Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[GUT]

G'day Jon

Not sure what you mean GUT,

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".

I'd always read that as referring to the time of day, but I can see what you mean, I was probably taking it wrong.

[Wickerman]

Hi GUT.

I don't buy the 'wrong day' theory, Maxwell saw Mary (?), in the morning, then in the afternoon she tells Abberline.
As Maxwell had not slept between time, it was the same day.
I don't see how anyone can mistake what happened in the morning, for the previous day, when you are relating the story in the afternoon.

[GUT]

Hi GUT.

I don't buy the 'wrong day' theory, Maxwell saw Mary (?), in the morning, then in the afternoon she tells Abberline.
As Maxwell had not slept between time, it was the same day.
I don't see how anyone can mistake what happened in the morning, for the previous day, when you are relating the story in the afternoon.

G'day again Jon

No no no what I am saying is that some people say that Mrs Max didn't see MJK that day but another day, personally I don't buy it, I think she was either telling the truth or lying her head off, that was why I was curious about how often she bought milk. If she only bought milk at the shop now and then it is less likely that she had the wrong day.

[Wickerman]

This is the one I was first thinking of:
"Another statement is to the effect that Kelly was seen in a public-house known as the Ringers at the corner of Dorset-street and Commercial-street, about 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and that she met there her lover, Barnet (sic) and had a glass of beer with him."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881110.html

(Perhaps this report is an error, 10:00 am should read 10:00 pm, the night before?, she was seen in the Britannia Thursday night)

Playing Devils Advocate here, when we know we have four sightings (or five?), by at least three independent people who place Kelly in and around Dorset St. between 8:00 - 10:00 am Friday morning, then to suggest all of these claims are mistakes, for whatever reason, seems to be a bit of a stretch.

On the other hand, we have no known commitment from Dr. Phillips as to her time of death.
Add to this Dr. Bond who theorised "between 1:00-2:00 am" based on an assumed time for digestion of fish & potatoes when he did not state the time of consumption (did he even know?).
Then, we have a cry of murder sometime between 3:30-4:00 am.

Which appears to be the stronger argument?

Against the former of course is the question, "How long would it take to carve the body up like that?"

[Wickerman]

This, from the 17th, appears to be a distorted version of the previous link I posted above.

"Soon after ten o'clock in the morning he was playing with others at pitch and toss in M'Carthy's-cour, when he heard a lad call out "Copper," and he and his companions rushed away and entered a beer-house at the corner of Dorset- street, known as Ringer's. He was positive than on going in he saw Mary Jane Kelly drinking with some other people, but is not certain whether there was a man amongst them. He went home to Dorset-street on leaving the house, and about half an hour afterwards heard that Kelly had been found in her room murdered. It would then be close upon eleven o'clock."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/illustrated_police_news/il881117.html

[lynn cates]

T O D

Hello GUT, Jon. I agree and feel I must suspend judgment until a TOD can be given.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

G'day Lynn

Hello GUT, Jon. I agree and feel I must suspend judgment until a TOD can be given.

Cheers.
LC

Thank you.

[Garry Wroe]

Yes Garry, I am well aware of the possibility, but then my "insistence" is not guesswork either, is it?

There is a distinction, Jon, between a firmly held conviction and demonstrable fact. You can provide conclusive proof neither that Mary Kelly met Astrakhan shortly before her death, nor that she undressed in the presence of her killer.

Let us not forget, you choose to ignore the possibility that Kelly went back out on the streets; in spite of Hutchinson claiming to see her between 2-3:00am …

Claiming being the operative word. All of the evidence points to the conclusion that Hutchinson was discredited by investigators. As such, so was his story involving Kelly and Astrakhan.

… in spite of Mrs Kennedy claiming to see her outside the Britannia "about 3:00am …"

This would be the same Mrs Kennedy who neither provided a police statement nor appeared as an inquest witness? The same Mrs Kennedy who you previously postulated was Sarah Lewis?

