Mary Jane and Blotchy

[Michael W Richards]

Ok, lets address these;

I notice you conveniently avoid offering corroboration for Cox being in the court at midnight, and while we're at it, who else saw this Blotchy character?
Where is your corroboration for him being there?

I have every reason to be confident that Mary Ann knew Mary, likely very well. She had to pass her room every time she went out to Dorset. I can therefore give her credibility that she knew Mary when she saw her, and that by extension, her reporting Mary with "company" can be considered reliable.

Prater is the only one who could vouch for Cox, and she testified she didn't see Cox down the passage between 1:00-1:20 am.
Did Cox have the wrong night, the wrong time?, after all, Cox claimed there was no noise or scream of "murder".
Was Cox just making it up?

The 2 women who heard that cry around 4am were in much closer proximity to Marys room than Cox was, for one, and we dont know precisely where Elizabeth was when she was on the street, or which way Mary Ann went out of the tunnel. So allowances can be made.

Maybe, Cox tried to fix up this Blotchy character because he had rejected Cox in favor of Kelly at some point recently.
Kelly was young & attractive as opposed to Cox being, as described by the Star reporter - "a miserable specimen of East End womanhood".

Im not saying your supposition is impossible, but have you never known attractive women who have less than attractive women friends?

It is odd that you would choose 'corroboration' as your means of dismissing a witness, yet can offer no corroboration for the witnesses you choose to believe.

You know of course the meaning of corroboration, right? Secondary source validation. George has none, Carrie Maxwell has none, Israel Schwartz had none, Morris Eagle had none, Louis Diemshitz had none. Fanny had that secondary source validation, and Mary Ann and Elizabeth can very easily be assumed to have personal knowledge of Mary Kelly.

Whether Cox was being truthful or not, I have just demonstrated how weak your argument is.

Responding to that would be just argumentative, lets just say that all youve "proven" is that youll take anyones word if it meets the storyline you expect to see. I prefer to deal with what is known, what is proven, and speculate beyond that using those foundations.

Sure, your Mary Ann Cox premise might be right, what proof do you have that Mary Ann fits your theory. The fact she is less attractive than Mary?

Maybe before trying to disparage you should look more carefully at what has been stated. If you understand it correctly, which Im not sure you do, then yuou would see that accepting uncorroborated statements over singular accounts isnt good practice when looking at recreating events.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Strangulation causes ecchymosis around the throat, Dr Bond noted the presence of ecchymosis.
Also, it is well known the fingers of a victim who had been strangled will clench (curl up), which was also noted by Dr. Bond.

Thanks for your reply.

I would point out that the ecchymosis in this case coincided with the knife wound, which suggests that it was the knife wound that caused the ecchymosis.

Cadaveric spasm, including that of the fist, can be triggered by violent death without strangulation.

[Wickerman]

I think youve missed the big consideration that I have used consistently, regardless of thread content. Corroborative accounts. Or at least accounts from a source that we know had intimate knowledge of the person concerned or of the environment. Or both.
...

I notice you conveniently avoid offering corroboration for Cox being in the court at midnight, and while we're at it, who else saw this Blotchy character?
Where is your corroboration for him being there?
Prater is the only one who could vouch for Cox, and she testified she didn't see Cox down the passage between 1:00-1:20 am.
Did Cox have the wrong night, the wrong time?, after all, Cox claimed there was no noise or scream of "murder".
Was Cox just making it up?

Maybe, Cox tried to fix up this Blotchy character because he had rejected Cox in favor of Kelly at some point recently.
Kelly was young & attractive as opposed to Cox being, as described by the Star reporter - "a miserable specimen of East End womanhood".

It is odd that you would choose 'corroboration' as your means of dismissing a witness, yet can offer no corroboration for the witnesses you choose to believe.

Whether Cox was being truthful or not, I have just demonstrated how weak your argument is.

[Wickerman]

Is there any evidence of strangulation?

Strangulation causes ecchymosis around the throat, Dr Bond noted the presence of ecchymosis.
Also, it is well known the fingers of a victim who had been strangled will clench (curl up), which was also noted by Dr. Bond.

[Michael W Richards]

Ok, but the reality as you seem to see it is to dismiss what other witnesses reported, and replace their accounts with your own speculation.
You dismiss them without giving a reason, take for instance the statements of Bowyer, Kennedy & Lewis do not conflict with any factual information obtained from elsewhere.
Perhaps it is because most of the significant statements by these three are only found in the press, yet the one case you have shown considerable interest in is the Stride case, where the bulk of all our sources come from the press.
There's a double-standard here, if you can believe Mrs Mortimer (Stride case) then you can believe Mrs Kennedy (Kelly case).

