Mary Kelly-By Luck, or Design?

[celee]

Hi,

Inspector Abbeline claimed that nobody ever got a good look at the ripper and those who did see him only saw him from behind.

Your friend, Brad

[Ben]

Ben, as I pointed out Lawende himself refutes your rebuttal...he stated emphatically within weeks of the sighting that his look at the man was not good and he likely wouldnt recognize him

Yes, but the red neckerchief man couldn't possibly have anticipated that outcome at the time, Mike. The crucial point remains that he allowed his face to be seen by three witnesses, at close quarters, a few minutes before committing the crime. Where did you get the idea that Schwartz did not get a good look at the face of the broad-shouldered man? On the contrary, it would seem from the description of a "full face" with a short, brown moustache that Schwartz had acquired at the very least a reasonable facial sighting.

why do you imagine we call him Broadshouldered Man?....,

Because he had broad shoulders...?



All the best,
Ben

[celee]

Hi,

"What made it easy for him is they took him to the place they knew interuption was least likely" The woman knew the streets better then anyone. They took Jack to the spot he killed them. Mary simply took Jack home. If she worked out of an ally she would have taken him there.

er?

Your friend Brad

Hello,

Although sometimes I feel like Im reading a novel here, I can see why many would prefer one interpretation to another.....potatoe/potatoe.

I shouldnt keep interrupting the creative process like I do so often, ....but what the heck, its whats on paper that is the reality, not whats seemingly sensible to some.

The backyard at Hanbury was very risky for sure....like almost every outdoor Ripper murder venue is, and certainly all of the Canonical murders were. Anytime you kill someone in the open its risky. But it seems that potential risk alone wasnt a determining factor for him....since he went ahead with the crimes anyway.

But Millers Court is the only venue with a single entrance in and out. That might be a consideration to some killers....perhaps not this one if he is as much of an idiot as he is being portrayed. Lucky to find any organ to cut out, lucky he isnt seen leaving at any site, lucky to return to his home bloodied without anyone taking notice.....I guess some imagine he must have sat on a horseshoe years before and it embedded.

Ben, as I pointed out Lawende himself refutes your rebuttal...he stated emphatically within weeks of the sighting that his look at the man was not good and he likely wouldnt recognize him,....and neither did Schwartz get a good look at his face....why do you imagine we call him Broadshouldered Man?...., but the value of Israels Broadshouldered Man is essentially a myth perpetuated anyway... from what I can see. Its not a story told to a jury. Its not in Inquest transcripts...Its a reminiscence with support in some Investigators notes.

Best regards all.

[Celesta]

Relative to the number of victims, that's a fair number, and very much at odds with the perception of the killer as some sort of invisible phantom. We don't know how often the killer was seen leaving the scene - probably a fair few times. He just wouldn't have been noticed, since a man leaving the court around the time of the morning market hustle and bustle wasn't likely to be remarked upon.
Best regards,
Ben

Yes, Ben. Sometimes it's like trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat, but I wonder if that's necessary. We know Blotchy was there. I don't know if he left and came back or not, but I think Mary was on his radar, even if for only a short period of time, so he knew she had the flat. Really, I don't think it was much of a secret that Joe had left that week.

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"Reading this I just wondered whether the murderer might have taken a greater risk as time went on and he wasn't caught?"

Quite possibly, Jane. It would be in keeping with the well-known fact that many serial killers grow very self-secure as their numbers of victims rise - self-secure, and sloppy.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

If he knows that at present she's living alone and I think he does...

... indeed, it wouldn't have been difficult for him to establish that fact, even if he hadn't known it beforehand. Mary - poor dab - might easily have volunteered the information to him. ("Bingo!", thinks the Ripper.)

[Chava]

I'd agree with Jon Guy. Hanbury Street is a much riskier proposition than Millers Court. If Cadoche had been curious. Or if a tenant at #29 had gone out to the cludgie, the killer would have been in deep ****. Once he's in #13 he's golden. If he knows that at present she's living alone and I think he does...

