Mary Kelly-By Luck, or Design?

[prowling cat]

hello Jane,
no, I'm not a lion, alas, just an awful typist. Let's say these are King-size ragards to all and sundry!
Great being here, and I do agree with you, there's something about Mary, poor duck.
All the best
C.

[Jane Welland]

King Cat?

Hello Prowling Cat - I like your King Regards - are you secretly a Lion, perhaps?

I also am new, and managed my poll with help!

Celesta - Hello! I also have thought all of the above at one time or another, and continue to think all four on a daily basis - I'm tending more as time goes on to see this one as 'special' however. I do wonder if some level of deliberation was at work there.

Nice to see you both!

Jane x

[prowling cat]

hello, I'm just a stray here, and a newcomer, at that, so I won't even try to have any ideas, but I do think, little as I know of the case, that MJK seems very different from the other C5 victims; much younger, and prettier. A completely different victim, if considering the case according to the classic serial killer.
Is there perhaps something I'm missing?
Anyhow, lovely being here, I enjoy just reading all the wonderful hypotheses there are, hope to become more knowledgeable soon.
King Regards
Cat

[Celesta]

Hiddy-ho Jane,

I've believed each of these options at one time or another! Good poll!

Mr Blotchy ?

Hi Jon,

He would be the only known candidate, but I dont see singing that lasted over an hour off and on during a total period of time of 1 hour and 45 minutes indoors with light on as being a likely "trick" myself. If she did bed down with him after the lights were out just before 1:30am, it would mean she did so after the singing....and I cant imagine any trick waiting over an hour to get what he paid for. Nor can I see a street whore spending an unpaid hour with a client, singing.

I can see her entertaining someone after being alone for a few consecutive nights...or thanking someone for a walk home by being friendly and singing.

I think that evidence that Mary earned or attempted to earn any money on the last night of her life by soliciting customers, is absent.

Coupled with her ongoing debt, and no mention of any actions taken by the landlord to evict or recover arrears...Its a safe conclusion. She had no pressing need, and she was.. by a courtyard witness, so drunk she was barely able to get "goodnight" out when she got home.

Cheers Jon.

[Jon Guy]

there is no record of her using her room for her "work" before Joe's departure or after Maria's.

Mr Blotchy ?

but as she was a prostitute whose recently split from her man, I would say it was a punter, Mike.

In my annoying fashion, the above could have some legs Jon IF we had a reason to believe she had ever taken a client into her own room. In fact, we dont have that. We have her split from her live-in lover just over a week, and Maria takes her room I believe around the 3rd, so as of Thursday night at 11:45pm, she has only been alone in the room for about 3-4 nights, and there is no record of her using her room for her "work" before Joe's departure or after Maria's.

To David, nice to see you first off,.....and Why the man killed Mary remains a pivotal point in the Who may have killed her arguments, and in typical Ripper backward ass fashion, I feel the first question may only be answerable once the second question is answered first. So Why or Who at this point needs to give way to What Happened That Night. From start to finish. Not just from the time they forced open the door, or looked through the windows.

What the Ripper does to obtain his victims and who he chooses can be used to compare Marys death with, and we have at least 2 prime examples of work we can pretty safely say was Jacks...Polly and Annie.

All the best.

[DVV]

I think he "wanted" to kill Mary (like Kemper "wanted" to kill his mother), and killed her.

Amitiés,
David

[Jon Guy]

Being in her room with her permission while she is virtually undressed sounds very much like someone quite close....

but as she was a prostitute whose recently split from her man, I would say it was a punter, Mike.

[kensei]

Hello Sam,
I realise that, however, the oath Maxwell swore, was not shall we say, an attempt to get out of a crime, and as for a mistake, i find incredible, that a woman could make a statement to the police only a few hours, on the same day as a dreadful murder, and [1] get the wrong day[2] and get the wrong person, especially as she had the entire weekend to realise her mistake.
She admitted she had only spoken to her on a couple of occasions, but she also claimed that she had addressed kelly by name, and kelly had addressed her back.
Regards Richard.

