Soliciting or night attack.

[The Good Michael]

Also Fiona Kendall made a point, that her great grandfather Kellys landlord,
used to spy on the court during the night to keep up with the residents activities from a back room which looked over the court.

Richard,

I don't put much stock into hearsay. What back room? What was the room number? Which residents did he spy on? It sounds like mere anecdote to me. I believe she was related to him, but she hasn't come forth with anything else.

Again, what if Kelly was killed at 6, 7, 8, or 9? What does it matter if all doctors were wrong and only Maxwell was right? You must have a reason to rewrite history.

Mike

[claire]

it depicts kellys boots laying close to the fireplace, which suggests to me that kelly herself must have been aware of a fire burning, as it would have been pointless placing them there to dry if the fire was unlit.
As we have no reports of a glowing fire, from room 13 during the night, and as ashes were still relatively warm at 130 pm when the room was entered , that adds weight to my suggestion that the fire was lit at daylight.

Hi, Richard,

Nice logic, overall...just a couple of quick responses to the above...

It's plausible to think that someone would place their boots by the fire in anticipation of lighting it later, especially if it was one's habit to dry them off there.

Secondly (and I agree that a lit fire may well be visible), it's not guaranteed that a low, long-burning fire (as we might keep going during cold weeks) would be that visible...it's only when the flames are leaping about (which likely happened later, when the clothing was burned) that it's really that visible from outside. I recall that there were some curtains/window coverings over the second (unbroken) window closest the fire, which may have concealed the low glow of such a fire.

Lastly, if you've kept a fire going for a fair old while (speaking as someone who has lived in a coal-heated house), you'll know that it can remain warm for a rather long time after it has gone out. It's not just a couple of hours or so, but usually several hours (I've learned this to my cost, cleaning out a grate in the afternoon from a fire that went out in the morning, and have the burns to prove it!!). That said, in your support, a chilly room with broken windows may well hasten the cooling process.

The longer you've had a low fire burning, the longer it takes to cool, though, in general. Just because the grate/embers were still warm doesn't mean the fire recently went out...if it had been lit in the morning, I'd be surprised if it went out so quickly for the embers to just be warm by the time of the exam. And if it was just a quick and dirty fire, just a flame and the clothing, for example, it would, conversely, have gone out so quickly that the grate would be cold within a very short time, leading to the conclusion it was a decently built fire in the first place.

[DVV]

all I was saying was a glowing fire during the night would have been noticable, and may have drawn attention to the room, which of course the killer would not have wanted.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

on such a cold night, with a broken pane, I can't see her undressing and going to bed.
She must have lit the fire before, whether alone, whether with the killer.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

My point was that a fire's glow may have been so common on cool nights that it wasn't something a person would remark on or even notice.


Cheers,

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael.
Forgive I do not get your point, with reference to the fire , all I was saying was a glowing fire during the night would have been noticable, and may have drawn attention to the room, which of course the killer would not have wanted.
Also Fiona Kendall made a point, that her great grandfather Kellys landlord,
used to spy on the court during the night to keep up with the residents activities from a back room which looked over the court.
He never mentioned a fire, although of course we do not know where he was on the night of the 8th/9th.
As for morning attacks .
All were morning attacks, I am suggesting however, this one occured around 9am.
How does it change anything,?
Rather a lot Michael dont you think.
I also not saying it was not solicitation, it would naturally have been so.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

Why would a glowing fire in a room cause anyone to make a report about it? If it was usual for people to light fires, then it wouldn't be reported.

Your whole point, I guess, is that it wasn't a night attack. Nor was it solicitation. It was a morning attack then? If so, what does it matter?
JTR already did one morning attack. How does it change anything?

