Did Mary know her attacker?

[caz]

Hi Perry,

Just a quickie this time, you’ll be relieved to know!

Being found indoors undressed with no client rendezvous doesnt make Mary similar in that respect at all.

You really are determined to keep testing the depth of the water with both feet, aren’t you? Now where have I seen that phrase recently?

You argued that Blotchy could have been some grubby old fella bewitched by the thought of spending time in the room of a pretty, sexy young lady who sings for her supper. And that Mary was lonely and only too willing to oblige.

Now do you seriously imagine that if you are correct this time (and I’m not disputing that you could be), the scenario you describe could not constitute a classic client rendezvous? How did this odd couple meet in the first place? On the street? Down the pub? What did they have in common, besides being seen entering the crime scene together and not being seen leaving it again?

Isn’t it a whole lot more believable, if you want to make Blotchy any more than a total stranger (as Joe Barnett was the day he first met Mary), that he knew her from evenings in the pub and she only took this grubby old fella home with her because he fed and watered her and gave her the ‘incentive’ she would have needed to let him into what was, essentially, her bedroom?

I just don’t get your refusal to see a quarter inch further here and at least allow for the remote (tongue-in-cheek alert) possibility that a stunner like Mary (tongue-in-cheek alert) would not have entertained this grubby old fella in her bedroom out of the pure goodness of her heart, but would have expected him to pay for the privilege, whether he was a boozing acquaintance, prospective new meal ticket or her own long lost uncle.

I can only think it’s because it would do horrible things to your theory that Mary was ‘different’ and therefore her killer was too, if you had to admit that ‘prostitute with own bed’ was her best personal asset now Joe had slung his hook and the ripper’s best personal opportunity to date.

It really is quite bizarre to think of Mary still giving fourpenny knee-tremblers in stinking alleyways at the height of the ripper scare, when she could have earned more on that bed, and even more bizarre to think of the ripper hearing about his latest murder and kicking himself because some other bugger had all the fun.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

The bedclothes were probably moved by the killer to facillitate the mutilations, just as she was likely tilted towards the partition to divert the bloodflow. A "visitor" scenario is a viable alternative to the intruder, but I'm still inclined to give the latter more credence.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Leaving aside my personal fancy Barnett as her killer, the most likely killer of MJK was the 'Market porter' that Maxwell viewed, even if one has to discount 1888 medical opinion,
That being the case, I would suggest that she did not know her killer, and to her, he was just a early morning punter, any fear that he may be 'Jack' would have not emerged, as it was broad daylight by this time.
Going by the bedclothes[ blanket roll] I would suggest that Mary kelly was not undressing for bed, but for sex, and her killer entered her room several minutes after she had left him outside Ringers, which was an arrangement which suited both parties.
Market porter... He would therefore not be seen entering the court with Mjk.
Mary Kelly.. for the same reason, also would give her time to get out of her clothing.
I would therefore suggest that she was surprised , and attacked as she turned, and placed her left leg stocking on the bed roll.
I simply do not buy the intruder theory, and I don't believe the 'Oh Murder' cry was Kellys last words.
And I actually believe Hutchinson/Maxwell, and will continue to do so ,until convinced otherwise.
Regards Richard.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn, I didn't know that Kelly had a defensive wound on one of her arms; I thought that the arm wounds were post-mortem. Interesting.

Hi Paul,

Just a correction - my mistake - it was the right thumb and the back of her hand which showed superficial cuts with internal bleeding under the skin, not one of the arms. Judging by their character, they could very well be defense wounds.

And for the record, like Michael, I don't give the intruder theory any credence whatsoever. I am of the opinion that Kelly let her killer in herself.

All the best

Our Miss Lewis comes by Marys door around 2am Paul, and again, Marys windows face a 2 storey whitewashed wall, one of the side walls of the two story units in the courtyard. Light would be noticeable walking past...as likely would noise be. Sarah mentions neither.

So although Sam is correct in stating we have only sporadic room coverage from 1:30 until around 3am when Mary Ann finishes for the night, we have that from 3 separate people.

As a pre-empt, not saying they saw no light or heard no noise is not really a counter, and when on the stand recounting that night only 3 nights later, since its obvious to all concerned that Marys whereabouts, during those passes and after, is all that their statements can address really.... a light or noise while passing the door itself would be noticeable and mentioned.

I would think most people should agree that Mary is not likely killed while Mary Ann Cox is still out, nor is she likely killed when 2 sets of ears are straining for any noise to follow. Its most reasonable to assume her killer dun her in after everyone is in that lives or is staying there, and presumed sleeping. Hence the footsteps heard by Cox until almost 6am.

That alone dismisses Hutch's A-Man.

ps....I also have this crazy idea that the reason Hutch's story is deemed untrustworthy is due to their investigation and due consideration of it, weighed against other testimony. I think they may have discarded it for the same reason most of us do today. It doesnt jive with court residents accounts.

Best regards.

[paul emmett]

and no light seen by anyone after 1:30am in her room. With more than one witness, at different times, never mentioning seeing light or hearing noise.

