain ,he saw the woman who shared his room as the reason for all that madness, and she had to pay for the deaths of the others, therefore in taking her life in the way he did, put all the blame on her.
The only picture taken at Leytonstone cemetary to my knowledge is a sketch taken showing the service depicting six women , and two men,
We know from reports that this was the actual number of mourners, and we know one of the men was Joseph Barnett.
If one observes that sketch[ can be found on casebook] one can see the two men lined up to pay their last respects, the former [ appearances can be deceiving]looks quite a large gentleman, the one behind has all the descriptions known for JB.
It has been debated on Casebook that the large man is a trick of the eye, however two men that have been described as large could have been present at the service.
The first was the priest a father Colomban, described as a giant of a man, the other a person whose height at the moment is much discussed on another thread.
The man described as large, appears not to be dressed as a priest, so the guesswork continues, however although much rejected on these boards except by yours truely, the infamous grave spitting account still lingers on. for if infact both Joseph Fleming, and Joseph Barnett, were infact those two men, then such an occurance may have taken place , the former because he was initial stages of insanity, and the latter whose recent hatred to the deseased was so intense, that he had to have the last say before the grave was filled.
I hope Hollywood is watching , what a film 'Joe the Ripper' what a climax, will the real killer step forward.............
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

I guess my new bold attitude is not making any new friends.

You're my friend already, Brad, as I'm sure you know.

On the 15th November, it was reported in The Star that Hutchinson's account had been "discredited" and later police reports and interviews from, along others, Abberline, Anderson and Macnaghten would tend to bear that out.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

You're my friend already, Brad, as I'm sure you know.

On the 15th November, it was reported in The Star that Hutchinson's account had been "discredited" and later police reports and interviews from, along others, Abberline, Anderson and Macnaghten would tend to bear that out.

Best regards,
Ben

I second that on Brad popping in, nice to have his perspective.

Bens comments above are what the reality is though....whether it should be isnt the debate. When assessing "The Night She Died" issues, I would think its best to at least start with an official baseline, and that is that Mary Kelly... from November 16th, 1888 until this post on January 27th, 2009,... was seen for the last time by accredited witnesses before midnight on Thursday night.

Richard believes that to be incorrect, so do many others, some include Maxwell's remarks while knowing she was warned on the stand that they jived with no "known" evidence or facts. But its prudent to remove their statements from our criteria...because "officially" they were deemed of no consequence to the investigation.

The night Mary dies begins with her entrance with Blotchy, and ends with her being found by Bowyer. In between those hours police believed that Mary is not seen by anyone out of her room, and she is not heard by anyone for certain after approx 1:30am.

Within that framework likely lies the truth, IMHO.

Best regards all.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Richard,

You said "The only picture taken at Leytonstone cemetery to my knowledge is a sketch taken showing the service depicting six women, and two men,"

[Can be found on casebook]

I could not find it on casebook, it would be greatly appreciated if you could direct me to the link, or post it again please.


BW

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Hold on a minute here. How do we know what the police believed? They had the known evidence but more likely than not they were debating the same question that we are today -- did Mary, a known prostitute, go out to solicit customers that night even though no one saw her leave her room?

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

Hold on a minute here. How do we know what the police believed? They had the known evidence but more likely than not they were debating the same question that we are today -- did Mary, a known prostitute, go out to solicit customers that night even though no one saw her leave her room?

c.d.

Hi cd,

The only way I can gauge how they viewed the evidence of these two witnesses, or any of them, is by what the records reflect. And I personally see no stamp of credibility ever extended to Carrie Maxwell and I do see such a "stamp" by no less than Abberline, revoked. And after all the shuffling finally settles that week, the police made it clear they were looking for a man of a Blotchy complexion seen by Mary Ann Cox at approx. 11:45 on the 8th, with Mary as she arrived home. This became the last sighting of Mary on the books. To me that is a stamp of approval for Mary Ann Cox's testimony.

As to whether she could have gone out to prostitute herself, its a possibility....but how probable, based on the evidence submitted and snippets of Marys past behaviors under such rent duress, her "known" behavior in her room in the court with respect to entertaining clients for sex, and her "known" state at the time of her arrival, by Mary Ann Cox, a trusted witness, Mary was barely able to get her words out...., my contention is and has been that there is not enough, or in some cases any precedent establishing data available to even warrant considering alternative answers to what is present in the records.

Meaning, if we had some indication she likely would,... or did before under similar circumstances,... ever confided to a friend about activities or fears regarding money or rent, ever was known to have walked the streets before while its raining and shes drunk, was seen by a witness that night after 11:45pm that is not discreditted, that there were indications by her clothes or boots that she went out in the hard rain that night, that someone heard something resembling her door opening or closing after 11:45pm on the 8th, that anyone heard her outside her room after 11:45, that she had an established pattern which included working before a Holiday, if we had any indication that when she arrived home that night drunk, perhaps fed already, it was due to paying for her drinks with sex...her room serenade doesnt quite fit that kind of trade, ....the list of activities that we might have record of, stories about her by friends, known behaviors or patterns is the key here.

If evidence of something is not present in what we learn of her from her closest friends, its my opinion that it should not be considered as "likely" or "probable" until answers that better fit the known data fail.

And there are indeed still answers to the riddles within known data that do not involve Mary being outdoors after 11:45pm Thursday night.

Cheers cd.

