why did kelly trust her killer

[perrymason]

See, thats why I like debating with you Fisherman, and Sam, and Paul, and many others here,... because you can find constructive civilized ways to disagree with points.

I know that most peoples guts refuse to consider that there may have been another madman capable of doing the things done to Mary, but murders of street prostitutes with knives and mutilations occurred before and after this Canonical Spree. Its not "if" there were others, its "whom" among the others might be capable,... and if Jack doesn't kill Alice McKenzie, then you have one right there. And my bet is that a guy who makes torso's out of complete women might be able to handle the Millers Court gore too.

Id rather seek a killer in the clues, than seek only the clues that add up to my preferred killer.

I think some are coming to realize that my position on Marys location when her killer meets her isn't so off the wall, and in fact its about the only conclusion we can make using only what is on record, and accepted as truthful by the authorities.

Not only was Marys location, postmortem cutting and initial attack unlike the Ripper kills, it also comes with a potential lookout, which may have prompted the very rapid issuance of the Pardon for Accomplices, less than 24 hours, issued on Saturday afternoon. After Abberline and a few others re-sieved the ashes Saturday morning.

So...you have a killer going to her room, killing her in her underwear, someone perhaps watching pre or post kill, and a killer that locks the door behind him. And yet this is the same guy who only kills middle aged women women who are walking the streets...until Mary that is, fully dressed, never makes any attempt to conceal or prohibit access to the corpse, and is believed to have worked alone?

Its like a game, just shape the MO to fit the desired killer.

My best regards Mr Fish.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Let me just address this one point that you are so adamant about. Is it really so[B]unreasonable to believe that a prostitute such as Mary would go out soliciting customers and if she did so would she slam the door to her room and yell out late at night "hey everybody, I'm going out whoring?" Her neighbors were not monitoring her comings and goings in a non-stop 24 hour vigil. This fact seems to get overlooked.

c.d.

[richardnunweek]

Hello folks,
I am a Hutchinson believer, however one question keeps haunting me.
What was Mary kelly doing in Commercial street at 2am on the morning of the 9th?
Obvious answer.
On the lookout for a prospective client.
However what sort of person would she be likely to encounter at that hour, the lodging houses would be full, and those that were roaming the streets would be doing so because of finance.
Why would she leave the shelter of her room, on a cold wet night to walk the streets knowing that the only men she was likely to encounter were vagrants, or even the Whitechapel killer?
There has to be a very good reason for her trip out, I have a feeling that she was on her way to a specific destination, when she was either sidelined by Astracan, or he was the person she went out to find.
The laughter, the reassurance from Kelly that Astracan would be comftable, the hand around her shoulder whilst walking, and the intimate kiss he gave Mjk in Dorset street, all imply this was not just a pick up from a randy, posh.
stranger.
Regards Richard.

[c.d.]

Hi Richard,

Yes, I had a similar thought. I have always been struck by the odd hours that so many people seemed to keep back then. The shortage of clients so late at night is a good argument against her going out. But what if she had a fairly regular client or clients who got off from work around that time and favored Mary with his/their business?

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi again, Richard you do get points for sticktoitiveness, but Im afraid your question implies that Mary was indeed seen out at 2am that night. That detail was discarded, as well as the suspect, by the investigators that same week. There is no erasing that Blotchy Man is felt to be the last person seen with Mary Kelly officially by November 16th, 1888, she was seen just as November 8th ended, not at 2am on the 9th. cd, there is nothing at all wrong with the notion that women who were known to walk the streets might feel the desire to do so after midnight, there is however something very significant missing from that equation, as it applied to many of the occasional street prostitutes, and to Mary Kelly that night. The impetus to do so. Where is that impetus with Mary Kelly? Do we not have statements from whores themselves that they went and sold themselves so they could eat, or sleep out of the cold off the streets, and/or get hammered? Which one is it that bothers Mary after midnight? Enough to go out likely still drunk in the pouring rain to earn money she didnt need to eat, drink or sleep in a bed with. Or is it that we think she cared anything about her arrears? Yeah?...based on what remark by whom? Based on what statement by McCarthy that she had paid some down? I think if you stop assuming all whores went whoring even when they had no need to, and use the evidence the police approved of, its not so hard to see what Im suggesting. My best regards cd, richard.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Your argument that Mary had her needs met and thus had no need to go out is only true for that one day. What about the next day and the day after that and the day....well, you get the point.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I don't see a landlord who rents rooms to prostitutes being in the same vein as a Mother Theresa. I just can't see him letting these women slide on their rent on any sort of regular basis. Therefore, I just can't see Mary being so blase about the money she owes.

c.d.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael,
The name Hutchinson rears its head , and quite rightly so, it all depends on what camp one is in.
If one is convinced that his whole story was a fabrication, and he had no sight of Mary kelly that morning, then the Staying in with Blotchy, or even after Blotchy left is the obvious answer, and she was therefore killed by either a intruder, or by her letting in a visitor that she trusted.
Yet again, like myself, if one believes that Hutchinson was being truthful and he did see what he claimed, then the question 'What was Mjk doing in Commercial street at 2am ? becomes a valid point.
I am a persistant man however when it comes down to GH, I have a edge for I heard that radio broadcast back in the seventies, and i heard Hutchinsons actual son [ yes actual] state that a sum of five pounds/hundred shillings/ five guineas [ one of those three] was paid to his father for his efforts.
That sum has been confirmed from a rare contempary source which myself and at least two well known members have witnessed.
So gentleman I have good reasons for seeing alternative solutions to the events of the 8th/9th November 1888,
Regards Richard.