Cheers,

mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi .
If one looks at the crime scene at millers court, one could clearly see a rolled up item, which appears to be bedding, it is positioned on the bed against the wall,and the victim appears to be laying amongst remains of sheets.
My point has always been regardless if the bedroll was on the bed initially, or had been moved into that position to aid photography, it clearly was not needed for bed use, indicating that MJK did not require it, which would suggest that death could have occured much later then medical opinion .
Some of us have mentioned that the killer may have neatly folded up the blankets, which for the life of me cannot entertain, I cannot imagine a brutal killer like the Ripper even contemplating such a act.
Also a sketch was made at the time showing the interior of the room , and although one cannot say for certain it is accurate, even so it depicts kellys boots laying close to the fireplace, which suggests to me that kelly herself must have been aware of a fire burning, as it would have been pointless placing them there to dry if the fire was unlit.
As we have no reports of a glowing fire, from room 13 during the night, and as ashes were still relatively warm at 130 pm when the room was entered , that adds weight to my suggestion that the fire was lit at daylight.
Mrs Maxwell was the last witness to claim to have seen the victim alive , and she was the last witness to have see her talking with a man, as she has never been proven mistaken, and has a sworn statement on record in her favour, I find it foolhardy to reject her.
If one takes all the above points, and observes the crime scene, one comes to the likely deduction that the market porter seen talking with Mjk was most likely her killer.
Astracan simply, was not the last person seen with Kelly, therefore like Blotchy, should be eliminated.
A lot of flak has been directed against Hutchinson, and much has been made of the police losing intrest in him, giving the impression to many of us, that they rejected his sighting, but an alternative explanation could be although they were keen to identify Astracan[ hence the walkabouts] they were more intrested in Maxwells porter.
Why?
I am of the strong opinion that the police believed that Mary was killed in daylight hours, the crime scene would have told them that , without Maxwells
version, and that is why they requested, that she attended the inquest, and told the court.
If they were convinced medical opinion was right , they would have dismissed her sighting as bunkum, they would never had her, giving a statement under oath, which would have contridicted their own police doctors, and placed their expertise at doubt.
My opinion foks.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

One thinks that is often overlooked: A man with a knife can easily put a woman into any position he wants her to be in. "Okay in the bed. Face the wall." I don't care that the Ripper was at large. When confronted with a weapon and assurances that you won't be hurt of you comply, and given that a bloke didn't look wild and crazy, most people would comply.

That argument gives us still the possibility of surprise.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Sox,

Maybe the reason for this, was that he was in the same state of undress as Mary Kelly.

...Another reason could be that he derobed himself of his outer garments prior to attacking in order to avoid being noticed on the streets afterwards in an obviously bloodstained condition, and this would be perfectly compatible with the "sleeping" scenario.

The blood pattern is also compatible with the killer tilting the torso towards the partition so as to direct the bloodflow away from himself, and since blood can be seen directly behind Kelly's neck in the photograph, it's quite clear that the blood stains occuped the general region encompassing Kelly's right ear and the adjoining partition.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sox]

One thing, I think anyway, certainly points away from the 'she was sleeping' theory: Arterial spray. This, of course, depends on wether or not you think Kelly was a Ripper victim,

One thing I think is for certain, Kelly's killer did not have the same concerns over being bloodstained that were displayed in the previous four murders. Maybe the reason for this, was that he was in the same state of undress as Mary Kelly. In more than one study on Victorian prostitution, it has been noted that men and women of that era were loathe to be naked for sex, the female normally stripping down to her chemise, the male leaving on an undershirt.

Phillips surmised that Kelly's body was moved after her throat was cut, he states.....

I am sure that the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead that was nearest the wooden partition, because of the large quantity of blood under the bedstead and the saturated condition of the sheet and the palliasse at the corner nearest the partition.

.....which could well be consistent with someone being on the bed beside her, or in bed with her. Kelly being on that side of the bed is also consistent with a killer who has not yet taken the initiative, because she got in/on the bed first.

If Phillips was correct, and Kelly was on the side of the bed nearest the wall when she was killed, then this means that her killer not only had to sneak into her room, but that he had to climb onto the bed to attack her, leaning over would have put him at a severe disadvantage.

