Soliciting or night attack.

[Hunter]

Hello everyone,

If this was a modern police investigation, without the forensics, they would look at the evidence, then, at the habits of the individuals involved to form their investigation. The evidence, in Mary Kelly's case, would be who she was last seen with and why she was with them. The habit would have naturally been that she was a prostitute. If they had a sequence of murders to go by, they would look for a pattern. Ted Bundy's pattern was that he sought young girls with long hair. His method wasn't consistent because he just wanted to kill these individuals by whatever means. He killed far more women, over a longer time span with just the intention to kill.

JTR, or whoever he was, targeted prostitutes with the intention of mutilation. He chose the most vulnurable victims- prostitutes- to carry out his post mortem fantasies. He didn't have to stalk them. He didn't have to stake them out. If he chose to go to that trouble, he could have picked any woman living alone. All he had to do was walk the streets, and his victim would come to him. Its that easy ! Was he tripped from time to time in his quest? You bet. The six weeks between the double murder and Kelly's murder probably had to do with the enlightened awareness of the potential victims, as well as the police. But, as he must have known, the opportunity would eventually come. Giving Mary Kelly's history, she was the opportunity. It may have taken more dilligence, on his part, considering that the whole community was alarmed, but he was persistant, and it eventually paid off. These women had no other choice. " Its the Ripper or the bridge" as one "unfortunate" put it.

[DVV]

But I don't think, if we somehow found out that whoever killed her broke in on her, we'd have to 'remove her from the canonical 5'.

Indeed, Chava.

That would be like saying : "Come on everybody" isn't a Cochran song.

Amitiés,
David

[Chava]

There are actually 3 possible scenarii.

1- Mary brang an unknown guy home.
2- Someone she knew knocked her door or called her by the window.
3- An intruder.

Imho, 2 is the more likely, 3 is the less.

Amitiés all,
David

I would agree with that. But I don't think, if we somehow found out that whoever killed her broke in on her, we'd have to 'remove her from the canonical 5'. That's a leap too far in my opinion. Because we don't know what attracted the Ripper. If it was the situation that he found compelling, then he might not break in on her. Part of his ritual might include taking his victim, or more likely being taken, to a place where she felt safe, and then attacking her. It's the circumstances of the attack rather than its object that he enjoys, could be any woman. If she approaches him the right way and leads him to the right place, he'll attack.

On the other hand, if it's the victim that attracts him, if it's the one woman that stands out from the crowd and makes him want to attack her, then he could very well break in on her. Because he won't care how he gets to her, as long as he gets to her. If she's not in the street or wherever, that won't matter. He'll go to where she is.

Then again, he might just feel the need to attack a woman--any woman--and breaks in where he knows one can be found. But I think that's the unlikeliest scenario.

I'm not plumping for the break-in. But I don't think we can definitively rule it out from his MO given that we don't know enough to do so.

[Ben]

If one supposes that Kelly was attacked by a man who broke into her room, then that is to remove Mary Kelly from the C5

No, it isn't Sox.

Not remotely.

All we'd need to accept is that serial killers aren't robots, and are perfectly capable of altering their pre-crime approach to suit the nature of the location targetted. Ted Bundy was accustomed to adopted a false guise in order to gain the trust of his victims - just as we might envisage Jack did for the most part - but when it came to the Tallahasee (sp?) murders, which took place indoors, he dispensed with the false guise, broke into the premises and attacked his sleeping victims. If the killer was never caught, there would doubtless be those would would attribute these later murders to another killer.

If people are willing to accept that the killer was capable of changing the nature of the crime location, he was equally capable of changing his pre-crime approach, and as I've said before, if we're too rigid for one "rule" and perfectly flexible for another, we're just giving the Kelly-excluders amunition.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

If one supposes that Kelly was attacked by a man who broke into her room, then that is to remove Mary Kelly from the C5, and I think that is a highly unlikely scenario indeed.

Right.
Once again, post #2 by CD...

Amitiés,
David

[Sox]

That Mary Kelly was a prostitute, and that she lived alone, is beyond dispute.

From hearsay we have an inkling that Mary Kelly had descended to being a streetwalker, that previously she had worked in brothels. It may well be that Kelly had only been working the streets for two years, if that long. She supposedly lived with a string of men, ending with Joe Barnett, some of who are still giving Kelly money, and the hearsay seems to indicate that alcohol was her downfall.