Is the next Ripper line in the sand now that he sneaks in and gets her before she wakes or utters a sound? Or is the "oh-murder" that sound, the cry we don't know the origins of...with no sounds from the room following it.

Hello, Michael.

As my posts here show, I agree about the before 1:30: I'm convinced that MJK is in her dark,quiet room at 1:30. And I agree with your last paragraph above: drunk or no, she'd have to get a sound off if she was broken in on. And it, for me, isn't "Oh, Murder,"

But who besides Cox(and, of course, Hutchinson, who I don't think you're buying into) sees no light from Kelly's room after 1:30?

Since some feel the intruder theory is more plausible than some of my own, the issue of light and noise in #13 should be of interest to you as well.

There is none. Of either. None heard by anyone shortly after Mary stopped singing, and no light seen by anyone after 1:30am in her room. With more than one witness, at different times, never mentioning seeing light or hearing noise.

Is the next Ripper line in the sand now that he sneaks in and gets her before she wakes or utters a sound? Or is the "oh-murder" that sound, the cry we don't know the origins of...with no sounds from the room following it. Does she come and go and service men all in the dark while whispering?

Or do we still have her leaving.. like he appears...silently, stealthily, from nowhere.... only hes probably not drunk and libel to start singing, and he is intentionally being discreet. Would Mary be? I suppose some would answer, sure....she must have tiptoed and whispered to the strange man she just met and picked up and brought home. And he kills her so quietly that even her struggles causing defensive wounds dont make the bed creak.

Then he sets the door to lock behind him,....geez this guy really must be the Ripper and a stranger to her and that room.

Regards.

[paul emmett]

1.00 am approx Mary Ann Cox returns to her own room and hears Kelly singing again.

1.05 approx Cox goes out again.

1.06 approx Kelly goes out again.

1.07 approx Prater returns to her room and all is quiet. Prater stands on the corner for 20 minutes and doesn't see or hear Kelly.

1.30 am approx Prater goes to bed and sleeps soundly.

Hi, Chava.

I think this timetable is important but suspect. Cox going back out at 1:05? Last time she came in to warm up, she stayed in 15 minutes, so 5 here seems too brief. Prater at 1:07? She says she came back at 1:00 and stayed outside for at least 20 minutes, going back to her room at 1:30 when all was dark and quiet.

The point being, there is NO time from when Kelly is heard in her room singing to when the room was dark and quiet that Kelly could have left. Cox and/or Prater would have to have seen her if she left. So I think we have to say that Kelly was in her room at 1:30 when it was dark and quiet. And this, in turn, speaks forcefully for her staying in for the rest of the night.

Glenn, I didn't know that Kelly had a defensive wound on one of her arms; I thought that the arm wounds were post-mortem. Interesting.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Exactly. Kelly was in bed when she was attacked, intruder or not. But consider that the blood evidence and cuts to the sheet suggest she was on her right side with her face very close to the wall. Most people, when sleeping or in bed alone, do not huddle themselves to the side of the bed closest to the wall. They stay to the other side or middle to allow more arm room. Either Kelly was an anomoly in this respect or there was another person in bed with her when she put herself into this position. Although some on here would like us to believe Kelly was an anomaly in every respect to fit their theory, I see no reason to play that game. I suggest that Kelly willfully crawled into that bed with her killer and was not asleep when killed. Compound this with the fact that Jack that Ripper did not habitually barge into homes in the middle of the night to kill women, but instead picked up prostitutes and went elsewhere to commit murder, and you're left with the logical conclusion that Kelly allowed her killer into her room.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

However, there is really nothing that suggests that Kelly had someone in bed with her.
The exact position of Kelly and her killer at the point of the commence of the attack is impossible to even estimate, but at least we know were she was when she was killed by the throat cut.
One interpretation might be that Kelly simply ended up towards the wall and the corner because she crawled backwards up to that spot in order to desperately avoid the knife - as Alex Chisholm once suggested in his essay Done to Death.
To me, this is what the crime scene evidence suggests.

Small cuts on her thumb and one of her arms showing internal bleedings underneath the skin (meaning they weren't made post mortem) as well as the cuts in the sheet, indicates that she probably tried to defend herself and that she was attacked directly and furiously with the knife, with no prior attempt to subdue her silently and efficiently as in the case of the Ripper victims.

All the best

[Ben]

But consider that the blood evidence and cuts to the sheet suggest she was on her right side with her face very close to the wall.

The killer probably tilted her body that way so as to direct the bloodflow away from himself and his garments, just as he appears to have done at Hanbury Street and Mitre Square. Doesn't mean she was in that position when the attack commenced. Jack the Ripper did not habitually barge into homes, but then he did not habitually kill indoors either. If we're prepared to accept that he could change the venue-type, he could certainly change the pre-crime approach.

