Open or Closed-Probabilities

[perrymason]

I disagree, Mike - I can well imagine two scabby Spitalfields drabs having a good old gossip and swapping stories. This, alone, might explain why both women's stories changed between their police interview and the inquest. Even then, their descriptions are sufficiently imprecise and divergent to warrant concern.

Hi Sam,

I did say that I dont see any evidence of collusion,...but apparently you might. Swapping stories before the Inquest would be just that, and had their been any suggestion of that the Police would have had the obligation to pull both accounts from the records, or to prevent them from giving their statements at the Inquest altogether.

Their "descriptions" aside, their timing on a cry and where it likely came from are corroborative. Both suggest a time which is approximately 3:45am.

Many times over the past years Ive noticed that quite a few of the more knowledgeable posters here discount the validity of a witness or of an autopsy physicians opinion, or a police opinion, based on little more than a hunch the data is incorrect. I wont say the positions are taken because pre-existing theories force the story perspective for all of those posts, but for some I would have to say its almost certain.

That being said, the "evidence" we have are the facts gathered at the Inquests primarily, and the police reports and memorandums. That evidence states in this case that 2 women on the night Mary was murdered heard a call from what may be Mary Kelly at approximately the same time,...with differing opinions on the volume heard, but the same on the probable location of it.

Since one woman was upstairs behind a closed door just barely awake, and one was awake on a chair by the door to the courtyard, probably inside 20 feet from Mary Kelly herself, "faintish", and "loud" make sense, respectively.

I wouldnt arbitrarily dismiss any witness without evidence that says they were incorrect, thought to be incorrect by the investigators, proven to be less than trustworthy, or they are providing information that is reasonably untrustworthy based on the other data.

Names like Packer, Hutchinson, Malcolm, and Schwartz come to mind, Sarah Lewis and Elizabeth Prater....and Mary Ann Cox for that matter, do not. On the records, the last man to be seen with Mary Kelly alive comes from Mary Ann Cox....no-one has seen fit to discredit her to-date, why should we do so now?

The records say 2 women in separate locations at a very late hour heard the same phrase called out, in differing volumes. At the same time.

Unless one or both cannot be trusted, thats the way it was.

So for your position....what evidence do you believe exists that suggests either or both of the "ear" witnesses should be excluded from consideration....or that they were considered without merit by the authorities?

I personally know of none....so Im asking.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

I did say that I dont see any evidence of collusion,...but apparently you might. Swapping stories before the Inquest would be just that, and had their been any suggestion of that the Police would have had the obligation to pull both accounts from the records

They weren't under constant police guard from the 9th through to the 12th, Mike. They might easily have swapped stories with each other, or compromised their own stories via Chinese Whispers carried by others still, either in person or via the papers.

Their "descriptions" aside, their timing on a cry <snip> are corroborative. Both suggest a time which is approximately 3:45am.

Indeed so, although whether both truly heard it - or one did, and the other latched onto her story before the police interviewed either - is a moot point.

You'll note that I "snipped" a chunk out of the quote, there, which was this: "and where [the scream] likely came from". I've no doubt that, if both women truly heard a scream (or screams - depending on which statement you read), they reported the general direction of the sound reasonably well. However, it would be folly to take their word entirely literally, because hearing isn't one of mankind's most acute senses, and we're rather poor at pinpointing the precise locations of sounds - getting the direction right is almost as good as it gets. And that, it should be noted, is at the best of times, which plainly didn't apply at nearly 4AM, with one witness who was drunk and drowsy, and the other tired and desperately trying to get some sleep.

Many times over the past years Ive noticed that quite a few of the more knowledgeable posters here discount the validity of a witness or of an autopsy physicians opinion, or a police opinion, based on little more than a hunch the data is incorrect.

I don't discount anything, however I am trying to exercise proper and due caution when considering these matters. Opinions or fleeting perceptions, by their very nature, cannot be taken literally, except inasmuch as they are opinions or fleeting perceptions.

If I suspect that an opinion/perception may be flawed, then I do so not based on a mere "hunch", but after carefully weighing up the evidence, and based on other logical, scientific and logistical considerations.

So for your position....what evidence do you believe exists that suggests either or both of the "ear" witnesses should be excluded from consideration....or that they were considered without merit by the authorities?

I personally know of none....so Im asking.

I know plenty of reasons why we should treat what they said with due caution, and I've already stated most of them. I'm not "excluding" anything except the validity of taking literally what were irrefutably subjective statements made by witnesses who were irrefutably not well-placed to have made any detailed observations in the first place.

[macknnc]

I have a theory I have not seen suggested so far..at least if it has, I missed it...(first post here btw)

Suppose the Ripper spotted Mary on the streets, marked her down as his next victim and was following her waiting for his chance to strike.

