Originally posted by lynn cates
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostHer attire speaks to me that she was sufficiently undressed to entertain a client, that is all. She was not caught asleep, the night was too cold to sleep in only a chemise, and she was not undressed by her killer.She undressed herself.She was entertaining her killer.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
Hi,
I have to agree with the right stocking argument , that is of course if the bedroll, had a stocking draped over it.like it looks..?
And I most certainly believe the murder happened in the morning, as the killer lacked the opportunity during the night hours, owing to her pick up with Mr A.
Regards Richard.
Comment
-
Originally posted by richardnunweek View PostAnd I most certainly believe the murder happened in the morning, as the killer lacked the opportunity during the night hours, owing to her pick up with Mr A.
"I believe the murder happened in the morning.... because the medical evidence points to an early-morning death."
Let's keep suspects out of this (especially controversial ones!), and stick as far as possible to what facts we have.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
I don't think we should assume the medical evidence was definitive. I'm not a subscriber to a late morning death but, it is odd that two (three?) people claim to have seen her out and about.
One can be mistaken identity, but two?
I think most of us largely ignore this, but how impossible would it be?Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostI don't think we should assume the medical evidence was definitive. I'm not a subscriber to a late morning death but, it is odd that two (three?) people claim to have seen her out and about.
One can be mistaken identity, but two?
I think most of us largely ignore this, but how impossible would it be?
Maxwell and Maurice? Lewis, but three? Who else have I overlooked. I do agree though that one could be a mistake but two independent people?G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GUT View PostG'day Jon
Maxwell and Maurice? Lewis, but three? Who else have I overlooked. I do agree though that one could be a mistake but two independent people?
I seem to recall someone else seeing her in the Britannia, or was it Lewis who saw her a second time?Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
G'day Jon
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostHi GUT.
I seem to recall someone else seeing her in the Britannia, or was it Lewis who saw her a second time?
I seem, though, to recall someone giving her milk was that Lewis too.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
True, M. Lewis saw her twice, once at eight, when she returned with some milk, and once at nine.
Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostTrue, M. Lewis saw her twice, once at eight, when she returned with some milk, and once at nine.
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881110.htmlG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostTrue, M. Lewis saw her twice, once at eight, when she returned with some milk, and once at nine.
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881110.htmlG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Nov. 10th articles are not wholly reliable.
Are you thinking of Mrs Maxwell, and her trip to buy milk for her husbands breakfast?
"When asked by the police how she could fix the time of the morning, Mrs. Maxwell replied, "Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time".
***
Ah, here is the third person witness...(same link above)
"Another young woman, whose name is known, has also informed the police that she is positive she saw Kelly between half-past 8 and a quarter to 9 on Friday morning."
I felt sure there were three cases...Last edited by Wickerman; 07-19-2014, 06:21 PM.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
G'day Jon
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostNov. 10th articles are not wholly reliable.
Are you thinking of Mrs Maxwell, and her trip to buy milk for her husbands breakfast?
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881112.html
"When asked by the police how she could fix the time of the morning, Mrs. Maxwell replied, "Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time".
***
Ah, here is the third person witness...(same link above)
"Another young woman, whose name is known, has also informed the police that she is positive she saw Kelly between half-past 8 and a quarter to 9 on Friday morning."
I felt sure there were three cases...Last edited by GUT; 07-19-2014, 06:27 PM.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GUT View PostI wonder if she went for milk every day, given that many say she simply had the wrong day, guess we'll never know.
Lets read that again...
""When asked by the police how she could fix the time of the morning, Mrs. Maxwell replied, "Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time".
Regards, Jon S.
Comment
Comment