Did Mary know her attacker?

[Chava]

Unfortunately, Caz, speculation is all we've got. We don't have anyone we can sit down and have a chat with. And we' don't have all the police files either. Notebooks etc have all gotten lost over the years. I also am not a fan--as I'm sure you know--of taking huge steps into the wide blue yonder. That having been said, I will look at the evidence and draw some possibilities from it just as you do. But we differ on the nature of our 'possibilities'. For me, there are too many differences here to lump this kill completely in with the other kills. The missing heart is, IMO, the best indication that whatever we're dealing with, it's not a straightforward Ripper kill. However I'm not ruling out the fact that it was done by the Ripper.

As for Sutcliffe, I take your point that he was building a case for Broadmoor. But he already did that with the voices. Who, if I remember, just told him to kill. Not how to do it. And all forensic evidence corroborated his version of events. Patricia Atkinson, like Mary Jane Kelly, was a prostitute with a room of her own. However there was no suggestion in the Atkinson case that she spent any time at all on the bed in her room before she was murdered. If I recall correctly, she was dressed and the bed was unmarked.

If we are to stick purely to what we have with so theories or suppositions, we still have a pattern of 4 victims all of similar appearance, killed the exact same way and in the same circumstances, and a 5th whose murder occurs in different circumstances and has a couple of slightly different attributes.

You say you don't want to go one step farther in assumption than necessary. I agree with you. There are enough differences in the Kelly murder--given that there are no differences whatsoever in the previous four--to prevent me from making the assumption that she was killed in exactly the same way. As I've said above, I think it's entirely possible the Ripper killed her. But I also think that it's entirely possible the Ripper knew her.

[Dan Norder]

I have said it before and I'll say it again - based on what he did on the two previous occasions, there would be no reason for the Ripper to change his or alter his choice of organs or his modus operandi just because he moved indoors. None whatsoever.

And if you think the Ripper had to have a reason to make a change that satisfies *your* definition of reasonable then you really are naive. Every single murder had changes from the previous ones. You might as well try to argue that he had "no reason" for taking the kidney, "no reason" for mutilating faces, "no reason" for taking the uterus in the first place when he hadn't previously, and "no reason" for even killing in the first place.

You insist on trying to treat the Kelly murder as if it were magically different from the rest despite being far more similar to the Eddowes and Chapman cases than the Chapman killing was to the Nichols murder. There simply isn't any sane argument to separate out Kelly that wouldn't also separate all of the others from each other.

[Ben]

...and this is where I point out that the fact that Cox did not bring any men home that evening does not necessarily go to show that Mary would not have

Right you are, Fisherman, but at the same time, it's clear that Mary Cox was out soliciting that night without bringing any clients home. If Mary Cox solicited on the streets and "serviced" them there despite the availabilty of a private room, then it's more then reasonable to infer that Kelly may have done similarly.

Best regards,
Ben

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Every single murder had changes from the previous ones.

Not in their main characteristics.

You insist on trying to treat the Kelly murder as if it were magically different from the rest.

That's because it is.

[Observer]

Hi Chava

Observer, she could have gotten drunk ahead of meeting BF, or she could have gotten drunk with him. She needs money, so I would assume she was working earlier in the evening, and may have managed to get the odd client to buy her a drink. She brings Blotchy home along with his jug of ale, so she may have spent a bit of time with him/knew him before. Although she was drunk that night, she doesn't seem to be an alcoholic. I agree it's odd that no one claims to have seen her ahead of Cox in the late evening, but I imagine that her earlier punters--if they knew who she was--may have been reluctant to come forward for all sorts of reasons. One of the anomalies of the case is that no one seems to have seen Nicholls or Chapman for quite a long time before they were killed. We know from evidence that they were on the streets, but there seems to be a couple of hours at least in Chapman's case that are completely unaccounted for.

Hi Chava, precisely, working during the evening prior to her retirement. I can understand why non of her punters would want to come forward with information, indeed Blotchy thought it prudent not to present himself to the nearest police station.

But according to Cox Kelly was tipsy at the very least, if not half cut, when she saw her, which suggests to me that she had visited a certain amount of public houses during the night leading up to her murder. Surely someone saw her that night, I would go further and say that there were people who drank in her company, they had nothing to hide, did they come forward?

The police would have known from Cox's statement that Kelly had been drinking that night, this was a prime statement which begged to be acted on, here they had a chance to check her movements that night. Surely they would have tried to pin down her movements prior to her retirement, found out her regular watering holes, found out her regular drinking buddies, they would wouldn't they, wouldn't they?

