Mary Kelly-By Luck, or Design?

[Sam Flynn]

You angels, be careful there with your knives and forks!

Please can we take any discussions re. Hutchinson's alibi (Lewis etc.) onto the Hutchinson-related thread that BabyBird has kindly just set up... "Hutch and an alibi?".

Ta. Let's not turn this Kelly thread into (yet) another Hutch-fest.

[Jane Welland]

Yes

Perhaps so.

Sarah Lewis said the man she saw appeared to be waiting - and sure enough, that was what Hutchinson said when he gave his statement - that he was waiting to see if Mr A and Mary Kelly would come out of Millers Court again. How lucky! It all fits very well, doesn't it?

Perhaps it does, but then, once again I think you go back to why he didn't come forward sooner. Ok, so maybe it all was legitimate - I know it cannot be proven one way or the other now.

Maybe though, he hardly even noticed Sarah Lewis, or the other people on the street at the time that he omitted to mention when he gave his statement to the police - but whom Sarah Lewis saw?

And - to speculate wildly for a moment - maybe that was due to the fact that he was waiting - not for Mr A to emerge - but to make sure Mary was asleep and that the street was empty before he entered the room.

Because, whilst Sarah Lewis may have seen him waiting, nobody saw him leave, did they?

Jane x

[babybird67]

something just occurred to me...

ooops will repost elsewhere

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

If Hutch disappears from the record as soon as his account is dismissed as worthless, this could indicate a couldn't-care-less attitude on the part of the police, but then again it could indicate that further enquiries had revealed that he had lied or been mistaken about even being in the area on the night in question.

But again, you're forgetting that crucial third possibility; the one that emerges as by far the most likely explanation given the press commentary on the subject - that the police had a very professional attitude, noticed the discrepancies between police and press accounts, wondered "what the hell is going on", but couldn't prove that Hutchinson either lied or was gravely mistaken?

This explanation gets my vote by a long sea mile. It's the only explanation that doesn't require the investigating police force to have been incompetent, or the positing of some "proof" or "alibi" that somehow eliminates Hutchinson from the suspects list. I realise you were only speculating, and it's only fair to acknowledge that we cannot rule out something as conclusive as that, but we certainly shouldn't assume that anything "major" of that nature occurred. Both Packer and Violenia were dismissed as witnesses, but not because they were proven to have lied. The police simple came to the conclusion that they did, based on the dubious nature of the evidence they provided.

It is very common practice for an investigating police force to use their own discernment when separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of eyewitness "evidence". Of course, it would be ideal if they were in possession of proof to bolster their suspicions, but in the majority of cases, it just isn't there. It doesn't mean they've "shrugged off" anything or acted in a lackadaisical fashion. It just means they lacked evidence.

If they had failed to establish his movements, I would have expected him to remain a person of interest, and to have appeared in the records as someone who had yet to be eliminated, given all the circumstances.

Well, if they suspected him (which remains a fairly hefty "if" given the absence of evidence in this regard), I'd agree that he'd remain a person if interest for some time afterwards, but as for expecting an appearance in the records to have survived, no, I'm afraid that's a lot less realistic. A great many people were suspected during the course of the Whitechapel murders, and the vast majority have doubtless been lost to posterity.

Since Hutchinson conveyed no external menace, was neither foreign nor mad, and had no pretensions to medicine or animal butchery, he wasn't likely to have been a priority. If you examine the suspects whose names have survived, they pretty much all meet one of these criteria.

How many killers or witnesses do you know who came forward to claim they knew a victim personally when they didn't know her at all?

Not many. More commonly, a serial killer will insert himself into an investigation under a false guise out of fear that the victim will provide an incriminating link, courtesy of their acquaintance. Nathanial Code's final victims were his step-grandfather and young grandchildren, and it was only in the wake of these murders that he played the "false cooperative" hand. The others were ostensibly strangers. Gary Ridgway contacted the Green River Task Force with "information" on a victim with whom he was genuinely acquainted. Roger Fain injected himself into the investigation of Darlene Anderson's death. The two were acquainted. Then there's Arthur Gary Bishop:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Gary_Bishop

So there's nothing remotely "unlikely" about Hutchinson murdering Kelly if he was acquainted with her, nor is it "exceptional" for serial killers to target non-strangers on occasions. Quite often, it's the murder that leads to their downfall, but they do it all the same. I'm inclined to suspect that Hutchinson and Kelly were not complete strangers, but even if they were, it wouldn't remotely detract from the premise that Sarah Lewis' evidence compelled him to take pre-emptive action.

And can you help me steer this back to the subject of 'luck or design' while you're at it?

That depends on your response...

As it stands, I'm happy to return to the orginal premise of the thread.