[Jon Guy]

Hi Mike

Do you say that because of the presence of some very early daylight, or the windows that faced the backyard?

All of the above, and Mrs Long passed them at what appears to be the "business end" of the conversation. The killer would have been aware Mrs Long overhead him ask will you.

Cadosch appeared too, although the killer may have not been aware of him, but the fence was only five feet high, and could have had small gaps in it.

In context, we have no evidence the killer surveyed the scene multiple times in one night, as has been suggested.

Interestingly, in Evans and Rumbelow`s "Scotland Yard Investigates", they have picked up on the extra details to Elizabeth Long`s account in the Suffolk Chronicle of 22nd Sept.

One, a small detail, has Long saying that she saw a man come to a woman and stand and talk with her .

The killer has obviously picked up on Annie as a potential victim, and approached her, therefore some kind of evaluation must have taken place, no matter how brief.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

How many sightings of a face do we have for men who by the timing and circumstances were seen with the victim before their death? One. Blotchy

Two - Lawende's man.

Three - Schwartz men.

Relative to the number of victims, that's a fair number, and very much at odds with the perception of the killer as some sort of invisible phantom. We don't know how often the killer was seen leaving the scene - probably a fair few times. He just wouldn't have been noticed, since a man leaving the court around the time of the morning market hustle and bustle wasn't likely to be remarked upon.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Just a thought..

Reading this I just wondered whether the murderer might have taken a greater risk as time went on and he wasn't caught?

Maybe there might be a connection somewhere between greater risk-taking and the fact that to our current knowledge, Mary Kelly was the last?

Jane x

I think it's the "phantom/ghost" image that needs revising, as opposed to the perfectly plausible suggestion that he committed murder despite his face having been seen, Mike. Lawende's man was almost certainly the ripper, and he allowed his mug to be seen by three witnesses at relatively close quarters.

All the best,
Ben

Thats true on Eddowes Ben, but I believe the name was well earned. How many sightings of a face do we have for men who by the timing and circumstances were seen with the victim before their death? One. Blotchy. How many do we have of a man leaving the scene? None. Lawende said himself less than 2 weeks later he did not get a good look at the man...and he identified Kates clothes, not sailor mans face.

Thats seems to me like he protected himself from being overly exposed....like 3 visits to a soon to be crime scene after having his face seen by a witness with the victim that same night would be. It would be beyond reason to suggest he didnt actively seek to minimize his exposure to witnesses....after Polly that is.

Best regards Ben.

[Ben]

But it would contrast starkly with a man the paper and some investigators referred to as a phantom or a ghost....part of their problem was in fact the number of sightings ....that were very few. I dont think risking 3 sightings in one night is in keeping with that Ben,

I think it's the "phantom/ghost" image that needs revising, as opposed to the perfectly plausible suggestion that he committed murder despite his face having been seen, Mike. Lawende's man was almost certainly the ripper, and he allowed his mug to be seen by three witnesses at relatively close quarters.

All the best,
Ben

I guess it would, and that wouldn't constitute remotely unusual behaviour for serial killers or even one-off killers and rapists who return to scenes of their crimes having surveyed them earlier on. It wasn't as if he couldn't abort the mission in the event that he was seen by Mary Cox later in the night, which we know from her evidence that he wasn't.

Best regards,
Ben

But it would contrast starkly with a man the paper and some investigators referred to as a phantom or a ghost....part of their problem was in fact the number of sightings ....that were very few. I dont think risking 3 sightings in one night is in keeping with that Ben, particularly since a court resident saw his face on the first one.

Best regards Ben

Hi Mike

That`ll be Hanbury St ?

Hi Jon,

Do you say that because of the presence of some very early daylight, or the windows that faced the backyard?

In context, we have no evidence the killer surveyed the scene multiple times in one night, as has been suggested.

Best regards