Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[c.d.]

Saying that Mary never took a client back to her room disregards the Barnett factor. It's like saying that since a 16 year old kid never sat in his parents' house drinking beer in the living room while they were present he would never do so if left alone for the weekend with a refrigerator full of beer.

As for a record of Mary bringing back a client to her room, who exactly is keeping track of all this?

As for the notion that Mary wanted to keep a little portion of the world to herself unsullied by drunken, bad smelling men, that does seem a tad romantic. Reality might have forced her to do so but that doesn't mean that she liked it. It gave her an edge over her fellow sisters who could only entertain clients on the street. Might as well take advantage of it. And if she was so sensitive she chose a bad profession to go into.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

It's like saying that since a 16 year old kid never sat in his parents' house drinking beer in the living room while they were present he would never do so if left alone for the weekend with a refrigerator full of beer.

I never drank my parents' beer. Then again, I wasn't a prostitute.


Mike

[Garry Wroe]

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.

The primary task of investigators, Fish, upon the discovery of Kelly’s body, was to identify the person(s) who had killed her. Since no-one was caught in the act police fell back on the tried and trusted method of attempting to piece together the victim’s final hours. When Hutchinson came forward he was thought to have provided not only critical timeline information, but a detailed description of Kelly’s likely murderer. Once the Astrakhan story came to be dismissed, however, Hutchinson was designated a witness of no material value. That’s the way in which police investigations work. They don’t waste time, effort and manpower on irrelevancies. In other words Hutchinson came to be discredited – deemed to be a person with no credible information that might assist the murder investigation. And that’s it. Whereas posters are free to indulge in whatever semantic gymnastics they choose, there is no getting away from the simple reality that Hutchinson and his Kelly-related story were excluded from the investigative equation. And since such a course would not have been taken without serious consideration, something of a tangible nature must have come to light which definitively undermined Abberline’s initial belief in Hutchinson’s importance as a witness.

[Garry Wroe]

Come on Garry, be realistic. Concerning witness statements, nothing we debate on this issue can be proven one way or the other.

Which was precisely my line of thought, Jon, when questioning your unqualified yet strident assertion that Kelly undressed in front of her killer.

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.

Had Hutchinson’s story been trusted, Jon, a police force desperate to lay hands on Jack the Ripper would have continued to treat him as a stellar witness. It didn’t. Hutchinson was dropped like a stone and given not so much a mention by those in the know. The only policeman who did refer to him was Dew, and even he, a lowly detective constable at the time of the Whitechapel Murders, knew that Hutchinson’s story had come to be discredited, though he could only speculate as to why. Now, if you wish to continue to believe that none of this either ‘suggests’ or ‘demonstrates’ that Hutchinson’s story came to be discredited, then so be it. But you do so in denial of the evidence.

As for Mrs Kennedy, you repeatedly assert that her narrative should be accorded the same gravitas as that of Sarah Lewis. Indeed you even maintain the claim that she was interviewed by Abberline. The problem, Jon, is that, were this true, her story would have assumed crucial importance to the investigation, as a consequence of which she would have been accorded stellar witness status. But what do we find? This woman who purportedly knew Mary Jane, who could place her on Dorset Street at a time critical to the murder, who could even describe the man who accompanied her, didn’t appear before the Kelly inquest hearing. Nor is there any official record of her having been interviewed by the police. And yet you would have us place Kennedy on an equal footing with Sarah Lewis – the woman who beyond all doubt was an official witness. Frankly, Jon, this beggars belief. Even more so when, seemingly oblivious to the irony of it all, you go on to observe:-

I take that to indicate your preferences are governing your judgement.

For the umpteenth time, Jon, I base my conclusions upon careful and impartial evaluation of the available evidence. I do not develop a hypothesis, then ignore or distort evidence in order to sustain the said hypothesis. And nor do I seek to achieve a similar end by embracing clear and unambiguous journalistic errors.