Which is why I said in an earlier post there could well be more info lurking about in some dusty outpost, that might throw some light on Kelly's movements that night.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi 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. .


Ben

But Kelly retired at 11:45. p.m. she never went out again, the odds are she was murdered at approx 4:00 a.m. How did her killer stalk her between those times? four and a quarter hours does this sound like JRT?

Observer

[paul emmett]

The police would have known from Cox's statement that Kelly had been drinking that night, this was a prime statement which begged to be acted on, here they had a chance to check her movements that night. Surely they would have tried to pin down her movements prior to her retirement, found out her regular watering holes, found out her regular drinking buddies, they would wouldn't they, wouldn't they?

Would they? Observer, you must be right: this was a prime statement. Perhaps if they had had anywhere near a thorough Inquest, they actually could have discovered more.

[perrymason]

Just so we are certain that the information used to counter comments regarding the differences that exits in Mary Kellys case from the preceding Canonicals...heres a few..

-The first 4 were all killed outdoors, not at their known residence, and were assumed to be soliciting at the time.
-Three of the first 4 have abdominal mutilations as the primary area of mutilation.
-Two of the first 4 have the same organ taken, one complete, one partial. Both were specifically female.
-All 4 were middle aged
-1 had facial mutilations
-1 had no mutilations at all
-None had hearts taken
-There was never an abdominal organ extracted and left at the site in the first 4....the intestines I believe are considered a system, rather than a simple organ
-The previous organ donors did not have their midsection's emptied
-None of the previous 4 victims had access to their bodies inhibited by a barrier...such as a locked door.
-Two of the previous victims killers were attributed skill and knowledge by medical examiners, or likely done by the same man
-None of the previous victims had already paid for a bed the night they were killed.
-None had their own room in their own name.
-1 of the priors had, the week of her death, ended a live-in, or long running relationship


I think instead of claiming that Mary was very much like the priors, which is incorrect, isnt it advisable that the list you compare her with are similar, and likley all died by the same hand?

Its clear that only some of the women were virtually identical kills. Why would he do some almost the same way, and some completely different? Liz Stride is the other glaring example of a victim that has no business in a Canon that only includes 3 women that have similar wounds and circumstances, only 2 of which were most likely by one man.. perhaps 3...but of the 2...Polly and Annie, despite the fact that Pollys organs remained with her, are closest in style and injuries. Kate's partial uterus is the key element in that attribution I would think.

I think its clear you cannot use the wounds to bundle these prior 4 as evidence of a single killer, nor should the wounds on the fifth be used to favourably compare with priors. But there can be a case made for repetitive methodology on all 4 priors.

Best regards.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I certainly agree with that, Michael. All good points.

All the best

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

But Kelly retired at 11:45. p.m. she never went out again, the odds are she was murdered at approx 4:00 a.m. How did her killer stalk her between those times?

Either through prior experience of a contractual nature, or by waiting for Kelly to finish with a client, and then seeking the auspicious moment to enter and attack. Alternatively, if Blotchy was the killer, it could be argued that his 11:45pm visit was a reconnaisance effort.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi again Ben

Let me make myself a bit clearer. Kelly was with Blotchy earlier on in the evening, they retired to Kelly's room at 11:45 a.m. For the killer to have stalked Kelly he would have to have stalked both Kelly and blotchy prior to 11:45 a.m. He would then need to wait in Dorset Street until Blotchy left Kelly, for some strange reason Blotchy would have needed to vacate Kelly's room just before 4:00 a.m. the killer then entered Kelly's room and murdered her. of course Blotchy could have left at any time after 11:45, but Kelly was murdered at 4:00am. why the waite? Looking at the previous murders, I can not see the perpetrator adopting the above method.

Observer

[Septic Blue]

Keep on believin what you do...

Hi Michael,

I'm going to throw a little empathy in your direction, but first:

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?

Sincerely,
Michael

"Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet."
African Proverb

You really should reconsider your "signature", in light of the position, which you have taken in this particular discussion.

Anyway:

We all have "gut feelings", Michael !!! But we must be willing to acknowledge that even when based on the tangible and/or circumstantial evidence that is available; they are still "gut feelings".

I have several !!! In some cases, my belief is nothing less than heartfelt; while in other cases, my belief is not quite as profound.