All the best,
Ben

I can see youre trying to right the thread ship Caz, so Ill see if I can contribute.

IF....the existing records and recorded opinions of the witness testimonies are accurate and well founded respectively, concerning the activities of Mary Kelly and her room after her arrival home at 11:45 Thursday evening, then it would strongly suggest that the killer came to her room. Without Hutchinson,...or witnessed time out of her room by an accredited believed witness, there is very little material with which a suggestion she did leave the room can be sustainable.

If this was the case.......and Mary was in her room, more than likely sleeping as her light was out by 1:30am, and no noise that could be stated absolutely from Mary Kelly was heard from shortly after 1am onward......then does this appear more like a chance opportunity scenario by a man who was a stranger to Kelly and that room.....or a situation where the man who came to the room was likely known by Mary Kelly?

I personally think its the second, and that would leave open the possibility that he went to kill her specifically, which would involve some....even if not overly so, "design".

All the best.

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Sorry, I thought my "for instance" made it clear I was merely speculating.

Under any normal circumstances, if a suspect sighting is considered to be potentially of great importance, and then the star witness goes straight to the papers with a completely different facial description of his suspect, the police are going to take a bit of a dim view and will want to know what the hell is going on. If Hutch disappears from the record as soon as his account is dismissed as worthless, this could indicate a couldn't-care-less attitude on the part of the police, but then again it could indicate that further enquiries had revealed that he had lied or been mistaken about even being in the area on the night in question. Who knows? We certainly don't.

But imagine the scenario: Hutch has been taking the cops round the area looking for a man with a certain complexion and moustache, then the same cops open their newspapers and find they've been led a right old dance. Is it likely that they will just shrug it off and chalk it up to one of those things? They were obviously hoping that Hutch would be their means of getting the ripper into court and convicted, and now there wasn't a hope in hell, even if he led the cops straight to the man's lair. The defence would have made mincemeat out of Hutch's reliability in seconds.

The very least that would have happened is that the cops would have tried to ascertain where Hutch had really been from 2am that morning, and what he had really seen, if not Mary and her last client. If they had failed to establish his movements, I would have expected him to remain a person of interest, and to have appeared in the records as someone who had yet to be eliminated, given all the circumstances.

How many killers or witnesses do you know who came forward to claim they knew a victim personally when they didn't know her at all?

A serial killer stands much more chance of getting away with his crimes if he attacks victims who are not known to him and cannot be connected back to him in any way. I realise there are exceptions, but I wouldn't expect a killer to toss away such a huge advantage by coming forward and a) claiming to have known his latest victim personally if she was as much a stranger to him as all his previous victims were, or b) volunteering the information that he knew her personally if that was the truth. He's meant to be deflecting suspicion, not inviting it.

It's hardly the wisest move to say he knew the deceased, whether he did or didn't, but especially if he didn't. It just makes it less plausible that he didn't give her safety a second thought, even when her panto villain failed to emerge satisfied from her bedroom after nearly an hour.

If Hutch knew Mary, I think it's highly unlikely that he killed her or was the ripper. I just don't see Jack willingly putting himself in such a vulnerable position, when there were so many more unfortunate fish in the sea all around him, who need not have known him from Adam.

If Hutch didn't know Mary, what possible advantage was it to claim otherwise, if she was just another stranger that he had murdered? Do you not think his imagination would have stretched to adapting his account to make both Mary and her client strangers to him, whose encounter roused his curiosity sufficiently to follow them?

Once again, do you know of any killer who came forward and claimed to know a victim personally when he didn't know her at all?

And can you help me steer this back to the subject of 'luck or design' while you're at it?

Love,

Caz
X

[babybird67]

Ricahard...

If Mary was as unwell as Mrs Maxwell testifies that she appeared to be, vomiting in the gutter from drink etc, would she have been in any state to be inviting strange men back to her room?

Also, if she had been killed after Mrs Maxwell saw her, after vomiting as she had, why would there have been signs of a recent fish meal in her stomach? I don't think she would have felt like eating immediately after vomiting, or at that time in the morning.

I agree Maxwell's testimony is irreconcilable with other witness testimony...but i believe the witnesses who independently heard the cry of murder at around 3.30-4.00 am that morning...that this was the best estimate of time of death that we have and consistent with MJK's stomach contents etc and that Mrs Maxwell was merely mistaken.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
When investigating any murder case, the most logical start is to identify the last person the victim was seen with, who then may be able to help the police with their enquiries.
In the case of Mary kelly we have one Mrs Maxwell, who not only made a statement to the police, but attended the inquest , and on oath repeated that statement.
She claims that she witnessed Mjk talking to a stout man , aged around thirty years, of market porter appearance, at around quarter to nine[ am].
This on record is the last reported sighting of Mary, and it is therefore extremely important, regardless of many disbelievers.
If the market porter was her killer, it would point to a killer of opportunety, and poor Mary just happened to meet the wrong man , and whats more inviting him back to her room was icing on the cake for him.
One however must take on board that if this happened , it would seem that she initially returned to her room alone, which could explain her state of partial undress.
One must also address the point , if the porter was the killer, would he have his knive/knives on him at that hour?
If he returned to his place of work/ lodgings to retrieve them, it would suggest that he resided . or worked in that very area,,, spitalfields market would be the obvious.
I must say that I find this[ alleged] stout market porter , aged around thirty years a huge contender for the infamous 'Jack The Ripper', his descripton fits the bill, ie thirty/stout.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

