Did Mary know her attacker?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

The "she went out and picked up Jack, brought him home and he kills her" hasn't fit the evidence for 120 years

On that basis, are we to assume that Polly Nichols was found by the Ripper as she snoozed against a gate in Buck's Row; that Annie Chapman was sitting on the step in the backyard of 29 Hanbury, only for Jack to sneak up on her? (etc.) Are we to disregard countless prostitute murders either during or since the Late Victorian Period where the overwhelming pattern is one of the victims picking up - or being picked up by - their killers whilst soliciting on the streets?

and it aint gonna

If that hasn't set out your stall, I don't know what will!

Because we have no records she ever brought clients home to Millers Court

There is a strong suggestion she did so at least once on the night she died.

we have no evidence that she ever left her room after arriving home at midnight.

We have absolutely zero evidence that she stayed in.

[c.d.]

Michael, my friend,

I can certainly share Caz's frustration in arguing with you. You constantly make the same arguments over and over but absolutely refuse to consider opposing arguments. It's as though you are a juror and after hearing the prosecution complete their case you say well that SOB is quilty before hearing what the other side has to say. You bolster your arguments by harping on the evidence as though that evidence can never be questioned.

Consider P.C Long's evidence regarding the apron. Do we go strictly by the evidence, i.e., his testimony or do we say well it was dark, it was a dark apron and he wasn't on the lookout for it? Now I and others would factor in those arguments since I think they make sense. But in doing so, we are questioning the evidence. That is the crux of the argument. So when you say there is no evidence that Mary went out that night you are absolutely correct. But at the same time you want to ignore the very rational arguments that say that is what prostitutes do and no one was paying attention to her coming and going.

To suggest that the rest of us are fools because we are not going by the evidence is quite condescending. I think questioning the evidence makes much more sense.

Stay well my friend,

c.d.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Michael,
We have a statement which implies that Mjk left her room apparently after Blotchy left, that being from Hutchinson.
We cannot prove that this statement was untrue, neither the reverse, we can only speculate from the actual words spoken at that time, and from the alleged descendant,. in more recent times.
The hours from midnight until the discovery of the body around 11am on the morning of the 9th, can be interpreted in many speculative scenerios,ie.
Was Astracan her killer?
Was the scream heard [ Oh Murder] that of Mjk.?
If so, was her actual murder being commited , or was there a other explanation?.
Is there any possibility that she was killed after medical reports, as in Maxwells inquest statement?
The very fact that a lot of alternative explanations can be discussed on the events of that night/morning, only goes to show we, at this moment in time, have no closure.
Regards Richard.

The "only" reason, Mike? How about the behaviour of prostitutes since time immemorial? Behaviour which, one observes, was demonstrated by one or two of Kelly's immediate neighbours on the very morning of her death.

Hi Sam,

Lets separate "marketable" vs non first...you did read the description of Mary Ann Cox? And Mary was young and pretty...perhaps stout, but attractive by all accounts. Also Mary had eaten and drank that night, perhaps those women had not?

I dont think youll get me on this one by suggesting Mary must have done what others are doing. Does that work on the inverse too...must we assume all night walking street whores do laundry with friends during the daylight?

You are one of those smart people I referred to, if we could apply your abilities and knowledge to breaking down the clues to uncover perhaps which of her acquaintances comes in to kill her, whom would be granted access....instead of looking outside the courtyard, and onto the streets, to find her killer.....maybe we might see something with new eyes, and fresh perspectives.

The "she went out and picked up Jack, brought him home and he kills her" hasn't fit the evidence for 120 years, and it aint gonna. Because we have no records she ever brought clients home to Millers Court, we have no evidence that she ever left her room after arriving home at midnight, and we have no evidence that suggests the man that killed her was unknown to her.

My best regards Mr Flynn.

[Sam Flynn]

To suggest Mary went out is flawed, Hutchinson's story is the only reason to even think she may have gone out unnoticed.

The "only" reason, Mike? How about the behaviour of prostitutes since time immemorial? Behaviour which, one observes, was demonstrated by one or two of Kelly's immediate neighbours on the very morning of her death.