To name a few:

--- I am inclined to believe that Emma Smith fabricated the circumstances of her attack, in order to avoid self-incrimination. Had she been injured by a client or group of clients, who just happened to get a little rough, she may have been fearful that an admission to being a destitute prostitute would have landed her in the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, upon her anticipated recovery.

--- I am inclined to believe that Martha Tabram was stabbed thirty eight times with a single weapon, in a non-frenzied, somewhat calculated manner of "trepid foreplay"; and a thirty ninth time, with the same weapon, but with much less trepidation.

--- I do not believe a single word of Israel Schwartz's statement.

--- I am inclined to believe that Stride's murderer may have been disturbed, and that the completion of his "work" was thus precluded; that he was then enraged and obsessively compelled to do something, which he considered morally wrong – kill twice in the same excursion; and that he genuinely blamed the "Juwes" for this unfortunate set of circumstances. You know the rest …

--- I do not believe a word of George Hutchinson's statement – meaning of course, that I do not believe he was anywhere near Miller's Court, during the morning in question.

--- I am inclined to believe that St. Botolph's Church, St. Botolph Without Aldgate was never known as "The Prostitutes' Church", until the entrenchment of some sort of folklore, in the twentieth century.

--- I am inclined to believe that the Bethnal Green neighbourhood, which stood where The Boundary Estate stands today, was never known as "The Old Nichol", and perhaps not even "The Nichol", until the entrenchment of some sort of post Arthur Morrison / "A Child of the Jago" folklore; which would be post-1896, after the entire area had been demolished for re-development.

--- I am inclined to believe that Mary Jane Kelly was known to herself, as well as her loved-ones, friends and acquaintances as "Mary Jane"; and that we are unknowingly showing a lack of respect for her memory, by referring to her simply as "Mary". Not so much in this day and age (excepting in the American "South"); but in generations past, Mary Jane, Mary Ann, Mary Ellen, etc… were first names in themselves. This may have been particularly so, within certain elements of Roman Catholic society, where it was believed that there was only one "Mary".

--- I am inclined to believe that the alleged "Seaside Home Identification" was a figment of Anderson's bigoted and egotistical imagination.

--- I am inclined to believe that the so-called "Swanson Marginalia" is a forgery/hoax.

--- I could go on, listing many, many more …

I base these beliefs, Michael, on the foundations of that evidence (tangible and/or circumstantial), which we have at our disposal; and of course, my personal interpretations of that evidence. But, I concede that they are nothing more than "gut feelings".

In many instances, I have come to believe in these theories, simply because I have had to defend their plausibility. Unfortunately, a defensive posture can prompt a stubborn adherence to what was initially perceived as being merely a possibility.


Colin

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Hi Observer,



Either through prior experience of a contractual nature, or by waiting for Kelly to finish with a client, and then seeking the auspicious moment to enter and attack. Alternatively, if Blotchy was the killer, it could be argued that his 11:45pm visit was a reconnaisance effort.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi again

I'm thinking Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, brief encounter, place and fee agreed, and then the quick kill, Jack the stalker seems alien to the above three murders. Can you see Jacky changing his MO? It's poss9ible I suppose

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Looking at the previous murders, I can not see the perpetrator adopting the above method.

But if you look at the previous murders, you won't see the perpetrator killing prostitutes indoors either. Obviously, if we're prepared to accept the possibility that the killer could alter the type of venue when committing his crimes (as we should be), we should make the same sort of allowances for a possible change in approach. As we learn from Bundy, to cite one example, different venues called for different approaches, and while Bundy adopted various false guises to inveigle several of his victims, he simply "invaded" when it came to indoor kills.

The killer needn't have arrived on the scene from 11:45pm. He may have noticed her at that time (where she lived etc) and resolved to return at a later stage.

Regards,
Ben

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Colin is of course right.
Much of what represents our personal positions here and on many other issues is to some degree a matter of 'gut feeling' - and that wouldn't be particularly strange. Heck, even policemen and modern investigators have to work from 'gut feelings' when there are lack of sufficent data or evidence.

I agree with Colin on some points (Emma Smith, George Hutchinson, possibly Schwartz), not on others (Tabram, the Swanson Marginalia), and again - it's all based on how we independetly interpret the evidence at hand, and a personal gut feeling. Since there is such lack of information, it is hard to claim anything else.

Also a good point, Colin, about 'Mary Jane' and not simply 'Mary'. I haven't really thought of that before, but you may be right.

All the best