Mjk

[c.d.]

Hi Greg,

Yeah, it's a head scratcher. Perhaps GH embellished his story to such an extent that the police completely discredited it and saw no point in wasting man power looking for the man he described.

c.d.

[GregBaron]

Disguise successful?

That could be true but I see a difference in the two situations. Sailor man might not have realized that they were looking in his direction. Even so, he might have reasonably assumed that they were not taking notice of him.

I believe GH's story (taken with many a grain of salt). I think that he was trying to intimidate the Astrakan man into changing his mind or at the very least discourage him from an all nighter. Thus, leaning in and peering at him would make sense and would also give him a good description that could be passed along to the police.

Fair enough c.d. but if kensei's theory is correct, Astro-Man's confidence was well founded as, despite the eyewitness, he mysteriously went un-apprehended..............





Greg

[c.d.]

Hi Greg,

That could be true but I see a difference in the two situations. Sailor man might not have realized that they were looking in his direction. Even so, he might have reasonably assumed that they were not taking notice of him.

I believe GH's story (taken with many a grain of salt). I think that he was trying to intimidate the Astrakan man into changing his mind or at the very least discourage him from an all nighter. Thus, leaning in and peering at him would make sense and would also give him a good description that could be passed along to the police.

c.d.

[GregBaron]

Unconcerned by witnesses...

Then we have to believe that Astrakan had absolutely no qualms about killing Mary after being seen at close range by Hutch.

True c.d. but then Sailor Man (apparently) had no trouble killing Eddowes after being seen at close range by the three Jewish fellers.............




Greg

[c.d.]

Hello Kensei,

Then we have to believe that Astrakan had absolutely no qualms about killing Mary after being seen at close range by Hutch.

c.d.

[kensei]

I will confess, as I have before, that I am one of the believers of Hutchinson's story of Astrakan Man, and that Astrakan was Mary's killer and Jack the Ripper. I understand that this theory has many detractors who make some very good points about why it doesn't make sense, but I feel that with Jack we are dealing with a twisted mind, the decisions of which do not need to make sense. I think Mary was desperate to make the rent money she needed and that's what she was doing the night she died, and that since she was by all accounts quite drunk that night she would not have been thinking straight so her decisions as to caution, etc. do not need to make sense either. I think she had some fun with Blotchy, he shared his drink with her and probably paid her a bit, and then he was off. She then went back out and drunkenly encountered her friend Hutchinson and asked him for money straight out without propositioning him, because she considered him a friend she would never sleep with, though he may have had a crush on her and wished otherwise. Then came Astrakan, who broke through all her cautions because she was really quite staggering drunk by that time. He was the Ripper, dressed in a manner he'd never employed before because he knew he was a hunted man and that his usual "dark overcoat and peaked cap" had been seen and described a few times. In his mind, he was in disguise. It doesn't matter that looking like a rich toff walking the streets of Spitalfields was an invitation to be knifed to death for whatever you had in your pockets, because we're talking about a crazy person here, and he ended up being just incredibly lucky that that didn't happen to him. What poetic justice it would have been if it had.

Astrakan in the room with Mary- she was so drunk, her head swimming. She probably started to undress to get down to business with him, but ended up passing out on the bed in her chemise. She may have awakened long enough to cry out when he attacked her, but would have offered little other resistance. The Ripper, obsessed with mutilating the female body, found himself with time and privacy he'd never had before and indulged it for all it was worth. When he was finished, he made his exit. I've wondered whether the cry of "Oh, murder!" was made by Mary herself just before her death, or by some passerby who saw Jack emerge from the room stained with blood or holding his knife. Then again, I've always imagined him disrobing at least to the point of being shirtless while committing the atrocity, both for sexual fulfillment and to avoid bloodstains on his clothes, with the fire he fueled with the extra clothing items for warmth on the cold November night.

There is an analogy I like to use for Maxwell's insistence on seeing Mary alive four hours after the time that she probably died. In 1999 when the famous Yosemite Park, California killings happened for which serial killer Cary Stayner was sentenced to death, when victims Carol and Julie Sund and their exchange student friend Silvina Pelosso were still listed as missing, a witness came forward who ran a store in the area. She swore she had seen the three women in her store at a time after they would eventually become known to be already dead. She even remembered Silvina talking about how she was from Argentina, and she absolutely insisted that this had happened on a day after the three could not possibly have still been alive. How can you explain it? It just happens. People make mistakes in timelines that you will never convince them of.

[Wickerman]

...So what put her of guard?
Hutchinson's man who was not her usual client[ according to Hutchinson] carrying a small parcel would have sent alarm bells ringing despite her need for money.

Maybe she did know him, from earlier that night?

"...At eleven o'clock last night she was seen in the 'Britannia,' at the corner of this thoroughfare, with a young man with a dark moustache. The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed. "
Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

I know this is not an original thought , but I think Mary found a client and brought him indoors for a little privacy.

Unfortunately for her, that client just happened to be our man Jack.