Hi Caz,

Did you decide that I had some time to kill today?

Perry Mason offered this equally suspect pearl of wisdom:
......... and he had access to all the Mary Kellys of the East End, who were single street prostitutes with their own rooms, for all of that Fall. He can subdue a woman without struggle or noise.. that anyone hears.....but he cant get a woman into an abandoned building?[/B]

And another:

‘Mary died undressed, in her own room, and her killer very probably came directly to her room by himself. Thats the known facts.’

As others have said, Perry, it’s only a known fact that your argument is that her killer ‘very probably’ came to her room by himself. It’s no more meaningful than the next person saying it’s a fact that she ‘very probably’ invited her killer back. He was also 'very probably' a necrosadist, and we know one was active in the vicinity, operating on unfortunates who were ‘very probably’ out of funds at the time, whether it was for their next period of shut-eye, their next meal, their next drink or their next date with the tally man - and not averse to using the funds of strangers.

I'm sorry Caz, but not liking me saying something doesnt make it incorrect, and as it now stands, and has stood for 120 years less a few days, is that Mary Kelly came home with a man before midnight on the 8th, and is found in her home, undressed and in bed, just before noon on the 9th...with no guest present. There are no trips out....there is no company other than Blotchy Man, and there is no reason on gods green earth why a whore who sells herself for booze money, food, or shelter, would go out in the pouring rain hungover when she needed none of those things that night.

‘Dont make me defend her obvious relationship with Blotchy Man, which was that of a friend or acquaintance Sam, no trick Ive ever heard of starts with an aria that lasts off and on for over an hour. They were eating together, she singing, both bombed, and one, doomed. But he was'nt a trick by all indications....at least not as far as she was concerned, Maybe he had other ideas..’

Hmmm, what ‘obvious’ relationship, Perry? If you think Blotchy Man could have been the necrosadist lookalike who killed Mary, all bets are off regarding what the relationship was as far as he was concerned. As far as Mary was concerned, I think you have strangely naïve and illogical ideas about women who were prepared to give total strangers the key to their drawers, ‘very probably’ front and back. If they could do that much for the price of a drink, they could be a man’s temporary best buddy, sweetheart, wife - hell, even his kid sister or mother - without even blinking.

Frankly Caz, Ive known a few women who flirt to get what they want, who flatter, and some that use sex to get what they want. Though none none were poor, starving whores who were alcoholics. I think when it comes to the various ways that women like Mary get what they want it should be , it should be clear to those that have met "Mary's", that they take without offering something in return....."hey Hutchinson, give me some money"...Mary is pissed, full, and safely at home drunk....and she was broke going out. I bet Mary paid what she thought was her bill by being nice to a rough dirty stranger ....letting him bask in her company....something only her boyfriend and her clients get, time alone with Mary. Guys like Blotchy buy beer all night for women like that, spend whatever is on them....just for the hope that he might get lucky with a woman beyond his means, or have her treat him as special. I suggest an arm in his when arriving home happy illustrates that nicely, so does singing. Mary has been a Brothel Lady, and perhaps a consort in France...shes not regular street stuff. Like the middle aged women Jack the Ripper killed.

‘In modern day, this would be a supermodel with a serious drug habit that dates only pushers of her drug...or rich guys, regardless of their looks. She is rewarded for "just being herself" by these types....who all want to boink her. And she in return makes them think they can...as long as the drug of choice is flowing. I believe so was Mary. I think she got fed and drunk November 8th by sidling up to Blotchy Man, and used a pleasant song to douse the flames of desire he might have when he was in her room. I think she took money from both Barnett and Flemming, letting each believe they were her "special one"...and… I could see her just walking up to men she knew and asking for money for doing nothing....just being sweet Mary Kelly.’

Now this just cries out for attention, Perry. It’s ‘harsh’ to suggest that Mary was a working girl, whose only income was from strangers in return for whatever sexual favours they craved, but fine for you to argue that she was a pr**k-teasing, cheating con artist, who did anything to fleece men she knew of their hard-earned cash rather than lie on her back for it?

