why did kelly trust her killer

[Ben]

I know we have danced the unlocked door issue before: you feel, with some logic, that she might well have left her door unlatched; I feel, with even more logic, no way in hell.

Sorry, Paul, I don't see too much justification for ruling out the "latched door" hypothesis. It was remarked at the time by a senior police official that East Enders were in the habit of leavng their doors unlocked, and it wasn't as if a locked door would have offered the slightest degree of deterrent to any would-be intruder, courtesy of the broken window in fairly obvious proxmity to the door.

You suggest Abberline's superiors might have set him straight with respect to GH, but I thought Ab was the smart/respected guy

I'm sure he was both of those things, but there were other, more senior police officials involved in the Whitechapel investigation including Donald Swanson and Robert Anderson. The latter stated that the only witness to have acquired a good look at the murderer was Jewish, which Hutchinson most assuredly wasn't. In other words, he was championing one of the Jewish witnesses over Hutchinson and using that same Jewish witness for ID parades. Why would they do that if they even entertained the possibility that Mr. Astrakhan might have been the killer, and knowing that Hutchinso had provided a much fuller description that any Jewish witness? They couldn't, unless they had reason to believe that "Mr. Astrakhan" had been fabricated.

And if it was GH's newspaper statements that changed Ab's mind, why did he wait 'til the 16th to change it?

He didn't. The first indication of Hutchinson's discredting appeared in the press on 15th November, a day after his account appeared in the papers.

Best regards,
Ben

[paul emmett]

So what put her off guard?
My solution is a morning murder, and that being the case Mjk was not concerned about inviting a man back to her room in daylight.

Hi, Richard.

Again, to say that, you have to take on the medical reports, the fish dinner, and the timing of the morning sightings.

[paul emmett]

What part of this scenario points away from her doing business and him being a punter? Where is the evidence that he stayed in the room with Kelly for a longish time? Do we know that she sang without interruption between midnight and one o clock in the morning? And, whats more, what evidence is there to show that Blotchy was in that room for an hour and a quarter - or more - listening to her singing?

Hi, Fisherman.

I learned in another thread that I am an army of one who thinks MJK's singing is important. Imporant or not, it is not just a little ditty. Cox first hears her singing right after 11:45; then Cox goes out at 12:00, noting that Kelly is "STILL singing." Picket, as you say, hears her singing, clearly for some time previous if Picket is upset, at 12:30. Cox hears her singing "still" at 1:00, stays in again to warm her hands(what, another 15 minutes?), and going out, hears her "still singing." That's a lot of mothers and graves and violets.

When does Blotchy have sex? Certianly, if at all, after the 12:00 show, unless MJK whistles while she works or Blotchy has unique tastes. And the consistency of the singing suggests to me that Blotchy stays: would he walk out in the middle of a number? Would he walk out before he was properly entertained? Also, ALL the singing and the maudlin song itself suggest to me that MJK knows BF. NOONE could entertain a stranger such--unless he was really strange.

So, to make this all relevant, I think MJK trusts BF cuz she knows him well enough to do so.

[Fisherman]

c.d. writes:

"I think the more appropriate question is why did any of the murder victims trust their killer? I also think the answer is simple - they were prostitutes in need of money which put them into dangerous circumstances. Unless Jack was a raving lunatic with rolling red eyes and drool running down his face while he screamed "I'm gonna kill you whore", they pretty much had no choice but to go off with him. Jack could have been any customer.
Why should Mary have been any different?"

"just like that!", as Tommy Cooper used to say, c.d. Spot on.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

I think the more appropriate question is why did any of the murder victims trust their killer? I also think the answer is simple - they were prostitutes in need of money which put them into dangerous circumstances. Unless Jack was a raving lunatic with rolling red eyes and drool running down his face while he screamed "I'm gonna kill you whore", they pretty much had no choice but to go off with him. Jack could have been any customer.

Why should Mary have been any different?

c.d.

[paul emmett]

Hi Paul,

My guess is that Hutchinson's press disclosures significantly compromised his initial police statement - a statement that was dodgy enough in and of itself even without the additions that appeared in the press in the form of a mysterious disappearing policeman and an even more implausible description, amongst other things. Remember that Abberline penned his endorsement of the statement before any of his police contemporaries and superiors had had time to scrutinize it, before the press versions appeared, and before he had any chance to investigative (let alone corroborate) any of Hutchinson's three-day-late claims.