[celee]

Hi Michael,

did Mary, a known prostitute, go out to solicit customers that night even though no one saw her leave her room?

c.d.

Yes, yes she did go out that night and solicit customers.

your friend,Brad

[perrymason]

Yes, yes she did go out that night and solicit customers.

your friend,Brad

Hi Brad,

Ok.....now without using any evidence that was introduced as being incompatible with all the others, or evidence that was given by someone who's story is discreditted that same week.....what evidence is there that suggests Mary Jane went back out to seek clients after 11:45pm?

Or....what have we learned of Mary Jane by her friends statements that would support a simple suggestion that she had ever brought clients to her room before, had any specific concerns about rent arrears at this or any other time in her past, or that on that night it was probable, based on the observances of Mary Ann Cox and Eliabeth Prater, that any activity took place in or around Mary Kellys room from 1:30am until Ms Cox comes in near three. After 3, no courtyard witnesses are outside.

I can assure you, ... you will be needing either Hutchinson, Maxwell or both to make any kind of case.....and again, they are on record as dismissed...in this rebuttal, there are no such statements even on record.

I look forward to your answer Brad.

Cheers.

[Chava]

It's interesting that we have a whole bunch of people we can put names to that could be called 'persons on interest' in the Kelly murder. But no one at all for the other victims. I suppose that is an outcrop of their having been homeless and indigent.

[perrymason]

It's interesting that we have a whole bunch of people we can put names to that could be called 'persons on interest' in the Kelly murder. But no one at all for the other victims. I suppose that is an outcrop of their having been homeless and indigent.

I think "person of interest' has been broadly applied to peripheral characters in this particular murder Chava....and thats also due to her being the only Canonical that is simultaneously seeing two men... that we know of.

Which would make this murder the only one where a "love triangle" may be present. Also on the known "persons of interest" vein, are Michael Kidney and John Kelly off the hook completely from what we know?

Cheers Chava.

ps.....still watching for the reply from Brad.

[Jon Guy]

Or....what have we learned of Mary Jane by her friends statements that would support a simple suggestion that she had any specific concerns about rent arrears at this or any other time in her past,

Hi Michael

Regarding Kelly`s concerns over her rent arrears I believe a number of factors should be considered:

Barnett visits Kelly on Thursday evening to say sorry I cannot give you any money.

It is approaching the end of the first full week that Kelly has spent as sole occupier of Millers Court. The room was initially rented as a couple with a working partner. McCarthy will be aware that Barnett has left the premises.

Bowyer is asked to visit No.13 to collect some rent Friday morning.

[perrymason]

Hi Jon,

Regarding Kelly`s concerns over her rent arrears I believe a number of factors should be considered:

Barnett visits Kelly on Thursday evening to say sorry I cannot give you any money.

Its conceivable that what he is apologizing for is not bringing money on that day, as he seems to have brought her money almost every other day since leaving. Do we have any evidence that of the money Barnett gives her she then gives any of it to McCarthy against her arrears?

It is approaching the end of the first full week that Kelly has spent as sole occupier of Millers Court. The room was initially rented as a couple with a working partner.

Not according to the tenants agreement, the room was let to Ms Mary Jane Kelly, who had a man believed to be her spouse living with her...he was initially thought to be Mr Kelly. In other coarser words, the street whore is the person on the lease and therefore the hook, not the working man.

McCarthy will be aware that Barnett has left the premises.

And so will he then know that the room that had 2 potential sources of income now just had one.

Bowyer is asked to visit No.13 to collect some rent Friday morning.

Bowyer is sent to "see" if he can collect some rent from number 13. As McCarthy himself says, "arrears were got as best one could", and there is no indication that he sent Bowyer on anything but a "pick up anything you can" mission.

Joe Barnett, Mr McCarthy, Bowyer, Julia, Maria, Mary Ann, and Elizabeth Prater were interviewed regarding Mary Kelly....and not one of them mentions any concerns or thoughts Mary has about her arrears. And this is not the first time she had run arrears that led to eviction...this is just pre-eviction Mary doing the same things.

Cheers Jon

[Chava]

I agree with Michael here. There's nothing to suggest that she was particularly worried about the rent. She's not seen street-walking on the evening before the murder, she's in the pub getting very drunk. It's possible that Blotchy-Face paid her for her services, but if he did, I get the feeling he was short-changed. As she clearly started to sing as she went into her room, and she kept on singing. Also, even if Blotchy was a punter, that would only be one. Cox trails in and out of her room all night. I suspect she had gotten a fair amount of work out of it. Nichols said, on the night she died, "I've had my doss-money 3 times and drunk it...' So she was dealing with multiple tricks. Kelly simply doesn't go to work that evening. I respectfully suggest that, if she was really worried about the rent, she'd be down the 10 Bells or the Leman St Stroll or wherever else she frequented trying to drum up some cash. Now one could argue that's exactly what she is doing when she's seen by Hutchinson. But not all of us believe Hutchinson's account of this encounter.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

I agree with Michael here. There's nothing to suggest that she was particularly worried about the rent.

Not being particularly worried about the rent does not equate to "wasn't interested in making some extra money", though. Besides - what is there that tells us she wasn't particularly worried about the rent anyway? We don't have enough evidence either way - and the "witness timeline" has great big gaps in it.

In fact, we know that Barnett had told Kelly earlier that evening that he had no money for her - so I'd have thought that what little evidence we have points in the opposite direction, if anything.