Well, she apparently asked Hutch for money, offering nothing,... took money from Barnett for back rent, yet paid none of it,....she apparently received money from Flemming, while still seeing Barnett...likely neither knew of the other doing so, and she went out November 8th broke, and came home fed and drunk...with no signs she "earned" anything. Ill be honest....Ill let you know exactly how Ive come to know women like this, .....for a period in my younger days, I dated "high end" exotic dancers for a few years. I got a first hand look at a modern day sex trade. The ones I dated didn't "hook", but others did...to feed a drug habit, to buy food for their babies, to get "nice" things....but they wouldn't have sex with the men they took the money from, because mostly these were lonely unattractive men, often boorish and rude, but with money....and some attention from a sexy curvy lady made them feel like bigshots. The men knew this too. So they gave them 100 dollar bills whenever the girls asked for "ice cream" money, and the girls smooched them on the cheek...telling them how wonderful they are. But only the ones with drug habits would actually sleep with them, and only when they needed to get high, not if they were already high. I think Mary Kelly was a "high end" poor street whore, being young and pretty...she is only slightly older than the number of years Liz Stride has been a part-time working prostitute. Liz had to service "Blotchy Faces" with sex to get money from them.....I dont believe Mary did.

‘I think sweeping assumptive statements about what all whores did or didnt do completely negates that these were people before they were whores, women with their own minds and habits, and different lives. Some had children, some husbands...all of which would affect their "work" schedules. Yes many were starving. And many had no rooms to sleep in. Those are strong work motivators for them.’

But it’s not a sweeping assumption for you to paint a picture of Mary as a tart with no heart who took and took from men in her life without ever giving something back?

Who said she gives nothing back....she entertains a man with shabby clothes and a Blotchy Face in her room....she arrived hapily in his company....she sings to him for over an hour off and on....how many Blotchy Faces do you think get Mary Kelly all to themselves, with her paying so much attention to him. My bet is paying customers got her back and some well rehearsed grunts. Blotchy had Mary to himself...imagine, a grubby old fella being treated so nicely by a young pretty lady......sometimes those feelings alone are a type of sex....satisfaction, contentment, feeling wanted. Blotchy got lots more than a regular paying client I think...and I believe Mary was lonely.


‘I really think its time to stop the nonsense that there is nothing to learn from the killer most likely coming into the courtyard alone, and then gaining access to Marys room and being allowed to enter.’

‘…the only thing Ill say about having to repeat my position over and over with the hope that logic someday might set in, is that my position can be substantiated with accredited witnesses.’

This really is insufferable, Perry. How dare you suggest you hold the key to logical, no-nonsense thought, and to what’s ‘most likely’? Your preferred scenario, involving Mary’s killer arriving at her door and being allowed in because she knows him, is just one hypothesis that may be explored in connection with the few indisputable facts of the case. We can only learn something about Mary’s killer, and what she may have known about him, from what we know for a fact that he did - not what you or anyone else considers he ‘most likely’ did. So please don’t think you can teach us anything on such a basis. Pretty much all we know for certain is that Mary and Blotchy were seen entering her room together, via the door, and that one was found dead after the other had departed. You don’t know if they had known each other for years or had met that very night; nor if Blotchy was out again like a whippet, or was in there for the duration, only letting himself out when he had thoroughly outstayed his welcome. Either way, nobody saw anyone leave that room at any time, and we only know of one man who must have done so at some point.

I will finish with this segment Caz.....I didnt claim to have the market cornered on logic or the singular ability to sort of the truth here, but I will say that many Ripperologists have their fingers in their ears when No Ripper for Mary get uttered...even by implication only. So what I was saying.... is that very smart logical people can screw themselves if the principles they found their opinions on are unsustainable, or flawed. My frustrations is that some people cling to erroneous data here, really sharp people for this kind of mystery, ...who instead have their heads cocked in the opposite direction of the evidence...because that how Jack enters the picture.

To suggest Mary went out is flawed, Hutchinson's story is the only reason to even think she may have gone out unnoticed, but that story was definitely, 100% discarded by the contemporary police. To use it as a foundation leads to ruin....thats why this particular crime can never make sense, the assumptions must be flawed if only extensions of known, flawed, evidence.