But he didnt get the chance until Mary was at the door of Miller's Court, and he grabbed her as she was opening the door, but missed his first grab at her, before getting her inside, getting his hands around her throat to quiet her with all that followed...

this would account for the cry of "Oh murder" heard...(Mary's final words in other words) and the sound of Mary (actually the Ripper) moving around in her room?

So...what did I miss? Where the holes in my theory?

[perrymason]

I have a theory I have not seen suggested so far..at least if it has, I missed it...(first post here btw)

Suppose the Ripper spotted Mary on the streets, marked her down as his next victim and was following her waiting for his chance to strike.

But he didnt get the chance until Mary was at the door of Miller's Court, and he grabbed her as she was opening the door, but missed his first grab at her, before getting her inside, getting his hands around her throat to quiet her with all that followed...

this would account for the cry of "Oh murder" heard...(Mary's final words in other words) and the sound of Mary (actually the Ripper) moving around in her room?

So...what did I miss? Where the holes in my theory?

Hi Mac,

First wanted to say thanks to Sam for the rebuttal, and on the above Mac, the only real problem is with the idea that the attack begins with the cry out. There is no sound that follows that cry, none at all, and 2 women were awake likely listening closely for something to follow that cry that might suggest real danger. There is lots of testimony that cries like that were not unusual, including by Liz Prater, so I would imagine curiousity concerning their own safety at the moment the cry was heard, since it was so close, might have them listening intently for a follow up sound to see if that was a real call for help.

The attack didnt commence until Mary is on the bed, by the evidence. Now...was "oh-murder" possibly shouted from her bed.....possibly....was she at the open door....possibly....was she entering with someone....possibly......but you have to consider that phrase..... then silence.

I think it points to an exclamation that needed no supplementary words or actions. Perhaps in response to an annoyance.

Cheers Mac

[sparta68]

Just a thought.....as I try to decide if this cry could be heard from inside the room or out on the court yard I have not seen it established who actually cried out.

What if it was Jack? I know that is very far fetched, but maybe he was worried no one would find the body he so neatly left soon enough. So maybe he changed his voice just enough to sound like a women hoping to draw a little attention. I know that the time of death and discovery though are several hours apart right?

Ok it was just a wild guess. I just made it because I believe Jack wanted his victims found in a reasonable time after he left. If all five murders are done by one person they all seem to be done to get the most attention possible for the most shock value possible.

then again maybe if I actually see a leprecon I can follow him back to his pot of gold to steal it....so its all a guess.

[harry]

Wasn't it Lewis or Prater,in the room above,who said they were awakened by the cat acting up,and then the cry of murder was heard.Perhaps there was sound or movement sensed and heard by the cat,that made the animal agitated.

[Garry Wroe]

Hello Mac.

The central problem with your theory that Kelly was grabbed as she made to enter her room is that her clothes were lying neatly folded on a chair when her body was discovered. Although it is by no means impossible, I very much doubt that her killer would have concerned himself with any such irrelevance either before or after cutting her body to pieces. Accordingly, it seems likely that Kelly herself positioned the clothing as preparation for going to bed. If so, the notion that she was accosted at the door may be safely excluded.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Garry, aren't you a Casebooker from way back to 1997?

Anyway, regarding Mary's clothes. I personally feel that, like you said, Mary got undressed and got in bed. Her killer followed her lead and placed his clothes atop hers on the chair. This is why her clothes were not thrown into the fire along with the others around the room. Out of sight, out of mind. Once he was done, he got himself dressed and left, leaving her clothes still neatly folded on the chair.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

Hi Sam,


Names like Packer, Hutchinson, Malcolm, and Schwartz come to mind, Sarah Lewis and Elizabeth Prater....and Mary Ann Cox for that matter, do not. On the records, the last man to be seen with Mary Kelly alive comes from Mary Ann Cox....no-one has seen fit to discredit her to-date, why should we do so now?


Cheers Sam

what, who Malcolm ?............dont you drag me into this, i'm not that old

[Sam Flynn]

...her clothes were lying neatly folded on a chair

Actually, Garry, following an exhaustive search of the contemporary sources, I was unable to find anything that substantiated the suggestion that her clothes were "neatly folded" at all. There was a thread on the "pre-crash" Casebook boards where I showed - with some evidence to back it up - that the phrase "neatly folded" was a mid/late 20th Century interpolation into the Ripper mythos.

[perrymason]

Wasn't it Lewis or Prater,in the room above,who said they were awakened by the cat acting up,and then the cry of murder was heard.Perhaps there was sound or movement sensed and heard by the cat,that made the animal agitated.