Cheers,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't think we can say that the evidence points one way or the other. The evidence for Kelly being picked up and killed by a stranger who has killed four other women and possibly five is excellent. On the other hand, the evidence that Kelly was in bed and very possibly sleeping when she was attacked is excellent as well. The inquest etc have her lying in bed with her head turned towards the corner of the bed

Exactly. Kelly was in bed when she was attacked, intruder or not. But consider that the blood evidence and cuts to the sheet suggest she was on her right side with her face very close to the wall. Most people, when sleeping or in bed alone, do not huddle themselves to the side of the bed closest to the wall. They stay to the other side or middle to allow more arm room. Either Kelly was an anomoly in this respect or there was another person in bed with her when she put herself into this position. Although some on here would like us to believe Kelly was an anomaly in every respect to fit their theory, I see no reason to play that game. I suggest that Kelly willfully crawled into that bed with her killer and was not asleep when killed. Compound this with the fact that Jack that Ripper did not habitually barge into homes in the middle of the night to kill women, but instead picked up prostitutes and went elsewhere to commit murder, and you're left with the logical conclusion that Kelly allowed her killer into her room.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chava]

I don't think we can say that the evidence points one way or the other. The evidence for Kelly being picked up and killed by a stranger who has killed four other women and possibly five is excellent. On the other hand, the evidence that Kelly was in bed and very possibly sleeping when she was attacked is excellent as well. The inquest etc have her lying in bed with her head turned towards the corner of the bed and the fatal wound appears to have been delivered with her more-or-less exactly in the position she was found give or take an organ or two and some skin. I can completely understand the 'of course she was a Ripper victim and murdered by a total stranger' brigade because I was one myself for a very long time. But now I have to say I'm not at all convinced and I don't think the evidence points us one way over another.

Caz, your scenario is completely possible. Kelly clearly was after some kind of meal-ticket, and if one presented itself all smiling and shiny, she'd grab its hand off. I'd agree completely it's possible the Ripper sweet-talked himself into her bed with this line. But a voice (maybe the same one that told Sutcliffe to go forth and rip the **** out of any woman he could find) yells in my ear that our boy Jack may well have been impotent and that was the source of the whole problem. Now this is parlour psychology of course, and all down to Freud Made Easy For Tiny Tots which I read when young. But the way he uses the knife. The constant appearance of passageways and dark areas that he goes through with his victims, always emerging into a larger area where he kills 'em. All this screams 'sexual symbolism' to me. And all this is here, of course, in Kelly. He has to go through the tight, dark Millers Court passage before he gets into the 'womb' of the place and so to Kelly's room where he kills her. If I'm going to be completely serious just for a moment, I would suggest that his accompanying his victims through this surrogate 'vagina' is part of the thrill for him and that is why it tends to be swiftly followed by the death and the highly phallic knife work in the nether regions. However if he enters Kelly's room with her, he obviously doesn't kill her immediately, because she gets undressed and lies on the bed. This might simply mean he's evolving as a serial killer and his method is changing. But previously he has been very fixated on female genital organs. This time, if an organ is taken, it's the heart. That is much more personal. And all this is why I do think it's possible that Kelly was killed by the Ripper. But I don't think she was killed by the Ripper for the same reasons he killed the others. I think there was something personal between them. He killed her because of that personal reason.

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

There needn't be any strong inference that a hypothetical intruder must have been someone she knew. It could have been a total stranger who kept her under surveillance for a while before killing her, and Hutch or not, there's precedent aplenty for that sort of behaviour amongst serial killers, from BTK to Bundy. If Kelly adopted the ostensibly East-End habit - bemoaned by Chief Inspector Moore - of keeping her door unlocked then the killer needn't have paid particular notice of "how she got in". Nor is there anything unlikely about a scenario involving JTR being a possible familiar face or one-time-client, as borne out by examples such as Steve Wright, Arthur Shawcross and others.

But since there's nothing in the evidence to support an intruder, and everything to support the conclusion that she brought the one and only Jack the Ripper back to her room that night, that's where I'd like to cast my chips

I can't see how the evidence could ever lend itself to such a conclusion, Tom. When faced with a paucity of evidence such as it is, I'd say that while there are some indications that the may have been killed by a client, there are rather more indications that she was killed by intruder; an intruder who was very probably responsible for the earlier victims. No biggie if someone thinks the opposite, but the evidence is simply insufficient to arrive at too confident or concrete a conclusion either way, methinks.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

If Mary was killed by an intruder, the inference is it was someone she knew, from a boyfriend to an acquaintance to even a one-time client who saw how she got in. Atop that list is Hutch, due to his suspicious behavior, as you pointed out, which is why I believe you support the intruder idea. In fact, suspect preference is the ONLY reason to suggest the intruder idea as the most likely scenario. But since there's nothing in the evidence to support an intruder, and everything to support the conclusion that she brought the one and only Jack the Ripper back to her room that night, that's where I'd like to cast my chips. That doesn't negate the possibility of what you suggest, merely that it's the less likely of the possibilities.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

The issue of whether Kelly was killed by an intruder or client has very little to do with the Hutch thang, bud, or the Barnett thang for that matter. The former is a legitimately suspicious character (and thus a plausible suspect) in the Kelly saga while Barnett is considerably less so, but that's all by the by and a discussion for another thread and time. I don't see any compelling evidence from the crime scene pointing towards Kelly having contractual company at the time of her death, but your mileage may vary!

Cheers,
Ben