I have to wonder how the police reacted when Hutch put two fingers up at them by going straight to the papers with a different complexion and moustache for his suspect. Could they not have dug a little deeper and found he had been in Romford on the night in question, for instance?

Why would a recognition that Hutchinson gave conflicting reports to police and press somehow mutate into a realization that "he had been in Romford on the night in question", Caz? That's rather a speculative leap even as a "for instance". A crucial and oft-overlooked point in these discussions is that a police force can only "dig" as deeply as their resources might allow and still fail to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, regardless of the indefatigability of the investigators. Let's take it to the extreme, and assume for one crazy moment that the police interpreted those press/police contradictions as a sure indicator of guilt. How would they have gone about converting those suspicions into ironclad conclusions?

Answer: not very easily at all.

If you're arguing that the killer needn't have known Kelly personally, you won't find any argument from me. There's no compelling evidence to suggest that Robert Napper was personally acquainted with Samantha Bissett either, although it did transpire that he had kept her under discreet surveillance for some time prior to the murder, just as Dennis Rader had monitored the Otero family from a vantage point in the early 1970s. It shouldn't require any great stretch of the imagination to envisage a similar scenario in the case of Mary Jane Kelly.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Luck of the Devil

Hi All,

The Clothes - Mary Kelly's clothes were neatly folded on a chair and her boots put away. Mary Kelly had gone to bed. I think it likely that she had gone to bed on her own - folding clothes before sleep is a ritual that is very common, and either conducted alone or in the company of a familiar - intimate even - person. It marks the end of the day.

Primary source please Jane? I believe Sam tried, but was unable to find any reference before the 1950s to ‘folded’ clothes, neatly or otherwise.

I still can't get over the fact that generic Kelly threads are inevitably Hutchward-bound.

Really, Ben? I just thank the Lord that generic threads on the other victims are not.

Could it be because Hutch the rotten liar only claimed to know Kelly, and to have seen her enter her room with a client on the night she died? Which would have been mighty convenient for Blotchy - the only man already in the frame by being in that room, who was consequently more in need of a later man in than anyone else on earth, including Hutch himself.

I have to wonder how the police reacted when Hutch put two fingers up at them by going straight to the papers with a different complexion and moustache for his suspect. Could they not have dug a little deeper and found he had been in Romford on the night in question, for instance?

Generally speaking now, I don’t see why Mary had to know her killer, any more than Martha, Polly, Annie, Liz or Kate had to know theirs. Equally I don’t see why their killer could not just have taken the opportunity offered to do whatever the hell he felt like doing at the time. We know that he effectively made himself lord of the manor for the brief duration of his crimes. Who are we to dictate 120 years on what his limits would have been, or how he would or would not have behaved?

Did Robert Napper know Rachel Nickell or Samantha Bissett, before killing one outdoors, in an attack very similar to the one on Tabram, and the other indoors, in an attack very similar to the one on Kelly? Did he give a damn about making one murder look anything like the other?

Did Mark Dixie know either of the victims he attacked on his double event night in South Croydon in 2005, when high on drink and drugs? Did he even try to attack both in the same way? The first victim couldn’t get a signal on her mobile phone so she got out of her car to make a call and Dixie pounced. He made her hand over her bag, then she saw the knife in his hand and the poor cow wet herself. But he didn’t use the knife on her - instead he hit her round the head with a blunt instrument, but was disturbed by a passing taxi and ran off. She didn’t lose consciousness and that taxi undoubtedly saved her life.

But it cost Sally Anne Bowman hers, because Dixie’s blood was up and he found her just forty minutes later, 400 yards away, having an argument with her ex in his car, parked in her street - a street that Dixie had once lived in himself, having since moved away from the area.

When she got out of the car and her ex drove away, Dixie brutally stabbed her to death, then retreated into the shadows waiting to see if any lights went on. When he was sure the coast was clear he returned to the body and performed all manner of indignities on it, before making off with her underwear, bag and mobile phone. Sally Anne’s ex was only cleared because the killer’s DNA had been left on her body. Dixie’s DNA wasn’t on the data base at the time, but he was eventually caught after giving a sample as a result of a pub brawl. Police then found a videotape suggesting that he had been aroused by newspaper coverage of Sally Anne’s murder.