Hi Harry,

Thats my take too on why Liz was wakened by the cat when the cry had not been made yet......Its my belief, as you can tell by the thread premise, that Marys door had to have been open if she made that cry to have been heard in the way described by the witnesses.....which makes sense since no-one else claimed to and I think that its unlikely a woman assisted the killer there... and cried out loud.

Liz heard it faintly...."as from the court"...which makes sense, and Sarah heard it at approximately the same time, "as if at her door" from the Keylers, .....which was across from Marys.

The reason why Im interested in this question is this.......IF Mary answered the door....by a knock or tap on the window or door which wakes Diddles upstairs, then she lets the killer in voluntarily....based on the fact that it would seem no further noise is heard.....when he or she closed the door again.

If Marys killer knew her,... then either "Jack" may also have known other Canonicals,.... or "Jack" only knew Mary from that Group, or...Marys killer knew her well enough to be invited in at almost 4am.

I would think that last one, if the case, narrows the suspect pool dramatically....for at least this one death.

Best regards Harry, all.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Tom.

Yes, I’m one of the golden oldies, I’m afraid – though my posting days don’t extend back to 1997. Probably the early Noughties is nearer the mark. Good to ‘chat’ again, anyway.

Your observation regarding the killer’s clothing is certainly interesting insofar as the night under scrutiny was cold and punctuated by heavy showers. As such, I’ve long believed it likely that the killer would have placed at least some of his clothing by the hearth. Not only would this have dried it out, it would also have afforded it some degree of protection against bloodstaining whilst the mutilations were in progress.

Hi Mike.

Although you make some interesting points with respect to the cry heard by Sarah Lewis and Liz Prater, it might be borne in mind that one of Kelly’s windows contained two broken panes – a consideration that would certainly have affected the timbre of any vocal emission made from within the room. Indeed, it may even have created the impression that the sound had emanated from somewhere outdoors.

Hi Sam.

I have to confess to being intrigued by your belief that Kelly’s clothing may not have been neatly folded and placed on a chair. Although the description is etched on my memory, I can’t for the life of me recollect the source(s). This is certainly one deserving of follow-up, not least because it may shed new light on the behaviour of both Kelly and her killer in the period leading up to the actual crime.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Garry,

I have to confess to being intrigued by your belief that Kelly’s clothing may not have been neatly folded and placed on a chair. Although the description is etched on my memory, I can’t for the life of me recollect the source(s).

The source for the "neat" bit, as far as I could establish, was Donald McCormick, who describes the clothing "in a neat pile at the foot of the bed". The "neatly folded" description seems first to have appeared in Donald Rumbelow's book. In short, I was unable to find a reference to Kelly's clothes being "neatly folded" any earlier than the 1970s, and no reference to "neatness" before the 1950s.

[Garry Wroe]

Again, Sam, intriguing. My impression is that the observation originated from either Phillips or Abberline. But if, as you suspect, McCormick was indeed the source, it seems likely that here is yet another of those examples of descriptive embroidery which serve only to engender confusion. Clearly, if the clothing had been neatly folded and placed on a chair, the implication is that either Kelly retired to bed in the presence of her killer, or someone entered the room after she went to bed alone, possibly while she was sleeping. If the neatly folded attire could be definitively excluded from the equation, however, the possibility arises that the killer removed it at some point after launching the initial assault. Should this prove to be the case, it would reveal any number of psychological and behavioural insights into the killer’s method and motivations.

Thanks once again.

Garry Wroe.

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Just to answer your points regarding the broken panes Gary, ......since one was blocked by a pilot coat and both were covered by the muslin curtain, and since the broken panes amount to some small panes within a window that has some 15 separate panes within it....and since the windows faced the 2 storey wall opposite Marys room,....it seems highly improbable that Sarah would have heard that sound " as if at the door" had the sound come out those small breaks. Liz may have heard the cry" as from the court" by way of that wall bouncing the sound up to her, but what most fits both womens description of where they felt the sound emanating from is at Marys door. Since we know of no other women who claimed to be in that court at that time making that cry....and since we do believe that Mary was in the room at the time based on the lack of believable evidence that suggests otherwise, it seems to me probable that she made the call while her door was open.

I believe that signals the time she voluntarily lets the man that kills her into her room....and that insinuates that she knew the person resonably well....considering the time.....and the fact that the "oh-murder" may have been called out in surprise or, more likely if she had been sleeping...in annoyance.

By the accounts of many witnesses "oh-murder" or calls like that were not indicative of any real trouble usually...it was drunk people spatting on the streets at all hours. So it was likely used by people to suggest their disbelief or annoyance,....something that being woken from a drunken sleep at 4am might be cause for.

Cheers Gary