As we know, your pet theory is that the Ripper was a well-dressed man. In order to sustain this line of thinking you reject overwhelming evidence to the contrary and insist that Hutchinson was an honest and reliable witness. To bolster this standpoint you portray Kennedy as a similarly reliable witness. Worse still you disregard Sarah Lewis’s inquest testimony in favour of a misreport carried by a solitary newspaper and use this error as substantiation for your contention that Lewis saw Kelly and a well-dressed companion enter Miller’s Court. This, you further maintain, serves as confirmation of Hutchinson’s Astrakhan story.

It doesn’t. As confirmed by Dew explicitly and several others inferentially, Hutchinson’s narrative was rejected by the authorities. Mrs Kennedy wasn’t, couldn’t have been, a police witness, otherwise she would have assumed a primary role at the Kelly inquest hearing. And Sarah Lewis did not claim to see anyone enter Miller’s Court as she made her way to the Keylers. But for a misreport carried by a solitary newspaper journalists were unanimous in detailing Sarah’s assertion that she saw and heard nothing as she entered the court.

This hypothesis of yours, Jon, has you trapped in a very deep, dark hole. My advice is that you stop digging.

[Prosector]

Did she wear a hat?

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.




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.



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



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.




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?



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

Despite the many assertions that MJK did not wear a hat (eg the later recollections of Chief Inspector Walter Dew) there is a very telling piece of evidence that she did wear a hat on that last night. Elizabeth Prater who lived in the room above her gave a very moving interview with a reporter from the Star in which she said that she met MJK at the entry to Dorset Street at about 9 o'clock on Thursday evening and after exchanging a few words they both went out to solicit. Mrs Prater makes the point that Mary Jane wore a hat and coat but she didn't ahs she did not possess such items.

Prosector

[Abby Normal]

Despite the many assertions that MJK did not wear a hat (eg the later recollections of Chief Inspector Walter Dew) there is a very telling piece of evidence that she did wear a hat on that last night. Elizabeth Prater who lived in the room above her gave a very moving interview with a reporter from the Star in which she said that she met MJK at the entry to Dorset Street at about 9 o'clock on Thursday evening and after exchanging a few words they both went out to solicit. Mrs Prater makes the point that Mary Jane wore a hat and coat but she didn't ahs she did not possess such items.

Prosector

hi prosector
your last sentence is unclear, due to typos it seems. can you please clarify?

[Wickerman]

Despite the many assertions that MJK did not wear a hat (eg the later recollections of Chief Inspector Walter Dew) there is a very telling piece of evidence that she did wear a hat on that last night. Elizabeth Prater who lived in the room above her gave a very moving interview with a reporter from the Star in which she said that she met MJK at the entry to Dorset Street at about 9 o'clock on Thursday evening and after exchanging a few words they both went out to solicit. Mrs Prater makes the point that Mary Jane wore a hat and coat but she didn't ahs she did not possess such items.

Prosector

On that point there is no question, yet that sighting was earlier in the night. The later sighting by Mrs cox specifically states Kelly wore no hat.
An adult female outside without head covering was typically a sign of a prostitute.
The hat belonged to Mrs Harvey.

[Wickerman]

Had Hutchinson’s story been trusted, Jon, a police force desperate to lay hands on Jack the Ripper would have continued to treat him as a stellar witness. It didn’t. Hutchinson was dropped like a stone and given not so much a mention by those in the know.

A strange comment coming from one who claims, "careful and impartial evaluation of the available evidence.". Your book promotes a theory to cast suspicion on Hutchinson, your interpretation of any subsequent evidence is steered to support that theory in every conceivable way.

You know very well the press were still reporting police interest in the Hutchinson suspect after his press interview, ie;"...Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson..."
Echo, 19 Nov. 1888.

Yet you claim they dropped him like a stone, obviously a conclusion not born out by the available evidence.

Who were the other principal witnesses in the case, Mrs Long, Israel Schwartz, PC Smith, Joseph Lawende?
Once the descriptions given by these important witnesses had been published, how long after do we read of them in the press?

None of the above ever received ongoing attention as you seem to claim 'should' be the case. Your perspective fails to be based on any recognizable precedent.
I suggest your assertion is confused by the press and their lack of reporting, nothing to do with the police lack of interest.