[perrymason]

cd, McCarthy is quoted as saying "arrears were got as best one could," which doesn't infer that he was in a position to heave them if they ran some arrears. And again, you might think this about McCarthy, or that about what Mary might have done, but you don't have accepted evidence or precedents to use in defense of your argument. You're my bud, but that aside, what you or I think doesn't matter at all,.... but what they did, and what is recorded, does. The truth of the matter is that Mary Kelly had none of the requisite factors present that were the usual catalysts for part time street prostitutes to go to work after midnight, particularly in a drunken state and with it pouring November rain. Its is also a fact that the police record shows that to this day, Blotchy Man is the authorized description of the last man seen with Mary Kelly. That means they believed that she is not seen out after midnight. When Marys room goes dark before 1:30, thats your opening, on record. If she left then, and wasn't seen by Cox or Prater coming in, then you have your trip. Otherwise, the room stays dark and quiet until at least 3am. So that eliminates her being in there with Astrakan, doesn't it? So the only piece of evidence that you could use to suggest she leaves is immediately after finishing singing...which then of course eliminates Blotchy's attendance as a "trick", ...and if you're right, then she doesn't return to her room until after Mary Ann Cox was in for the night, 3am...otherwise a light would have been noticed, since she noticed there was none earlier. So if she left, it wasn't to meet Astrakan and come back to the room, it was her gone before 1:30 and returning after 3am. Trust me...that she stayed in has so few points of contention. Any other suggestion has tons. My best cd.

[perrymason]

Richard, I recall a relative of Mary Ann Cox's describing what her relative saw that night, and she recalled it was a toff with Mary. Which as we clearly know, is about the opposite of what Mary Ann actually testified to. Caveat Emptor. Cheers.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

You may be right about McCarthy. Why kick out one prostitute who couldn't pay in order to rent to another prostitute who couldn't pay. But I have to imagine that there was some limit to his patience.

I still think that your argument is based to a large extent on what was observed by her neighbors. That brings up the question of just how intently and how extensively her neighbors were doing the observing. That is where we differ. Although I think the odds are that she didn't go out, I can't rule it out so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I have to go home now so I can take this brace off of my knee and put some ice on it. Three more weeks to go but at least next week I can ditch the crutches and go with a cane. Believe me that will be a step up. A few weeks of physical therapy and then the doctor says I can go back to normal activities including exercise (in moderation). What a relief that will be.

c.d.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael,
I have said before that Mrs Coxs account has all the hallmarks of untruth , her contrast in relaying events to her neice, albeit many years later suggests that, and implies that she was a sensation seeker.
However GH if of the same mode, seems to have been somewhat enterprising then Cox. for he seems to have convinced H division to part with a sum equal to five weeks wages out of police funds for his help.
To Repeat a famous Ripper letter'What fools the police are' would sum that up dont you think?
Regards Richard.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

You may be right about McCarthy. Why kick out one prostitute who couldn't pay in order to rent to another prostitute who couldn't pay. But I have to imagine that there was some limit to his patience.

I still think that your argument is based to a large extent on what was observed by her neighbors. That brings up the question of just how intently and how extensively her neighbors were doing the observing. That is where we differ. Although I think the odds are that she didn't go out, I can't rule it out so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I have to go home now so I can take this brace off of my knee and put some ice on it. Three more weeks to go but at least next week I can ditch the crutches and go with a cane. Believe me that will be a step up. A few weeks of physical therapy and then the doctor says I can go back to normal activities including exercise (in moderation). What a relief that will be.

c.d.

Sounds to me like you've had the perfect opportunity to have your own Rear Window thing, ....set the leg up, move the telescope to the window...now just think of the drama thats right out your own window, and forget the drama that is required to buy that a "fed, drunk and got-a-bed" Mary went whoring in the rain just for the hell of it, and brought home a dandy to a pitch black room, before Mary Ann Cox came in for the night...and they just stayed there in the dark being quiet until Mary Ann passes, and everyone is asleep in the court. Now THATS reasonable.....smile......I dont know whats happened to my formatting, sorry, no smilies. Cheers cd.

[Ben]

and i heard Hutchinsons actual son [ yes actual].

Still not good enough, Rich. You say you heard George William Topping Hutchinson's son, but we have no evidence that he was the "witness" from 1888. We do have plenty of evidence that he wasn't.

It isn't the case that Hutchinson opinion is divided between those who believed he lied about the entire thing, and those who believe he imparted the absolute truth. There are plenty of people, I'm sure, who believe he saw Kelly that night, but lied about his reasons for being there.

Cheers,
Ben

[perrymason]

It isn't the case that Hutchinson opinion is divided between those who believed he lied about the entire thing, and those who believe he imparted the absolute truth. There are plenty of people, I'm sure, who believe he saw Kelly that night, but lied about his reasons for being there.

Cheers,
Ben

Hi Ben, I think for me personally thats the crux with George....forgive the string on typing, I seem to be experiencing some odd format issues, cant use icons either...anyway, if the officials dismissed his suspect by the 16th, as they did, does that mean that they discarded all he offered? Well its the only evidence he gives of any consequence.....to the issue of Marys status after midnight,..out of her room, and her company...who they dismiss. For me the oddest thing is that we don't see a thorough investigation trail for George Hutchinson, for providing a suspect they felt was false, but also placing himself in the shoes of a suspicious person. Maybe the bitter taste of being sucked in by him for almost 3 days made them want to just spit him out. My best regards Ben. Dont mean to start up any discussion, I had intended to take my flu ridden self to bed by now.