I’m sorry if this appears to be veering off topic, but I think there’s a fistful of potential parallels in this little lot, just screaming out for attention. Ignore some or all of them if you must, and I know some of you will do just that. But I really can’t imagine why anyone would want to. It's real - and as such it should be real food for thought.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Packer is rather different.

Firstly, he didn't "come forward". He was approached by the police, initially, and asked if he saw anything suspicious. Secondly, he didn't lie about his presence near the crime scene, as you propose with Hutchinson. He was precisely where he said he was that night - he just lied about his activity there, just as I propose with regard to Hutchinson, although I'd hazard a guess that they fibbed for rather different reasons.

I agree entirely with your second paragraph, though.

All the best,
Ben

If it occured as you suggest, i.e. that Hutchinson was false witnesses who assumed the identity of a real witness who, in turn, was seen by another witness (!), we'd have to assume some decidedly strange behaviour on Hutchinson's part; the type that has no historical predecent, ......

Best regards,
Ben

Hi again Ben,

For one example, doesnt the name Mathew Packer ring a bell? Its not the exact scenario....but it is a witness who came forward and gave what is believed to be a false statement regarding a suspect seen with a victim for reasons we can only assume must have been financial, if not merely a clear case of public mischief. He used details he had read and heard about to prop up his story.

i believe you categorized GH's situation well..."some decidedly strange behaviour on Hutchinson's part".

To me, thats enough said about the man and his potential value to any of these cases.

He waits 3 days, waits out the Inquest.....yet he says Mary and he were friends and she tried to bum 6d from him that night.....he says he saw Mary with a fancy pants....when we have no evidence that she ever left her room after 11:45pm on the 8th....and he says he loitered watching the court for 40 minutes because he had concerns for Mary.....but yet again, he waits until her investigation status has already been put before a jury to give what amounts to be a critical detail if truthful.

He doesnt add up to anything but curious Ben.

As for the comment that he himself was discredited, Ill find you a quote.

Back later.....cheers Mate.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Point taken Ben, but what evidence can we produce that might suggest that they were in fact wrong about him?

Chiefly the congruity between Sarah Lewis' inquest description of a loitering man in a wideawake apparently "waiting for someone to come out", and Hutchinson's post-inquest claim to have done precisely that in the same location. We seem to agree that he came forward after learning of Sarah Lewis' evidence, but our paths diverge when you have him falsely assuming the identity of Lewis' man.

If it occured as you suggest, i.e. that Hutchinson was false witnesses who assumed the identity of a real witness who, in turn, was seen by another witness (!), we'd have to assume some decidedly strange behaviour on Hutchinson's part; the type that has no historical predecent, unlike the penchant some serial killers have for injecting themselves into police investigations under false guises. I don't consider it likely either that he'd put himself in such a vulnerable position without providing a genuine alibi for the generally accepted time of the murder.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

I do believe there are several quotes that state the witness was discredited

I've personally never seen any, Mike.

Best regards,
Ben

Yes, but they may well have been wrong in thinking so, Mike, if that's what they thought. The notion that Hutchinson wasn't the wideawake man isn't very credible, since it wouldn't explain the extraordinary coincidence of him coming forward and claiming to have loitered opposite the crime scene the momemt it became public knowledge that an inquest witness had seen someone loitering opposite the crime scene.

Strictly speaking, nobody ever claimed that Hutchinson himself was discredited, only that his statement was.

Best regards,
Ben

Point taken Ben, but what evidence can we produce that might suggest that they were in fact wrong about him? As we know Sarah's story was given to police on Friday, allowing him 3 full days... including the Inquest... to learn of her sighting...even by word of mouth. The fact that his story includes a man where Sarah saw one is therefore only coincidental if George did not know of her story....something that cannot be proven.

And on his personal veracity, I do believe there are several quotes that state the witness was discredited....not just his suspect story.

All the best Ben

[Ben]

Sarah Lewis didnt see George Hutchinson as Wideawake unless he was actually there at the time....and it would appear the police didnt support any of his account, so it would seem they likely did not believe any of it.

Yes, but they may well have been wrong in thinking so, Mike, if that's what they thought. The notion that Hutchinson wasn't the wideawake man isn't very credible, since it wouldn't explain the extraordinary coincidence of him coming forward and claiming to have loitered opposite the crime scene the momemt it became public knowledge that an inquest witness had seen someone loitering opposite the crime scene.

Strictly speaking, nobody ever claimed that Hutchinson himself was discredited, only that his statement was.

Best regards,
Ben