All that is known is Mary arrived, not alone....and Mary was found dead, alone, around 11 hours later, horribly mutilated.

"Jack" doesnt enter the picture being seen or heard,... or her killer isnt Jack, or its Blocthy Man, and he is or isnt Jack. Its is painfully clear if looking only at the physical evidence, not inserting a killer first...that no-one saw her leave, no one-heard her leave, there is no evidence in that room that leads to a conclusion of that kind, she has all of a poor whores Maslow's hierarchy covered before arriving home, she is found in her own bed, undressed, in a room that had the lock set off the latch so it would lock behind the departing killer. There is not one fact among those that could even remotely indicate she took a night street walking excursion.

Mary doesn’t have to know Blotchy from Adam and there is no Joe around any more to whinge about who is sharing her bed. She didn’t know Joe from Adam when they met and shacked up together almost immediately. No change there then. Joe may even have wooed her for the price of a drink and a fish supper, and she may have sung for him too.

My bet is Blotchy Face wasnt the looker Joe may have been though.

X

George Hutchinson told a story to Police 120 years ago, one that was within 3 days, believed to be untrue....evidenced by the official change in suspect to the man seen by Mary Ann Cox by November 16th, 1888. The mere fact that anything he said concerning seeing Mary Kelly, talking to her, or watching her and a man go into her room can be set aside as untrustworthy is the source of my "logical" comments Caz.....why should anyone have to argue that Mary went out if its thought that George Hutchinson lied about it? Caroline Maxwell? Pleez....they warned her on record before she spoke....

If some of the brain power here would apply themselves to analysing data using only "trustworthy" criteria, Id probably be left in the duststorm.

Its not thinking I know and you dont Caz...and I believe you know that about me....its that you and others are using sh*** data, so how can you possibly argue your opinions with the conviction you do? Its classic GIGO.

Lets start with NO Canon, unsolved street whore murders, and believing that Jack the Ripper isnt a real person.

Sorry for the length Caz...its not easy to answer briefly.

My best as always.

[caz]

The Elephant in the Room?

Hi All,

I know this thread died about a month ago, but I have only just read it right the way through and would like to add my thoughts. Apologies for a long post...

Firstly, I believe it was Chava who wrote, concerning the ripper’s self control, if Mary led him to her room after meeting him for the first time earlier that night:

‘But I'm amazed he can control himself until Kelly gets out of all those clothes and into her nightie.’

Leaving aside my belief that the chemise was most probably an undergarment, and that the likes of Kelly would not have owned a separate ‘nightie’ (nor indeed would have stripped off to that extent on a cold, damp November night, unless her clothing was very damp or she had a man with her for warmth), why is it so often presumed that the ripper did not possess the self control to be alone in his victim’s company for more than a minute or two before striking?

Obviously he had to have enough control to wait until he was alone with Polly, Annie and Kate. But he also had to strike pretty quickly if he was going to, or risk being caught in the act. If he didn’t want a sexual service from them, and didn’t fancy a lengthy chat about the weather in an outdoor setting, he was rather compelled to strike or abort. But self control or lack of it need not have entered into it. There is nothing to indicate that he might not have chosen to bide his time and savour the moment, had the opportunity presented itself with a considerably younger specimen who could offer him more privacy and warmth.

Also, Chava wrote:

‘Sutcliffe was hiring prostitutes the whole time he was killing, and using them as a normal trick uses a hooker.’

And:

‘Green River hired and used prostitutes normally during the series. Robert Pickton did. A lot of them did. So there's nothing wrong with suggesting that the Ripper did. And if he did, he may have hired Kelly.’

If Jack was a habitual user of prostitutes, leaving most of them to die another day, it rather undermines the argument that he could not have held himself in check long enough for one to undress before attacking and killing her. Of course he could, because he would have done so on the majority of occasions.

Perry Mason offered this equally suspect pearl of wisdom:

‘And he liked killing outdoors...for god sake, when will anyone just accept that he chose outdoor work...obviously. He always had options...he just didnt use them...done deal.’