The only policeman who did refer to him was Dew, and even he, a lowly detective constable at the time of the Whitechapel Murders, knew that Hutchinson’s story had come to be discredited, though he could only speculate as to why.

Your attempt at rewriting history does you no favors. Dew made no suggestion that Hutchinson had been discredited, all you have going for you Garry is smoke and mirrors.

But you do so in denial of the evidence.

If there ever had been any evidence you would have announced it from the rooftops years ago.
Your interpretation does not substitute for evidence.

As for Mrs Kennedy, you repeatedly assert that her narrative should be accorded the same gravitas as that of Sarah Lewis. Indeed you even maintain the claim that she was interviewed by Abberline. The problem, Jon, is that, were this true, her story would have assumed crucial importance to the investigation, as a consequence of which she would have been accorded stellar witness status. But what do we find? This woman who purportedly knew Mary Jane, who could place her on Dorset Street at a time critical to the murder, who could even describe the man who accompanied her, didn’t appear before the Kelly inquest hearing.

Not at all.
The Coroner does not call two witnesses to tell the same story.
Essentially the stories told by Lewis & Kennedy were the same, so only one was called.
The loiterer interested Macdonald, and Sarah Lewis saw the loiterer, ergo, she was called.

What we have among the selected witnesses is one to testify to the earliest potential 'final' sighting, in Mrs Cox; and the latest potential 'final' sighting, in Mrs Maxwell.

As with other inquests, if further witnesses were required after the first adjournment then they will be called. We do know that "future hearings" were intended, it being mentioned subsequent to Dr. Phillips's testimony.
So because the Inquiry was suddenly terminated we never heard from any further witnesses, on that basis it cannot be claimed Mrs Kennedy was not slated to appear.

Nor is there any official record of her having been interviewed by the police.

Neither is there any official record of Hutchinson's interview with Abberline, neither is there any official record of Dr Phillips's Post-mortem.
Are you saying that the lack of these sources suggest they never happened either?

But for a misreport carried by a solitary newspaper journalists were unanimous in detailing Sarah’s assertion that she saw and heard nothing as she entered the court.

Misreporting?, do you mean the kind of misreporting that we read in the Star when a single solitary reporter suggests Hutchinson was discredited?
Are you telling me that you do not acknowledge single solitary reports because they are untrustworthy?
Tell me more....

Unlike your example of a single solitary untrustworthy remark made by the Star, we have seven different reporters, all present at the inquest, all reporting the words of Sarah Lewis when she saw this "couple" at the same time she saw the loiterer.
Four of those seven all reported the female was "the worse for drink", and two of those seven recorded that this female "wore no hat".
Only the Daily News gave the full account that this couple walked up the court.

I'm intrigued how you can suggest misreporting when Hutchinson tells us in no uncertain terms that Kelly & Client "walked up the court", that "Kelly was spree'ish".
Independent corroboration by reporters cannot be construed as misreporting.

You are offering a desperate interpretation because you realize confirmation of Hutchinson's basic story has been available all the time, but you just failed to see it, or like Nelson, claim to "see no ships".

The original Court record - captured by the court recorder, Hodgkinson, is incomplete, and has been demonstrated to be the case (see JTR Forums, Mary Kelly Inquest, Compilation of Sources).
We rely on the press to complete the picture.

Errors in press reporting of the Inquest testimony is restricted to spelling errors, mispronunciations, and an occasional missing word. We have no examples of wrongful inclusions of entire lines of testimony which never took place, and why would we?
The press are there for a reason, inventing testimony is not one of those reason's.

Your claim of 'misreporting' would be a first.

There is no possible way that Inquest reporters can include mistakes which coincidentally, just happen to provide corroboration for a story not yet provided by a future witness.
What we have is corroboration.

[Prosector]

Hi Abby

Sorry about that - a stray h crept into the words 'as' in that line. However, if she went out with a hat a 9 o'clock (and that seems certain), why didn't she wear one later - it was a wet night after all? And the the not wearing of hats being a sign of a prostitute is belied by the fact that three (if my memory serves me) of the canonical victims were wearing hats on the nights they were murdered. In fact Polly thought that her new hat would increase the chances of her picking up a punter.
Prosector

[Wickerman]

Chapman was wearing a hat?
I know Eddowes was, but Nichols was not. Her bonnet was by her hand.
They often tied or pinned them to their clothes.
Her comment about "my new jolly bonnet" need not be seen as intended to attract clients, what does a dosser care about the bonnet, that's more for show with other women.