I've made this comparison before when it comes to Maxwell's story. In America in 1999 occurred the disappearance of mother & daughter Carol & Juli sund and Argentinian exchange student Silvina Pelosso in Yosemite National Park. It would eventually be found that they had been murdered on the night they disappeared by serial killer Cary Anthony Stayner who is currenty on death row. But during the search for the women when their fate was not yet known, a local female shopkeeper reported having seen and talked to them in her store between the time they were reported missing and when their bodies were found. She was adamant as to the time, and even said she'd talked with Pelosso about being from Argentina. It would be established that on the day the shopkeeper swore this happened, the women were definitely already dead.

It happens. No particular reason or explanation for it, it just happens.

Hi Jukka,

The issue I would have with supposition that he was affected by the "increasing patrols" and felt any need to move indoors is this.....if Jack killed the Canonicals, all of them, then there was as long a quiet period as there was an initial spree. If he starts late in August and stops for a while after the Double Event, then he kills his first 4 victims in 5 weeks, and his last victim is killed 5 weeks after that.

If anything, the streets would be returning to a desensitized state regarding the murders, like the state that existed before Martha was killed. Things did return to "normal" soon after Annie's murder on the streets, and by the end of the month they were not anticipating anything.

If the only place in the world you could make a few coins for your daily bed and food requirements is out on the streets servicing Dockers and Tradesmen after midnight, How long could they wait to get back out earning?

The move indoors for safety is a false premise I think, used to explain the radical changes seen in the location of the murder and state of intimacy engaged in with the victim. If she is in her "underwear", and her killer spent one second in that room with her being alive and consenting, its not the new Jack, based on the imminent danger outdoors...its that its not likely Jack at all.

Being in her room with her permission while she is virtually undressed sounds very much like someone quite close....and there is nothing in the first 4 deaths that leads us to conclude he knew any of those victims.

Cheers Jukka, nice to see you mate.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

I will present this presumption again;

Jack the Ripper might have felt the Vigilance Committee being on his heels, the ladies of the streets had got more cautious...

And thus MJK, despite being pretty clever, might have thought herself to be safe indoors!

All the best
Jukka

Hi all,

I think luck would be something we could rule out if a personal connection existed between killer and prey.....something that in the case on Mary Kelly remains quite possible, some might say even probable, based solely on the circumstances that night that are based on courtyard witness statements.

If the accounts ....that were believed,....were substantially accurate, they dont rule out either option....Luck or Planning.

But if she knew him, then she is likely the only victim of the 5 that has any connection between murderer and murdered, and he wouldnt need luck at all....just some semblance of a plan.

Ive wondered if Mary was killed for a relationship she had or was having, or as a result of her being a risk. 2 of the Canonicals were known to have recently... very recently...ended formal, established, relationships.

And they happen to be the two that I personally question as Canonical inclusions.

Best regards folks.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Sam,
I realise that, however, the oath Maxwell swore, was not shall we say, an attempt to get out of a crime, and as for a mistake, i find incredible, that a woman could make a statement to the police only a few hours, on the same day as a dreadful murder, and [1] get the wrong day[2] and get the wrong person, especially as she had the entire weekend to realise her mistake.
She admitted she had only spoken to her on a couple of occasions, but she also claimed that she had addressed kelly by name, and kelly had addressed her back.
Was she shown the deseased woman , to confirm that this was the woman she saw, i find it stange ,if she had not, it would have saved her attending the inquest , if it became clear that she had been talking to the wrong person.
Hutchinson was shown kelly, so why not Maxwell, especially if it could be proven that she had made a mistake.
If Maxwell had identified kelly as the person she saw from her corpse, then the morning murder is a real possibility.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Many other statements have been made on oath, Richard, and not all of them accurate. Having sworn an oath doesn't immunise one from making mistakes.