Now you're letting logic get in the way of a good yarn..
:-)

Simplicity is often the best policy.

Regards, Jon S.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Must agree with Mrs Fiddymont, a invitation with deadly results...but what put Mary off guard?
According to gossip, she was concerned about the Ripper, note... the remark to Mrs McCarthy a day earlier '' He is a concern isn't he'', not to mention the remark that she would not go ''out alone'', and the very fact that she had sleepovers several times of recent.
So what put her of guard?
Hutchinson's man who was not her usual client[ according to Hutchinson] carrying a small parcel would have sent alarm bells ringing despite her need for money.
Blotchy would appear to have been a person she knew from one of her pubs, and taken that she was seen alive a couple of hours later, is a non starter ..at least for me.
So what about Maxwell's ''Market porter'' seen at 830-845am.. [my suspect] was it the daylight that gave poor Mary a easy feeling, after all the Whitechapel killer struck in the night, and it would not have dawned on her that she was in any danger..
Regards Richard.

[Mrs. Fiddymont]

I suppose anything is possible, but I see no reason to consider this a "home invasion". Mary Kelly had nothing worth stealing, and why "break in" someone's room to assault her (sexually or otherwise) when she's a well-known prostitute who will let in anyone with a little money??

I know this is not an original thought , but I think Mary found a client and brought him indoors for a little privacy.

Unfortunately for her, that client just happened to be our man Jack.

[Wickerman]

Was Mary the victim of what is commonly called a home invasion ?.
This explanation seems to find favour with a lot of commentators on the Millers Court murder. I believe that it is not the correct explanation; i believe Mary invited a homicidal opportunist into her little room.
...
Why do people approve of this explanation?.

The murder of Mary Kelly is made unnecessarily complicated by the refusal of some to accept that Kelly may have ventured out again after 'servicing' Blotchy.

Those who fall into this category are split into two factions;
- those who believe Blotchy must have killed her, or,
- those who believe Kelly went to bed and a burglar broke in to murder her.
Both 'camps' refuse to accept Hutchinson's story for a variety of reasons.

So those who correctly see Blotchy as far too early, arriving at 11:45-12:00, when Kelly was deemed to have been murdered after 3:00am, are the group largely responsible for the 'burglar' theory.

Evidence of desperation in denial..

Regards, Jon S.

[Scorpio]

Who cares less about a change in M.O..... because like human nature, an M.O doesn't have to be fixed.

what is important is that MJK is brutally mutilated and not battered to death with a cricket bat....so the Signature is still the same, thus this points to JTR, but how he gains access is up to him isn't it, because he's not a robot and he wont do what you think/expect of him will he

finally, if he's after a heart for some kind of occult sacrafice, then this will be an inside job only, he cant do this out on the streets because to gain access to her heart requires much more time and effort than a kidney/uterus etc.

Hi.
An M.O is never fixed, but if there is a change in an established pattern, and an established killer at work is a possibility, then there should be a reason. Kelly, by providing an opportunity for greater intimacy to a client ( killer ), is probably that reason. But it is not the only explanation of course.
I do not believe that the heart provided more or less of a challenge than the removal of the other organs.
Doctor Bond gives us a description of the basic process involved; an incision made beneath the ribcage and the blood filled sack called the pericardium was sliced open. The heart resides in the pericardium.

[Malcolm X]

Was Mary the victim of what is commonly called a home invasion ?.
This explanation seems to find favour with a lot of commentators on the Millers Court murder. I believe that it is not the correct explanation; i believe Mary invited a homicidal opportunist into her little room. However, the invasion scenario raises enough pertinent questions to be of interest.
Why do people approve of this explanation?.
What could inspire such a drastic change in MO?.

Who cares less about a change in M.O..... because like human nature, an M.O doesn't have to be fixed.

what is important is that MJK is brutally mutilated and not battered to death with a cricket bat....so the Signature is still the same, thus this points to JTR, but how he gains access is up to him isn't it, because he's not a robot and he wont do what you think/expect of him will he

finally, if he's after a heart for some kind of occult sacrafice, then this will be an inside job only, he cant do this out on the streets because to gain access to her heart requires much more time and effort than a kidney/uterus etc.

[Malcolm X]

do you mean a break in? if so we have discussed this often and this theory has no major faults at all.....BUT !

It only really works well with GH, because for the killer to break in at 4am, he has to stalk her earlier on, he would thus have been seen by S.Lewis or someone else.

let me explain..... even someone that knew MJK well can not afford to break in at 4am, without knowing if she is at home first or even if she is at home alone, because the inside of her room will be way too dark for you to notice a man sleeping beside her, let alone you moving the jacket or whatever the hell she had as a makeshift curtain, out of the way to stare in.

what about GH ?... I CANT BE BOTHERED WITH HIM ANY MORE

So for the present time, i'll go with she invited the killer in, probably a downgraded version of LA DE DA

[DVV]

I agree the invasion scenario is best forgotten.