Mary Kelly was out in the early evening when she was seen wearing a hat.
We can't believe she is 'available' every time she set foot outside.
When she went out later, her "open for business" sign is that she left her hat at home.
The tradition of a hatless woman out at night being regarded as a "loose woman" is long established. That doesn't mean 'every' prostitute had to 'fit' the contemporary image.

[Prosector]

OK - I was wrong about Chapman, sorry. But there seems little doubt that MJK was touting for business when she went out earlier wearing a hat, Elizabeth Prater's interview makes that very clear. Whilst I don't disagree that hatless women would have been considered loose or available or at least not quite respectable in most parts of London I don't think one can attach too much importance to whether the unfortunates of Whitechapel wore hats or not (except for identification purposes). When they went out looking for business I don't think their average client was influenced by subtle sartorial indicators, the game plan would have been obvious enough.

Prosector

[Michael W Richards]

Hello,

Since it would seem further clarification is needed on this point,..without any recorded evidence that Mary Kelly ever brought any paying customer to her room, its pure speculation suggesting it. We have witness testimony that states her live in lover objected to her "working the streets", and we have the knowledge she shared the room with Maria until the beginning of the week and we have more testimony that on the only occasion that is recorded of Mary bring someone into the courtyard with her, that last night, she is heard to sing off an on for over an hour, until the lights were extinguished.

As for Mary being seen with a hat going out, that would be contradicted by Mary Ann Cox who mentions no hat when Mary returns, and we also have statements from a police official which suggest she most often wore her hair "out".

There seems to be some general confusion as well as what can be credibly presented as possible solutions to some of these questions...if there is no evidence at all to substantiate the idea then it isn't worthy of discussion in other than Chat rooms.

Cheers

[Garry Wroe]

Your book promotes a theory to cast suspicion on Hutchinson, your interpretation of any subsequent evidence is steered to support that theory in every conceivable way.

Evidently, Jon, you are judging me by your own standards. A classic example of projection.

You know very well the press were still reporting police interest in the Hutchinson suspect after his press interview, ie;"...Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson..."… Yet you claim they dropped him like a stone, obviously a conclusion not born out by the available evidence.

One report in one newspaper. Meanwhile investigators were searching for the killer amongst the down and outs of low lodging houses and casual wards – hardly the kind of establishments the well-heeled Astrakhan was liable to frequent. It’s about the bigger picture. And you either cannot or will not see the bigger picture. Your confusion is such that you are even arguing that Hutchinson’s story was both accepted and rejected by investigators – rejected on the basis of Brown’s estimation of Kelly’s time of death. Hardly surprising, then, that some of us find your arguments incomprehensible.

Who were the other principal witnesses in the case, Mrs Long, Israel Schwartz, PC Smith, Joseph Lawende?
Once the descriptions given by these important witnesses had been published, how long after do we read of them in the press?

The press? What about Anderson’s assertion that the only person who ever got a good look at the killer was a Jewish witness, and that the person he saw was himself a low-class Jew? Are you seriously suggesting that ‘Kosminski’ was the opulently-attired Astrakhan? Anderson and the other leading investigators rejected Hutchinson’s version of events. Fact. Yet whilst obdurately refusing to acknowledge as much you do your utmost to convince all and sundry that Hutchinson’s story was rejected as a consequence of Bond’s medical opinion. Bizarre. Truly bizarre.

Your attempt at rewriting history does you no favors. Dew made no suggestion that Hutchinson had been discredited, all you have going for you Garry is smoke and mirrors.

Here’s what Dew wrote: ‘I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.’ In other words both Maxwell and Hutchinson had provided unreliable accounts. The fact that Hutchinson was consigned by Dew to the level of Maxwell ought to speak volumes. I rather suspect, however, that you are about to experience the onset of elective deafness.