… and, in spite of Sarah Lewis confirming Hutchinson's story about this couple walking up the court:
"..I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

Sarah Lewis said nothing of the kind. She declared that she saw no-one in the court. The only source that stated otherwise was the misreport you repeatedly cite in order to bolster your personal interpretation of the events surrounding Mary Kelly’s death. Sorry, Jon, but there is a world of difference between evidence and wishful thinking.

You appear to be quite content to assume she [Kelly] never left her room, so long as you ignore the words of those who claim to have seen her outside.

I ignore nothing, Jon. Having assessed the evidence with absolute objectivity I simply conclude that Hutchinson and Kennedy were unreliable witnesses and that Sarah Lewis did not make the observation that you attribute to her.

My "insistence" is more along the lines of, 'that these witnesses should be heard, not ignored', especially when nothing has been offered to contest their observations.

No, Jon. Your insistence is that others should abandon their critical faculties and blindly accept one story that was dismissed by police, another which originated from a newspaper interviewee whose claims were never subjected to official scrutiny, and yet a third which was unquestionably the product of journalistic error. This is the equivalent of citing the testimony of Mary Malcolm in order to question the identity of the Berner Street victim. It is neither a cogent nor scholarly approach. Worse still, all of this is in direct contradiction to your declaration a couple of years ago that official sources should always take precedence over press reports. So what happened, Jon?

[Fisherman]

All of the evidence points to the conclusion that Hutchinson was discredited by investigators. As such, so was his story involving Kelly and Astrakhan.

None of the evidence "points to" Hutchinson being discredited by investigators. What was discredited - or to be more precise, awarded significantly less interest than initially - was Hutchinsons story.
For example, Walter Dew tells us that he would not reflect on Hutchinson as a witness - does that too belong to all that evidence that points to him having been discredited...?

Which part of parts of the story it was that was awarded less interest, we cannot tell since we simply havent got it on record. It could have been some of it, much of it etcetera, but hardly all of it, since the trail was followed up on after the so called discrediting.
It therefore applies that the story of Kelly and Astrakhan need not have been discredited at all - that´s just your interpretation, Garry, and only one interpretation of many. It could be that - as I have suggested - that the story was deemed to be true, but attaching to the wrong day.
For example.
There are other possibilitites too, many of them, involving no discrediting of the Astrakhan story.

Let´s not pretend anything else.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

There is a distinction, Jon, between a firmly held conviction and demonstrable fact. You can provide conclusive proof neither that Mary Kelly met Astrakhan shortly before her death, nor that she undressed in the presence of her killer.

Come on Garry, be realistic. Concerning witness statements, nothing we debate on this issue can be proven one way or the other.
As nothing has been, nor can be proven then the witness claims we debate are all equally viable. You can point to nothing which either suggests, or demonstrates that Hutchinson or Kennedy lied or were mistaken about what, or who, they claimed to see, and when.
I take that to indicate your preferences are governing your judgement.

Claiming being the operative word. All of the evidence points to the conclusion that Hutchinson was discredited by investigators. As such, so was his story involving Kelly and Astrakhan.

All of what evidence?, this evidence is what Abberline couldn't see, but you can? What 'evidence' are you referring to, claims in the press that cannot be substantiated?
Certainly not bonafide police evidence that we can all read.

This would be the same Mrs Kennedy who neither provided a police statement nor appeared as an inquest witness?

We do read that Mrs. Kennedy gave her statement to police, so on what grounds you claim the above is not clear.

The same Mrs Kennedy who you previously postulated was Sarah Lewis?

Certainly not today.
I think it is fair to say we are all guided at some point by what authors have previously written, but since comparing the statements of Lewis & Kennedy, in detail, I find no cause to believe they were the same woman.
That they were together on Wednesday (7th), yes, but that they arrived at Millers Court quite separately on Friday morning, roughly a half-hour apart, is quite evident by their own words.

Sarah Lewis said nothing of the kind. She declared that she saw no-one in the court.