What is the evidence that shows that the ripper didn’t simply go to work where a victim took him, when he felt he could get away with it? Imagine for a second that he had bumped into a street prostitute who, instead of taking him straight through to the backyard of 29 Hanbury or the equivalent, had offered him the use of a room within the building? How do you know that he would have refused, or preferred an outdoor setting? How did he even know that Annie would give him an outdoor setting, unless the conversation was a bit more than just “Will you?” and “Yes”?

And another:

‘Mary died undressed, in her own room, and her killer very probably came directly to her room by himself. Thats the known facts.’

As others have said, Perry, it’s only a known fact that your argument is that her killer ‘very probably’ came to her room by himself. It’s no more meaningful than the next person saying it’s a fact that she ‘very probably’ invited her killer back. He was also 'very probably' a necrosadist, and we know one was active in the vicinity, operating on unfortunates who were ‘very probably’ out of funds at the time, whether it was for their next period of shut-eye, their next meal, their next drink or their next date with the tally man - and not averse to using the funds of strangers.

‘Dont make me defend her obvious relationship with Blotchy Man, which was that of a friend or acquaintance Sam, no trick Ive ever heard of starts with an aria that lasts off and on for over an hour. They were eating together, she singing, both bombed, and one, doomed. But he was'nt a trick by all indications....at least not as far as she was concerned, Maybe he had other ideas..’

Hmmm, what ‘obvious’ relationship, Perry? If you think Blotchy Man could have been the necrosadist lookalike who killed Mary, all bets are off regarding what the relationship was as far as he was concerned. As far as Mary was concerned, I think you have strangely naïve and illogical ideas about women who were prepared to give total strangers the key to their drawers, ‘very probably’ front and back. If they could do that much for the price of a drink, they could be a man’s temporary best buddy, sweetheart, wife - hell, even his kid sister or mother - without even blinking.

‘In modern day, this would be a supermodel with a serious drug habit that dates only pushers of her drug...or rich guys, regardless of their looks. She is rewarded for "just being herself" by these types....who all want to boink her. And she in return makes them think they can...as long as the drug of choice is flowing. I believe so was Mary. I think she got fed and drunk November 8th by sidling up to Blotchy Man, and used a pleasant song to douse the flames of desire he might have when he was in her room. I think she took money from both Barnett and Flemming, letting each believe they were her "special one"...and… I could see her just walking up to men she knew and asking for money for doing nothing....just being sweet Mary Kelly.’

Now this just cries out for attention, Perry. It’s ‘harsh’ to suggest that Mary was a working girl, whose only income was from strangers in return for whatever sexual favours they craved, but fine for you to argue that she was a pr**k-teasing, cheating con artist, who did anything to fleece men she knew of their hard-earned cash rather than lie on her back for it?

‘I think sweeping assumptive statements about what all whores did or didnt do completely negates that these were people before they were whores, women with their own minds and habits, and different lives. Some had children, some husbands...all of which would affect their "work" schedules. Yes many were starving. And many had no rooms to sleep in. Those are strong work motivators for them.’

But it’s not a sweeping assumption for you to paint a picture of Mary as a tart with no heart who took and took from men in her life without ever giving something back?

‘Blotchy Man cannot be considered as a stranger seeking sex, because we have testimony that Mary was singing to the man for over an hour, off and on. I suggest the "off" times were when she ate a bit of the food they brought in. By all appearances, Blotchy Man escorted Mary home, and enjoyed her company for a bit.’

Again, if he was the man who set about mutilating Mary after death, he enjoyed a tad more than her company. Who can say what other totally bizarre activities her killer may have found enjoyable - like, ooh I don’t know, eating and drinking with a young working girl who liked the sauce even more than he did, perhaps, or listening to her drunken singing? I take it you can’t see the enjoyment to be had from cutting a woman’s throat and then reducing her to a bloody shell, in which case you would hardly be able to see what enjoyment Mary’s ‘guests’ might or might not have had from anything else on offer once inside her room. If she was with a man who did not care for her singing, he could have left or stopped her racket with one of two things: his money or his knife. If he actually enjoyed her singing, money could have bought more of it.

‘I really think its time to stop the nonsense that there is nothing to learn from the killer most likely coming into the courtyard alone, and then gaining access to Marys room and being allowed to enter.’