I think youve missed the big consideration that I have used consistently, regardless of thread content. Corroborative accounts. Or at least accounts from a source that we know had intimate knowledge of the person concerned or of the environment. Or both.

The issue with Kennedy and Lewis isnt a problem unless you make it one, they are certainly one account perhaps given by 2 people. But from one story. Sarah appears at the Inquest, Mrs Kennedy does not. The only other option to reconcile identical accounts from 2 people is the witness themselves giving 2 different names. As for the other points, no-one saw Bowyer, no-one saw Mary leave her room after 11:45pm Thursday night, no-one saw George unless you decide George was Wideawake, not s single shred of corroboration or evidence that George knew Mary at all, no secondary verification Carrie knew Mary personally, no-one saw or heard anything Israel Schwartz says he saw and heard, in fact no-one saw or heard him and he isnt called for the evidence at the Inquest, no-one saw Diemshutz arrive or leave for help...but, Fanny Mortimers statement of an empty quiet street is validated by several secondary sources, the young couple and Wess to name 2. We know Mary Ann Cox had to walk past Marys door...which she did multiple times that night. We know Elizabeth Prater lived upstairs and logically would bump into Mary at least from time to time.

Theres no double standard, in fact the same filters are in place for any of these discussions....can we believe the people who we know knew the person or persons they saw, and do we have any secondary sources. There is a tendency for many to see what you would like to see, or what you think you see, or what you believe is the case. I review the evidence, apply these filters and extrapolate on the basis of that foundation. When the evidence doesnt answer the question, it certainly doesnt mean there is no answer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

For what it's worth Jason, I take it he strangled her on the bed ...

Is there any evidence of strangulation?

[Wickerman]

An hour and a half is "plenty of time to sober up"? Not in my experience.

It's the context, objections are always raised that Kelly was too drunk at midnight to have been out again at 2:00 am and not appearing drunk, but "a little spree'ish", according to Hutchinson.
Clearly, 2 hours is well sufficient to allow her to recover to be able to walk the streets - she doesn't have to pass a driving test, only stay upright as she walks by herself.
Cox's opinion that she was drunk is subjective in itself.

[Bridewell]

Postcard:
Pubs closed at 12:30 am on weekdays, Kelly had no more ale that night/morning.
She had plenty of time to sober up before 2:00 when she meets Hutchinson.

An hour and a half is "plenty of time to sober up"? Not in my experience.

[Wickerman]

Do you honestly believe armed with a sharp knife Kelly's killer would be under serious threat of physical danger from her? I think you overestimate a drunken females ability to overpower a man all too eager to use the knife he carried. If Kelly was no shrinking violet neither was her killer(at least when armed with a knife).

For what it's worth Jason, I take it he strangled her on the bed, she would be face-down on the side of the bed against the partition. He is on her back strangling her, then grabs her by the hair pulling her head up off the pillow and with the knife in his right hand, runs the knife across her throat from left to right. This would spray the partition and cause the most blood loss to go down the side of the bed. The killer then rolls her over onto her back, to begin his mutilation.
Dr Phillips said she had been moved across the bed from the partition side, because he knew she had been killed against the partition. He just didn't explain his belief in any detail.

How easy was to get alcohol during the wee hours? Again, answers on a postcard. What you call sobering up I can just as easily describe as becoming more tired, more drowsy, less aware of her surroundings and dangers.

Postcard:
Pubs closed at 12:30 am on weekdays, Kelly had no more ale that night/morning.
She had plenty of time to sober up before 2:00 when she meets Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

Nice tongue in cheek response. I can only say this....eventually, faced with a dilemma, once youve compiled all the legitimate evidence without a clear direction with which to proceed, you need to explore the most reasonable, logical and defensible story line to find a possible answer. It may not be provable within the knowns, but Ive found that the most reasonable answers often can produce tangible results. Crimes are solved every day, everywhere, even when the validated evidence isnt conclusive.

Lets be honest, its not like anyone will ever solve these to everyones satisfaction, any smoking gun is still undiscovered, or undiscoverable.

Ok, but the reality as you seem to see it is to dismiss what other witnesses reported, and replace their accounts with your own speculation.
You dismiss them without giving a reason, take for instance the statements of Bowyer, Kennedy & Lewis do not conflict with any factual information obtained from elsewhere.
Perhaps it is because most of the significant statements by these three are only found in the press, yet the one case you have shown considerable interest in is the Stride case, where the bulk of all our sources come from the press.
There's a double-standard here, if you can believe Mrs Mortimer (Stride case) then you can believe Mrs Kennedy (Kelly case).

[Chava]

Do you honestly believe armed with a sharp knife Kelly's killer would be under serious threat of physical danger from her? I think you overestimate a drunken females ability to overpower a man all too eager to use the knife he carried. If Kelly was no shrinking violet neither was her killer(at least when armed with a knife).