Rather coincidental 'misreporting' wouldn't you say, when we read in four sources, all in the same morning editions, Daily Telegraph, Daily News, Morning Post & Scotsman, that the female of this couple was 'the worse for drink', just as claimed by Hutchinson.

The fact the Daily News were diligent enough to include the observation that "they passed up the court", (also claimed by Hutchinson) is more to their credit.

Not forgetting that the Morning Post confirmed that the woman in question wore no hat, a detail attributed to Kelly, by Mrs. Cox.

Overall, the Daily News outshone their contemporaries by listing three very pertinent details (that Kelly wore no hat, and being the worse for drink, and in company with a man walking up the court), which help to confirm Hutchinson's story.
But, by some as yet undetermined 'miracle', you claim, the Daily News managed to list these points of confirmation purely by mistake?
A stunning achievement Garry, very stunning.

And, as to Sarah Lewis seeing no-one in the court, this only bolsters her sighting seeing as Kelly & Client went indoors. Naturally then there was no-one in the court by the time Lewis turned into Millers Court.

If you find the time Garry, I suggest you gather ALL the press coverage of the Kelly & Eddowes inquests, and see, perhaps much to your surprise, just how much reliance we do place on press coverage.
It may come as a shock to you to realise that not one version, and that includes the Official version, is complete. And, it is precisely because of this that we 'need' the press coverage.

What do you think about 'what we know' from the Nichols, Chapman & Stride inquests?, where we have no official versions?
Maybe we should dismiss these press sources as entirely untrustworthy?

Worse still, all of this is in direct contradiction to your declaration a couple of years ago that official sources should always take precedence over press reports. So what happened, Jon?

Show me an official version of anything which directly contests the stories of both Hutchinson and Kennedy.
Show me.

[Sam Flynn]

Oh, God! Hutchinsonitis breaks out again!

Is there no antidote?

[lynn cates]

Doctor, Doctor!!

Hello Gareth.

"Is there no antidote?"

Umm, Lechmerism? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Barnett described her as having been in Pennington, a 'bad house', and we know she lived with Mrs. Buki, and that she brought a woman of ill-repute to stay with her at the Court. There is nowhere that we even see her taking clients outside. So, you repeat this same mantra over and over until it's gospel for you. I have no idea why a prostitute wouldn't bring someone back to her room. There is no good reason. I'm sure you have manufactured one and have repeated it often enough that you believe it. We don't know and we can't know. The educated guess is that if she were a prostitute, she had sex where she could get away without being nabbed by the police. That's as far as we can go despite your intent to create something else.

Mike

Once again you've posted a response that has nothing to do with the rebuttal it addresses, and in it you suggest that there is "no good reason" why she wouldn't want to bring strange men into her room.

For one, that's slightly concealed prejudice, and for a second, if you cant understand why a desperately poor person would covet a place that is their own then you shouldn't be involved in discussions that concern poor people in general, you quite obviously don't have a clue.

There is no record of Mary ever bringing a client into Millers Court, despite your troglodyte opinion that she would do so.

Cheers

[The Good Michael]

Once again you've posted a response that has nothing to do with the rebuttal it addresses, and in it you suggest that there is "no good reason" why she wouldn't want to bring strange men into her room.

For one, that's slightly concealed prejudice, and for a second, if you cant understand why a desperately poor person would covet a place that is their own then you shouldn't be involved in discussions that concern poor people in general, you quite obviously don't have a clue.

There is no record of Mary ever bringing a client into Millers Court, despite your troglodyte opinion that she would do so.

There is no record of Kelly having sex on the street. You make the most asinine points. Somehow, you've developed a hard-on for this dead woman and see her as some little saint who took her business out on the street, but had a safe haven to escape into and dream about her future life on the stage. You are the most unrealistic thinker I've ever seen. Calling you a thinker is too kind. A dreamer. That's it.

Mike

[DVV]

Ninja bizness

Only a Michael can kill a Michael.