why did kelly trust her killer

[Ben]

No, I honestly don't think so, Gareth; it's a plausible alternative, but I wouldn't say it's more probable. There's nothing hugely organised about noticing a prostitute going indoors, or remembering that a prostitute lived at such and such a place, having used her services on occasions.

That said, I'd personally place JTR in the "organized" end of the "mixed" category.

[jason_c]

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.

Agreed.

I dont see why its so difficult for some to believe Kelly trusted(and brought home) a stranger.

Only last year we had 5? prostitutes murdered in Ipswich within a matter of weeks. There was no lack of girls willing to work the streets during this time.

[Sam Flynn]

Either that or the far more palatable explanation that the killer observed Mary enter the room after conducting a bit of prior surveillance, as serial killers have been known to do, especially when embarking upon indoor kills. Either that or he had a hazy knowledge of Kelly's domestic situation from previous contractual experience.

I just don't see the Ripper as being that organised, Ben. (And I mean "organised" in the ordinary sense of the term, I hasten to add.) Surely the more probable explanation is that Jack met streetwalker Kelly whilst - ahem! - she was walking on the street?

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Either that or the far more palatable explanation that the killer observed Mary enter the room after conducting a bit of prior surveillance, as serial killers have been known to do, especially when embarking upon indoor kills. Either that or he had a hazy knowledge of Kelly's domestic situation from previous contractual experience.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

Sorry, Paul, I don't see too much justification for ruling out the "latched door" hypothesis.

...except that it requires a "The killer happened to stroll into Miller's Court in order to notice that the door was on the latch" hypothesis as a pre-requisite. For example.

[paul emmett]

What if MJK thought him to be "just a regular customer, since Saucy Jacky strikes outdoors?"

Hi, Jukka. Good foot-planter. To me it depends on what you mean by "regular." If that means a repeat trick who she always takes or meets inside, I can certianly see her feeling safe. But if it's someone she doesn't know, she'd have to meet him outside and take him back home. And while I'm not saying she wouldn't do that, I do think she would have to feel endagered.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Just couldn't add here a feet on the ground to the question of the thread;

What if MJK thought him to be "just a regular customer, since Saucy Jacky strikes outdoors?"

All the best
Jukka
__________________
"When I know all about everything, I am old. And it's a very, very long way to go!"

All right, now this post is on the right thread!

All the best
Jukka

[Ben]

Right you are, Paul. My favourite is The Graphic's remark of the 17th November that the account "engenders a feeling of scepticism". Talk about the understatement of 1888.

[paul emmett]

Thanks, Ben. It was indeed THE STAR, and as you know, they listed all those impossible details which GH had given, suggesting that they might well be the cause of his being discredited. They ended by saying we were left with only Blotchy.

[Ben]

Hi Paul,

Frustratingly, I provided a detailed run down of the evidence that pointed towards GH's description being discarded, but it was lost in the "crash". Anderson I've addressed above, and it was the Star of 15th November that carried the claim that the account was "now discredited". All subsequent interviews, memoirs and reports from senior police officials involved in the investigation appeared to vindicate that claim, from Anderson to Abberline to Macnaghten etc. As for "how" he was discredited, you're quite correct that there was very little to investigate given the solitary nature of his "movements". More likely, they used their collective discernment to seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms of eyewitness evidence although, as I've indicated previously, the press versions may have provided a catalyst to his evidence being dismissed.

Best regards,
Ben

[paul emmett]

Some girls would "sing for their supper", Paul.

There is an account in one of the contemporary newspapers of a "Singing Lizzie", who would earn a little by belting out a couple of songs.

Hello, Jon. If it's Singin' Mary, would BF been wandering the streets trying to get a little Mother Song action? Wouldn't Picket have just said, "nother customer"?

[paul emmett]

The first indication of Hutchinson's discredting appeared in the press on 15th November, a day after his account appeared in the papers.Ben

Hi, Ben. I'm not going over all the "if the police couldn't figure out the window trick, how could a random killer" stuff. We have been there and just disagree. OK
But what I really wanted to know was how was Hutchinson discredited? I believe he was; I just want to see what paper said what. I checked the TIMES for the 15th with no luck. So WHERE do I look for what?

Paul

[Celesta]

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.

Yes. Most psychopaths know their victims well enough to know that the raving lunatic you describe is what the victims would be expecting to see in JTR. JTR was as slick as he needed to be, and probably no more than that, to get them to cooperate without taking too close a look.

[celee]

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.

Yep, I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Jon Guy]

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.

Some girls would "sing for their supper", Paul.

There is an account in one of the contemporary newspapers of a "Singing Lizzie", who would earn a little by belting out a couple of songs.