How easy was to get alcohol during the wee hours? Again, answers on a postcard. What you call sobering up I can just as easily describe as becoming more tired, more drowsy, less aware of her surroundings and dangers.

Yes actually I do.

Even if I go by the strict letter of my own profile as to how the victims self-select, there are dozens of women who would qualify on any given night.
But he always selects the old, the short, the sick or the very drunk, generally apart from Kelly all of the above. And he wasn't 'all too eager to use the knife he carried'. He used it in very specific circumstances. He ripped them. After death. But he was very careful to kill them quickly before they could do anything to defend themselves. He's looking to kill fast. He's avoiding those who might resist him. A woman likely the same size as him hitting out, struggling, kicking, probably screaming. No. That is precisely what he doesn't want.

But of course your mileage may vary.
Also your postcards...

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, framing Isaacs was one of the thoughts that came to mind, in which case they must have known each other, but then we're going down a rabbit hole for which there is "no legitimate evidence", and I know how you prefer to stay away from theories that contain "no legitimate evidence".

Nice tongue in cheek response. I can only say this....eventually, faced with a dilemma, once youve compiled all the legitimate evidence without a clear direction with which to proceed, you need to explore the most reasonable, logical and defensible story line to find a possible answer. It may not be provable within the knowns, but Ive found that the most reasonable answers often can produce tangible results. Crimes are solved every day, everywhere, even when the validated evidence isnt conclusive.

Lets be honest, its not like anyone will ever solve these to everyones satisfaction, any smoking gun is still undiscovered, or undiscoverable.

[jason_c]

We know she was pretty drunk at midnight. If she didn't go out again she'd have sobered up. If she did she could have gotten even drunker. Or not. Fewer punters around to buy her a drink by 2.00 am,
However to your other point about the scream. I agree, a scream wouldn't necessarily get noticed. But a scream of 'The Ripper' might. In any case, Our Friend doesn't want any screaming at all. He prefers to work very quietly. That having been said, screaming would have been the least of his problems if Mary had woken up. She was much taller than his other victims--5'6 or 5'7 which was very tall by the standards of the day. And she was well-nourished & strong. There are stories of fights in the vicinity of the 10 Bells. Mary Jane was no shrinking violet plucked from her mother's grave.

But she didn't scream or fight. Because she was in bed. And very likely asleep when she was attacked.

Do you honestly believe armed with a sharp knife Kelly's killer would be under serious threat of physical danger from her? I think you overestimate a drunken females ability to overpower a man all too eager to use the knife he carried. If Kelly was no shrinking violet neither was her killer(at least when armed with a knife).

How easy was to get alcohol during the wee hours? Again, answers on a postcard. What you call sobering up I can just as easily describe as becoming more tired, more drowsy, less aware of her surroundings and dangers.

[Chava]

A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four. As I was turning round I heard a suppressed cry of "Oh - murder!" in a faint voice. It seemed to proceed from the court.

(Elizabeth Prater)


I sat awake until nearly four, when I heard a female's voice shouting "Murder" loudly. It seemed like the voice of a young woman. It sounded at our door. There was only one scream.

(Sarah Lewis)

I know.

But then there's this from the PM:

I am sure that the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead that was nearest the wooden partition, because of the large quantity of blood under the bedstead and the saturated condition of the sheet and the palliasse at the corner nearest the partition.

So she was lying down on the side of the bed facing the partition/wall. I think it's extremely likely she was on her side. Because if she's that far over, then I believe someone was lying there with her in that narrow bedstead. And that someone waited until she was asleep or dozing to grab the knife, kneel behind her, pull her head back & kill her. She may have awoken in the seconds before he used the knife. She may have had time to scream. But she had no time to turn & fight. My point was that if she'd had more notice of the attack, if she heard someone trying to get in & woke up properly, then that would have been a very different scene from the one presented & she'd be yelling her head off. And we know from Cox's & Prater's evidence that she had a fine pair of lungs on her. Whether she won that fight or not it's bad news for him. (And I quite like her chances. He has a knife. But his choice of victims suggest he prefers them incapacitated in some major way before he attacks. I doubt he's prepared for someone as big or as strong as Mary Jane.)

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But she didn't scream or fight. Because she was in bed. And very likely asleep when she was attacked.

A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four. As I was turning round I heard a suppressed cry of "Oh - murder!" in a faint voice. It seemed to proceed from the court.

(Elizabeth Prater)


I sat awake until nearly four, when I heard a female's voice shouting "Murder" loudly. It seemed like the voice of a young woman. It sounded at our door. There was only one scream.

(Sarah Lewis)