Did Mary know her attacker?

[c.d.]

Jeez Ben, again with the fricken Hutchinson. You clearly missed the point of my post which was directed to Michael and his adherence to the facts. Now it is pretty damn clear that Hutchinson was discredited. No question about it. But we draw an inference to reach that conclusion. The point I was attempting to make is that nowhere do we have a police document that says "Hutchinson has been discredited. Signed Abberline."

Please don't make me drag up Ally's point about Hutchinson as your prom date. A smiley should go here but I can't get it to work.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi CD,

Either we accept what evidence we have as a metaphysical certainty or we choose to examine the evidence.

The problem is that the patchy evidence we have offers no certainty - whether metaphysical or otherwise - that Mary Kelly stayed in. We have at least some direct evidence (Hutchinson) that she went out again after 1AM, and plenty of indirect evidence (from the behaviour of other women in Kelly's situation) that her venturing back out again would not have constituted unusual behaviour. Conversely, her staying in after returning at 11:45 is arguably the more unusual behaviour, from what we know of Prater's and Cox's movements that very same night.

It's not as if Kelly's going out to make more money that night lacks a motive. One thing we do know with reasonable certainty is that she was told point blank on the eve of her death that her boyfriend had no money to give her. That piece of evidence is much more than we have in respect of Cox or Prater, and it should not be overlooked.

[Ben]

Hi Suzi - I think Hutchinson may well have seen Kelly that night, but there's a difference between exploring that possibility and adhering blindly to the view that he also saw some bling-bedecked surly Jewish dandy, especially when the contemporary police clearly came to believe otherwise. I'm not sure why you think the 6d line "smacks of friendship". I think it smacks of someone trying to convey an impression of friendship.

[Ben]

Nah, CD, apparently I only defend my prom date if people say negative things about his candidacy, but you weren't doing that.

Still think there's an unnecessary amount of twisted knickers over the issue of Kelly's nocturnal activity, but I tend to be swayed - personally - by what we call the Null Hypothesis (Ho), which in the absence of any reliable evidence to the effect that a given event occured, means we assume it didn't. In the absence of any reliable evidence that Kelly went out again, I tend to endorse the Null Hypothesis that she didn't.

I honestly don't mind it she did go out again, but still...

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

I tend to be swayed - personally - by what we call the Null Hypothesis (Ho), which in the absence of any reliable evidence to the effect that a given event occured, we assume it didn't. In the absence of any reliable evidence that Kelly went out again, I tend to endorse the Null Hypothesis that she didn't.

Is that a valid hypothesis in the context of a Spitalfields streetwalker, though?

If you wandered through a forest and found no bear droppings, would you therefore support a null hypothesis that says that bears do not $hit in the woods?

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

Yes, I agree there are a lot of "twisted knickers" as you say over this point. Interestingly enough, we have the same expression here in the good old U.S. of A., only we say "don't get your panties in a bunch."

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

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?

c.d.

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[plang]

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