No window trick would have been necessary for any nocturnal invader if Kelly had kept her door on the latch.

Cheers,
Ben

Hi, Ben.

I know we have danced the unlocked door issue before: you feel, with some logic, that she might well have left her door unlatched; I feel, with even more logic, no way in hell. (See Richard's paranoid posts). But I'm not trying to fight you on the Hutchinson/Abberline thing. I just don't understand. You suggest Abberline's superiors might have set him straight with respect to GH, but I thought Ab was the smart/respected guy. And if it was GH's newspaper statements that changed Ab's mind, why did he wait 'til the 16th to change it? You say he didn't have time to investigate and corroborate, but that was my initial point. GH's statements CAN'T be investigated! They can be laughed at or dismissed or believed(as smart Ab did originally)--but you can't investigate bushy eyebrows!

But I have a confession to make. I don't know where we learn that GH's suspect was dismissed. Are there any hints there?

Paul

[richardnunweek]

Hi All,
Most of us with a certain knowledge of the Whitechapel murders have implanted in our minds a picture of events that we see when discussing a certain topic involving these murders.
In the case of Mary kelly, taking on board every detail known to me in many years of involvement, I picture a young woman only twenty four years old, that had experienced great turmoil in her life, a woman who had lost respect from her parents especially her father, and had been forced to make her own way in life , her only family support coming from her brother in the army,
Her life changed for the better when she met Barnett and for a while all was relatively secure, that is until he lost his job in july/august , when she was then forced to go on the game to survive.
I should add that this is not leading to a Barnett 'did it' accusation, I am just saying that for obvious reasons JB objected to this and when the murders started used the fear factor in an attempt to stop her soliciting, proberly with her safety in mind. he started to read all the gory details regarding the murders to Kelly and eventually this led her to be paranoid, proberly more so then other streetwalkers in the area.
I believe that she experienced a nightmare during the month of October, the subject being 'That she was being murdered' and from that moment on was scared to be in that room alone at nights, I should add here that it is indeed possible that it was Barnett she was scared of.
So now we ask the question which is the title of this thread.
Why did Kelly trust her killer'?.
Ask youselved one question, taking into account her fear factor of being alone in that sordid room, the very room she had encountered that nightmare, would she willingly take a stranger back there between the hours of midnight-three am when she was fully aware that this was the 'Rippers' killing time?
I say not.
So what put her off guard?
My solution is a morning murder, and that being the case Mjk was not concerned about inviting a man back to her room in daylight.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richardnunweek writes:
"If we start with Blotchy.
She appears to have allowed him to accompany her back to her room , in exchange for a good time, which apparently included a song and the contents of the ale in his quart pot. and possibly a bit of relief sexually.
I find it hard to accept that this man was unknown to Mjk"

A drunken, prostituted woman and a probably likewise drunken man with a pot of ale in his hand, strolls down a yard together and enters the womans room. All the while she is in a singing mood.

What part of this scenario points away from her doing business and him being a punter? Where is the evidence that he stayed in the room with Kelly for a longish time? Do we know that she sang without interruption between midnight and one o clock in the morning? And, whats more, what evidence is there to show that Blotchy was in that room for an hour and a quarter - or more - listening to her singing?

Letīs face it: the timeline of Kellys doings on that night is full of holes. At one o clock she may have been singing for herself, or for another customer for that matter. Blotchy had a full hour to be done and get out of there, and the normal punter is not allowed that long time with his chosen lady, is he?
The only person who could have made a difference here was Catherine Picket, but her man stopped her from going down to complaint to Kelly about her singing at 12.30.

My feeling is that it is at least just as credible to imagine Blotchy being out of her room before one o clock, than being allowed to stay in it for more than an hour. And I see no reason at all to regard him as an aquaintance of hers; to my mind he would have been a punter, picked up under circumstances that were quite, quite normal for such transactions.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Paul,

My guess is that Hutchinson's press disclosures significantly compromised his initial police statement - a statement that was dodgy enough in and of itself even without the additions that appeared in the press in the form of a mysterious disappearing policeman and an even more implausible description, amongst other things. Remember that Abberline penned his endorsement of the statement before any of his police contemporaries and superiors had had time to scrutinize it, before the press versions appeared, and before he had any chance to investigative (let alone corroborate) any of Hutchinson's three-day-late claims.