All things that could point to Mary Kelly's killer having been taken to No13 by her.

[Hunter]

Prostitutes lie down on beds for other reasons than sleeping. She may have moved to the right side to allow her client some room to lie down beside her. The doctors agreed that the attack was sudden and unexpected - just like in the other murders. Because he had to attack from the victim's left it would be natural that she would have ended up near the wall in a last defensive position -he, pulling her down afterwards to facillitate mutilation. The sheet could have been used to muffle her as he slashed. In no way does this predispose an unwelcomed entry.

If there was one thing in common with all, and if the medicos are to be believed, they never saw it coming in time to offer any substantial ressistance.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Ben]

All it took was for her client to ask "shall we be disturbed?" and Kelly to reply "No, we shall not".

That wouldn't reassure me if I was Jack the Ripper intent on bloody murder. I'd prefer to do my own homework and make doubly sure for myself, being mindful of the possibility that the victim's assurances that she would not be disturbed were either an optimistic drink-fuelled assumption, or a flat out lie. Or worse, a trap.

Consider also the behaviour of Mary Cox, who, despite having private quarters similar to those enjoyed by Mary Kelly, still preferred to conduct her client servicing on the streets.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Being invited into a private room by an intoxicated prostitute would be a right moment and easier than going to any extraneous trouble.

Yes, but the very act of targetting a sleeping victim ensured that the "extraneous trouble" of adopting a false guise, inveigling the victim into the desired location, and seeking the opportune moment to take her by surprise is rendered entirely unnecessary.

That's right, and he caught attention. Their pattern of behaviour made him less conspicuous.

He caught considerably less attention than the presumed ripper did in the act of communuicating with his intended victims at Hanbury Street and Mitre Square as observed by Elizabeth Long and Joseph Lawende respectively. He was certainly no less "conspicuous" on those two occasions than the loitering man was when he was seen opposite Miller's Court.

Some more modern day serial killers may have surveyed their crime scenes because the victims were different and the area of their crimes were often more widspread.

I don't see how either of these factors minimise, or even impact upon, the likelihood of Kelly's killer monitering the crime scene in a fashion similar to his modern counterparts. The same basic principle - that of monitering the location with a view to seeking the auspicious moment to enter and attack - surely applies.

Best regards,
Ben.

P.S. Good points, Garry. Agreed all round!

[Garry Wroe]

a sleeping victim is far easier to subdue than one who is up and about, for obvious reasons

And Kelly certainly appears to have been sleeping, Ben. According to Dr Bond, cuts to the sheets, blood pooling on and under the bed, and the arterial blood spray pattern on the wall indicated that she had been lying to the right side of the bed, close to the partition wall when the initial sharp force injuries were inflicted. Her position on the bed also mediates against the view advanced by some posters that she was preparing for, or even in the act of coitus when the attack commenced.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Hunter]

Not really, Hunter.

Firstly, a sleeping victim is far easier to subdue than one who is up and about, for obvious reasons, and the act of pushing open a door hardly constituted "breaking" in in the technical sense.

If the way the other victims were killed is cosidered, he didn't seem to care. He just waited for the right moment and struck. Being invited into a private room by an intoxicated prostitute would be a right moment and easier than going to any extraneous trouble.

Yes, but we know someone was seen outside, and he appeared to be monitering the entrance to the court. We also know that other serial offenders have surveyed their crime scenes from a vantage point before attacking.

That's right, and he caught attention. These women patroled a "beat" if you will- outside public gatherings, street corners, etc... They picked up their clients and took them back to a place of their choosing. Their pattern of behaviour made him less conspicuous. If he took risk, it was during the mutilations, which he was willing to accept that risk as that was his ultimate goal.

Some more modern day serial killers may have surveyed their crime scenes because the victims were different and the area of their crimes were often more widspread. In this case, it was very local and the victims already had a predictable pattern for the killer to utilize.

Best WIshes,
Hunter


Best regards,
Ben[/QUOTE]