‘…the only thing Ill say about having to repeat my position over and over with the hope that logic someday might set in, is that my position can be substantiated with accredited witnesses.’

This really is insufferable, Perry. How dare you suggest you hold the key to logical, no-nonsense thought, and to what’s ‘most likely’? Your preferred scenario, involving Mary’s killer arriving at her door and being allowed in because she knows him, is just one hypothesis that may be explored in connection with the few indisputable facts of the case. We can only learn something about Mary’s killer, and what she may have known about him, from what we know for a fact that he did - not what you or anyone else considers he ‘most likely’ did. So please don’t think you can teach us anything on such a basis. Pretty much all we know for certain is that Mary and Blotchy were seen entering her room together, via the door, and that one was found dead after the other had departed. You don’t know if they had known each other for years or had met that very night; nor if Blotchy was out again like a whippet, or was in there for the duration, only letting himself out when he had thoroughly outstayed his welcome. Either way, nobody saw anyone leave that room at any time, and we only know of one man who must have done so at some point.

So consider, if you will, a possible alternative scenario:

Mary takes Blotchy back to her room because he can feed and water her, and may also be good for a bit of back rent, even something to spend on Lord Mayor’s Day, if she shows him a really good time. They are happy to oblige one another and she is ‘spreeish’ and in the mood for a song, and isn’t going to refuse him anything within reason, especially if he likes the idea of her singing for her ‘supper’.

Mary doesn’t have to know Blotchy from Adam and there is no Joe around any more to whinge about who is sharing her bed. She didn’t know Joe from Adam when they met and shacked up together almost immediately. No change there then. Joe may even have wooed her for the price of a drink and a fish supper, and she may have sung for him too.

Anyway, they do whatever comes naturally to them both and at some point a weary George Hutchinson decides to come over and see if Mary is at home and willing to ‘move over darling’ so he can share her bed, now Joe isn’t doing so. He hangs around until 3 ish, but whoever is in there gives no indication of coming out anytime soon and he pushes off. When he learns of the horror within, he makes up a story leading up to his long wait for ‘service’, perhaps using prior knowledge of Mary soliciting in Commercial Street, where I believe work was in progress for the trams, giving the street girls more potential customers of an evening. She has asked him for money in the past, and he may have seen her going off with customers, with a laugh and a joke, in the direction of Dorset Street.

Hutch can make himself look jolly important and useful, and perhaps earn himself some cash along the way, by claiming to have been there when Mary picked up whoever was in the room when he arrived, describing him in admirable detail and claiming to have followed the pair, like the good, naturally curious and highly observant citizen that he was, back to Miller’s Court. He needn’t have actually seen anyone at all. He only needed to assume that the man who killed Mary was ‘very probably’ in the room with her while he was outside waiting in vain, and that she had picked him up on Commercial Street.

Maybe the police didn’t believe Mary went out again after Blotchy any more than you do, but believed Hutch had hung around the court for some time because he was happy to admit as much. The timing may have led them to conclude - rightly or wrongly - that Hutch had the best alibi in the world, and that the killer was ‘very probably’ in the room all the time Hutch was waiting outside, but ‘very probably’ bore little if any resemblance to the man he had described. As many people have observed (and it may not have escaped the police either), it would be surprising if Mary’s killer had been happy to strike, aware that a witness had observed him closely and could have followed him to Dorset Street and be lurking nearby.

There is no evidence that Blotchy was not Mary's sadistic killer and a total stranger to her until that night, or that he could not have struck in the aftermath of Hutch’s retreating footsteps, when complete silence returned to the court - just as a hushed theatre audience finally allows the curtain to rise and the much-anticipated performance to begin.

Much anticipated by the world and his wife, but not necessarily by Mary's killer, until the food and drink had been consumed, the singing had died away, the sex - if any - had been had, and he found himself in the mood, and with the perfect opportunity, for something completely different.

Love,

Caz
X

[plang]

Ben, I have come across fresh bear scat within moments of the dirty deed, still don't know which particular bear it was.