No window trick would have been necessary for any nocturnal invader if Kelly had kept her door on the latch.

Cheers,
Ben

[paul emmett]

Hi Paul,



His purported memorisation of the suspect's accessorial and clothing detail within the alleged time frame is easily disproven as impossible, but even if other aspects couldn't be factually disproven, there are enough questionable components there for a police force with any collective discernment to ask some very serious questions about its veracity. (Offered without the intention of turning this into a Hutchinson thread). YES, BEN, AS YOU SAY, "EASILY DISPROVEN AS IMPOSSIBLE"--OR AT LEAST NOT BLOODY LIKELY. SO WHY DID ABBERLINE ACCEPT GH'S STATEMENTS AS TRUE, AND THEN, WHAT 4 DAYS LATER, TAKE HIS SUSPECT OFF THE SUSPECT LIST. THAT'S MY QUESTION, AND THAT'S WHY I SAY NOTHING CAN BE DISPROVEN. IT CAN NOT BE BELIEVED OR SEEN AS LUDICROUS, BUT IT CAN'T BE DISPROVEN. SO WHAT HAPPENED?? WHAT CHANGED???
But back to the original question: YES.


If the killer entered without Kelly knowing, i.e. when she was asleep, the question of trust is rendered moot.

AGAIN, YES, BUT I THINK THIS WOULD ALMOST HAVE TO BE BY THE WINDOW TRICK, WHICH WOULD, IN TURN, ALMOST HAVE TO SAY THAT JTR WAS "FAMILIAR" WITH MJK.

Sorry for the terrible format. Night.

[Ben]

Hi Paul,

It has come up a lot lately, with noone to say why his suspect was deleted. Looking back through Hutchinson's statement, I don't see anything that could be disproven

His purported memorisation of the suspect's accessorial and clothing detail within the alleged time frame is easily disproven as impossible, but even if other aspects couldn't be factually disproven, there are enough questionable components there for a police force with any collective discernment to ask some very serious questions about its veracity. (Offered without the intention of turning this into a Hutchinson thread).

But back to the original question:

why did kelly trust her killer?

If the killer entered without Kelly knowing, i.e. when she was asleep, the question of trust is rendered moot. If not, then he may have been a tried-and-tested local whom Kelly considered "safe", which wouldn't have been true of educated outsiders with melifluous voices and black capes.

[Celesta]

She was desperate for money, and esp. rent money, and he was a psychopath, who like most of the ilk had a superb understanding of human nature and knew just what to say to make her feel comfortable and to slip under her radar. And he could have been in a profession, or appeared to be, that made her feel less threatened.

[sdreid]

Yes, it could have been an invasion type attack where trust would not have been an issue.

If it was trust, then her guard was down because he was really smooth, he was someone she knew or he was a nonthreatening person like a policeman or priest.

[paul emmett]

The only way I can picture Kelly being killed on that night/morning is a break in of her room either by door[ being unlocked] or window trick, the killer either being a complete stranger, or a person which premeditated the crime.

Hi, Richard.

I think that Mary's concern over JTR that you discuss might not keep her from going home with strangers, but I do think it would keep her door locked. So if these are your choices, I'm going with premeditated.

Hi, Michael.

I agree with your rigor argument: if ya believe Maxwell, it ain't MJK in the bed. But I'd like to ask about the dismissal of GH. It has come up a lot lately, with noone to say why his suspect was deleted. Looking back through Hutchinson's statement, I don't see anything that could be disproven. "Suspected," but not disproven. What is the best source to see what happened?

Good evenings

Hi Richard,

I wont be dismissive with you, but the dismissal of the suspect Hutchinson brings to the table is recorded and can have a date attached, and the medical evidence including Rigor onset doesn't allow for a kill as late as perhaps 2 hours before she was found. And Carrie Maxwell was told she could not be correct unless everyone else was wrong, while on the stand about to give her testimony.

My thinking is we are not likely to resolve any questions about Millers Court as long as we continue to extend credibility and believability to characters and stories the investigators themselves doubted.

For example....how different a night might we be looking at if there was no trip out, no Astrakan, and no morning sighting by Carrie.

A completely different scenario. With 2 suspicious people in the lens...Blotchy, for whom we dont have a departure time, and the guy watching the court that Sarah saw.

You're a nice guy and persistent, I just think in this case its wise to back the statements and stories that the investigators themselves believed.

My best regards Richard.