Did Mary know her attacker?

[Supe]

Tom,

Good point about perceived ages and it raises a couple others.

For one, we mustn't fall into the "modernist" trap, but instead we need to understand that what seemed as apparent age in the LVP East End was probably quite different from what we would think today.

Secondly, if the actual ages of females were so hard to guage, was that also true of males and thus what are we to make of the ages mentioned in "witness" statements?

Don.

[perrymason]

I only include Stride when I talk about Canons that others see as sacred Tom. My Canon list is much shorter.

As to how old the women looked, ok...Ill accept your breakdown, but Ive seen the photos we do have of these gals, and they dont seem young looking or attractive to me, if we are setting aside the birth certificates. But if we arent, then Mary is reported to be almost as old as Liz has been known to have been selling herself. Hard to imagine they looked the same age. And 4 middle aged women were outdoors dressed, in dark streets, and alleys....so they may well have been soliciting when they meet their killer. Being found indoors undressed with no client rendezvous doesnt make Mary similar in that respect at all.

Sam....the only guy I dont get rude with when you take shots at me.....I would think that one of the only ways that Mary could be attributed to this phantom fella... with some degree of certainty, without using wounds which are not conclusive evidence anyway... is if we could prove she met him while soliciting outdoors. Him coming in alone as a stranger doesnt quite fit the known facts, or the killer profile..and there is no reaction to this encounter that we know of...unless the "oh-murder" cry...and that is followed by silence. So...no stranger coming in and attacking as soon as he gains access to Mary.

The problem is...the only thing we have is silence and darkness for room 13 from 1:30 on. We know she didnt enter with Astrakan,....and that has her being killed when Mary Ann comes past the door anyway. She didnt go out with Blotchy apparently, as no-one saw or heard anything. She doesnt have wet clothing by the police reports, nor are there wet boot prints.

What we do know is that shortly after she was heard to have stopped singing, a witness passed her room from inside the same house, had cracks that showed light if present, and saw there was none...or noise. So the only hope you have is if she left before 1:30..and wasnt seen by Prater coming in, Mary Ann going out. Since that light and noise situation never alters until at least 3am...which is none of each,... you cannot suggest she came home before 3am, when Mary Ann makes her last past right by that door. There is no noise, light, or witness to support a claim she arrived home during that period.

So...even if she went out, she wasnt with Astrakan, because she isnt home before 3am...thats one down, granted...that has been down for 120 years now already...
so now the only record of a witness saying he saw her out after midnight is shelved, where is our next source that suggests she went out? Anyone? No? Well, maybe Carolines statement makes her going out possible, as Mrs Maxwell has a dead woman walking, talking and throwing up, ...but no-one that night saw anything coming or going to or from Marys room between 1:30 and 3am. Nor did they after that...only the sound of bootsteps in the court.

Best regards.

[Ben]

I don't see how or why the incessantly over-argued "Did she go out again?" debate should necessarily impact on whether or not Kelly knew her killer. If Kelly was killed by an intruder, he may have known her on some level (anything from casual "nodding" acquaintance to boyfriend/lover etc), or he may have been a complete stranger who stalked her, as serial killers have been known to do. If he was either one of those things, there would be nothing to rule him out as the ripper. Both are perfectly plausible, and neither one is any less likely that the notion that she was killed by a killer client.

Similarly, the assumption that Blotchy was a total stranger to Kelly is no more or less entrenched and unsupported than the assumption that he knew her. Then there's Mary Cox to consider, who was out soliciting that night but didn't bring home any clients, probably because it made better sense to get through as many clients as she could by servicing them (more or less) where she found them, rather than trekking back and forth home.

[paul emmett]

[QUOTE=Chava;12319


The time discrepancy in the evidence of Cox and Prater is certainly interesting, but I'm putting it down to inattention on one or both parts. Neither of them saw Kelly, but by their own accounts, neither of them saw each other either. If they are basing their timelines on the Spitalfield's Church clock, or the Brewery clock or whatever, it's possible that Cox heard it strike as she was in her room and getting ready to go out again, but Prater heard it strike as she approached Miller's Court. Both of them think 'it's 1.00!!' Prater goes into her room a minute later. Cox leaves a couple of minutes after that. Kelly goes out in between the two, and doesn't necessarily make much noise so neither of them notice.[/QUOTE]

The time discrepency is more dramatic that this. Cox comes in to warm her hands at 1:00. The last time she came in, at 11:45, she stayed in 15 minutes. I think it's likely that she would stay in around the same amount of time. So, say she leaves 1:10ish, when she still hears singing. Prater returns at 1:00, but stays by Mc's shop 20 minutes and then goes in, so she says, about 1:30. Prater, as I noted before, waffles about the light from Kelly's room, but she is sure there is no sound.

SOOO From 1:00-1:30 noone sees MJK leave, and noone sees Blotchy leave. But we know Kelly at least is there cuz Cox heard her singing at 1:10. And since MJK started singing with Blotchy, and noone has seen him leave, I think one can make a good case that MJK AND Blotchy have stopped singing for the night and have retired, since Prater hears nothing, and most likely sees no light.

What bothers me about all this is, not that it sounds kinda familiar, but that Cox and Prater don't see each other either. As usual, there seems to be a missing piece.

Ben, we were posting together, but I think my post suggests why the timing involved in Kelly's going out or not does impact on whether she knew her killer or not, AND whether she knew Blotchy or not, AND whether they were one and the same.

[Tom_Wescott]

Is it possible Kelly was killed by an intruder? Of course. More possible than most of the theories Michael supports, in fact. Was it likely this is how she died? No.

Don,

Thanks. And yes, of course that would apply to the men, although not as much so, since presumably they weren't getting by on their looks and by appearing as young and attractive as possible. Also, some people are better at guessing age than others. As you know (you wrote an essay on it) there's many, many variables.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

I'd go t'other way, Tom; that the client and intruder premises are about as plausible as eachother, with the latter being just that bit more parsimonious and therefore more likely.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'd go t'other way, Tom; that the client and intruder premises are about as plausible as eachother, with the latter being just that bit more parsimonious and therefore more likely.

Sorry bro, ain't buying the Hutch thang. And Barnett's even less likely. Even if either of them WERE the killer, the crime scene evidence suggests to me Mary was not alone in bed and therefore not killed by an intruder.

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

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.