Hi once again,

Because I believe solving this crime is a matter of identifying which of Marys consorts or friends is most likely her killer, it should be said that we have at least 2 suspects, other than a known lover, that are perhaps involved in the murder of Mary Kelly.One is Blotchy Man, as the man believed to be the last seen with Mary, and for whom we have no departure time.

The other is Wideawake Hat Man. For whom we only have George Hutchinson's explanation of his presence there, fitting.

My best regards all.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Pooing bears are as much a "given" as soliciting prostitutes, but if we have no evidence that a particular bear went out and did a poo in the woods within a specified time frame, that's when our null hypothesis comes into play.

Hello all,

cd, sorry to hear about the knee surgery bud, heal quickly. On the issue of Hutchinson though, as Ben reiterated, his story of Astrakan Man was pulled as the suspect description and replaced by the last man they could be somewhat certain was the last seen with Mary, Blotchy Man, by November 16th. Since he only gives the story after 6pm on the 12th, thats roughly 3 days.

Inspector Abberline had more personally at stake in these investigations than anyone assigned, he had only recently been promoted from there downtown, and as a result of his outstanding work among the citizens of Whitechapel. They threw him a party to say farewell. And someone walks into the station on Monday night after the inquiry, and says he saw Mary with a man he can describe down to a tie pin, and could recognize him anytime. That means she went out and he got to her in the same manner as Jack does, it matches the prior MO except for the room part. Just how badly would Fred have wanted that to be true?

Not enough to support it any longer after the 16th, thats how much.

This isnt about whether Im making a good guess about the events being just as they appear on paper cd, Im not guessing, thats how they are on paper, and its not about Sam being wrong about his contention that **** Happens, and could have happened there sometime when no-one was looking.

Its about which avenue might produce some real answers about that night if properly reviewed, and whether a legacy theory is really the valid answer in this case.

For me, Mary Kelly is an unsolved murder. For you and others, she may be Canonical. That may be based on what you've learned, or what you've read. But you havent read about Mary being killed by a lover or friend... until recently that is...thanks to our own Leanne here.

Why is that? Surely Ive at least demonstrated that any evidence suggestive of Marys departure after midnight was at best, deemed untrustworthy,...I haven't attempted to re-invent the wheel here, or discovered Jesus's crypt, the suggestions Ive made are based on the papers we have all read. Most though suggest she was killed by Jack anyway as a summary. Like Liz's killer must have been interrupted cause it was Jack who killed her. Thats fine, but the evidence available doesnt say that.

I just suggest that the conclusions made back then that we are aware of for that night, or others, may have been misguided. Perhaps they were too close to it.

My best regards cd.

[Suzi]

Exactly Sam! She says looking in a desultory fashion at her shoes just sort of left/abandoned!
And yes...... the 1-2 am sits nicely with Mrs M -Aaaaaaaaagh don't get me going!!!.......tum ti tum...........but it would work........

OMG a 'Where were the shoes thread'? !!!!!!!!......... No doubt Joe placed 'em! Heeeeee 39 times maybe!!!

Time for bed I think

[Sam Flynn]

The boots/shoes whatever were oddly tidily placed in front of said fire though....

Even if there had been no fire, Suzi, any evidence clinging to the shoes would have been rendered pretty inconclusive by 1 or 2 in the afternoon, when the police finally examined the contents of the room.

(Also, according to the illustration in Reynolds' News, the shoes weren't placed tidily in front of the fire - they appear to have been discarded in the middle of the floor in front of a chair. But that's probably for another thread )

[Suzi]

The boots/shoes whatever were oddly tidily placed in front of said fire though....I don't know about anyone other than me ... but if boots/shoes are very wet (after a toddle in the rain) they dry out go all crinkly and uncomfortable if you do that..............and it buggers up the spout of your kettle!

[Sam Flynn]

Hi CD,

Your bear analogy made me wonder if the police checked the soles of Mary's shoes to determine if she had gone out or would that have been too Sherlock Holmeseish back in 1888?

Given that they only got round to examining the room several hours after Mary must have last gone out, and given that her shoes appear to have been in reasonable proximity to the fire, I daresay that any evidence of that nature would have long since dried away.