The question Ben, is if Mary Kelly left her room again after 1:30am, what was the reason? Hutchinson claims she was after money, assume for a second that he is telling the truth, what does Kelly need money for at 2:00am?

For the rent? Unlikely, given that she is so much in arrears & that she had been previously evicted for not paying rent. She has also been spending money in McCarthy's shop.

Hungry? It is three hours, at most, since she had eaten, so unlikely.

Drink? She was drunk at 11:45pm when Cox see's her, we do not know how drunk, but according to hearsay Mary Kelly is often drunk. McCarthy claims that Kelly was 'not helpless in drink' a minor indication that Mary Kelly was, by this time, an alcoholic.

It is possible that Mary Kelly was not drunk enough, and that small fact may have been enough to drive her out into the night in search of another client. There is circumstantial evidence to support the theory that the Whitechapel Killer attacked women who were soliciting. If one supposes that Kelly was attacked by a man who broke into her room, then that is to remove Mary Kelly from the C5, and I think that is a highly unlikely scenario indeed.

[c.d.]

There are actually 3 possible scenarii.

1- Mary brang an unknown guy home.
2- Someone she knew knocked her door or called her by the window.
3- An intruder.

Imho, 2 is the more likely, 3 is the less.

Amitiés all,
David

I agree completely,

c.d.

[DVV]

There are actually 3 possible scenarii.

1- Mary brang an unknown guy home.
2- Someone she knew knocked her door or called her by the window.
3- An intruder.

Imho, 2 is the more likely, 3 is the less.

Amitiés all,
David

[Ben]

We can speculate, but there's no evidence that anyone arrived in Mary's room unanounced.

There's no more or less evidence for the proposal that there is for the killer client premise, Hunter.

In fact, when we examine the evidence that wasn't eventually discredited, Kelly is last heard of singing in her room at 1:30. When Mary Cox returned for the last time at 3.00am, the singing had ceased and there were no lights and no noise emanating from the room. This would signify either that Kelly had ventured out again in search if clients, despite the increased extent of her intoxication, the weather, and the realization that the chances of many clients being up and about were slim, or that she had fallen into a drunken stupour some time after 1:30.

Best regards,
Ben

[Hunter]

Back on topic.

Hardly a fight. If a "fight" took place, don't you think the neighbours would heard something a little more than a single emanation of "Oh murder" coming from the direction of the room? The single cry is far more compatible, I would suggest, with a second or two's waking recognition of her impending fate, which in turn, is perfectly compatible with an attack commencing as Kelly slept. For what it's worth, the suggestion that there wasn't "the least sign of a struggle" is probably wrong, in my view.

The single cry could be the result of a nightmare punter as well. Acually, I believe one of the medicos stated that there were cuts on Mary's hand that were made before death. This wasn't a usual both parties standing and one chokes the other, lays her down and cuts her throat scenario. I don't think we can surmise either solicitation or intruder by the evidence in the room or by someone hearing " Oh, murder!"

We can speculate, but there's no evidence that anyone arrived in Mary's room unanounced. There is strong evidence that Mary was a prostitute and a visible pattern from the other murders to go by.

[Chava]

Kudzu. AKA 'The witness that ate this board'.

[Ben]

Ah, but I never claimed that proof had been procured to establish that Hutchinson had definitely lied, Monty. Only that there is strong mutually supportive evidence from several senior police officials, bolstered by press reports, that his evidence had been discarded, and that's more than good enough for me.

Now let's move on.

Cheers,
Ben

[Monty]

Michael.

There was no battle. Ben and I debated for twenty minutes then decided I was right

Lets move on.

Monty

[The Good Michael]

Not a Hutchinson thread. Save the battles. In fact, the battle has been discredited.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

If you're arguing that the police never procured ironclad proof that Hutchinson was lying, I'd agree. It was more likely a consensus amongst senior officials that subsequently made it into the press who, let's face it, had no reason to lie about Hutchinson's evidence being discarded, especially not two independent sources deciding upon the same lie. Then again, there was never any proof that Packer or Violenia dropped lied either. It was merely a police consensus.

But you're quite right - best to drawl a discreet veil over this (off) topic and return to the original discussion.

Best regards,
Ben