The Coroner does not call two witnesses to tell the same story.
Essentially the stories told by Lewis & Kennedy were the same, so only one was called ...

Perhaps, then, Jon, you’d care to present the evidence for this assertion. We could start with the definitive confirmation that Kennedy was an official police witness.

… The loiterer interested Macdonald, and Sarah Lewis saw the loiterer, ergo, she was called.

Really? Then explain why Sarah was pressed for far more detail regarding Bethnal Green Man than Wideawake. You might also care to explain why MacDonald would neglect to summon Kennedy, a woman who not only claimed to have known Kelly, but stated that she had seen her shortly before her death accompanied by a man who might well have been her killer. Or are you suggesting that such information would have been of no interest to the man charged with establishing the facts relating to Kelly’s murder?

Misreporting?, do you mean the kind of misreporting that we read in the Star when a single solitary reporter suggests Hutchinson was discredited?

Two newspapers carried reports relating to police scepticism over Hutchinson’s claims, observations which were later accorded inferential corroboration by the words of Anderson, Swanson and Dew. Again, it’s about the bigger picture. True to form, however, you embrace a single report which conflicts with all others in an attempt to bolster the fantasy that Sarah Lewis saw the Britannia couple pass up Miller’s Court as she made her way to the Keylers. Not content with this, you then elevate what was a clear piece of misreporting to the level of spectacular and insightful journalism.

Are you telling me that you do not acknowledge single solitary reports because they are untrustworthy?

Tell you what, Jon, let’s forget about what I think. Let’s look instead to a post you recently directed at Trevor on another thread:-

Historical analysis is most productive when you collate ALL the sources. "We" should not cherry pick our favourite source at the expense of all the others. NONE of the sources are complete, and they all carry errors.

To receive the best, most accurate overall view of what was said it is important to collate all the sources together, the picture then becomes self evident.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless. You couldn’t make it up.

[markmorey5]

Perhaps it's because I'm a psychologist, but the serial killer is one of two things, a mysoginist who took out his hatred on prostitutes because they were available, or someone who had a deep hatred of prostitutes for whatever reason. Perhaps his mother or someone close was a prostitute. One part of his MO was to strike quickly and suddenly, before any of his victims had a chance to utter a sound. People slept very close to the murders and didn't hear a thing.

On the basis of his mysogyny or hatred specifically of prostitutes, it was extremely unlikely he proposed sex with Mary Kelly and then accompanied her to her room, and then waited for her to undress and climb into bed. Almost certainly he would have struck at her as soon as the door was closed behind. Even less likely is the possibility that the serial kiler had sex with Kelly before killing her.

The only possible scenario is that the serial killer knew of Kelly, broke into her room perhaps by releasing the spring latch through the broken window, and killed her while she was asleep, or more likely in a drunken stupor. That's assuming that Kelly didn't wedge a table against her door as was common in 'do as you please' street. It's possible she didn't wedge a table if she undressed and fell into bed drunk, or remained asleep after a client left. But all of this assumes the serial killer knew of Kelly and the broken window and was able to get into her room. Without that knowledge even the police didn't get into her room the next day until they broke the door down.

Evidence may be cloudy on the last night and Hutchinson's testimony suspect, but the basics are two possible scenarios. If it were the killer of the other women then he broke into Kelly's room and killed her in her bed while she was asleep, or Kelly's murderer was someone else.

There are other anomalies with Kelly's murder beyond her being undressed in bed, and those are that she was younger than the other victims and we don't know if that is significant or not, and she was much more mutilated. The latter may be explained by the time and space that her own room allowed.

But on the balance of probabilities based upon the serial killer's hatred of women or prostitutes and his behaviour to that point in time, I believe that someone else killed Kelly by cutting her throat, and it was common knowledge that the other victims had their throats cut, and then butchered her to make the murder seem like the serial killer.

[Michael W Richards]

Perhaps it's because I'm a psychologist, but the serial killer is one of two things, a mysoginist who took out his hatred on prostitutes because they were available, or someone who had a deep hatred of prostitutes for whatever reason. Perhaps his mother or someone close was a prostitute. One part of his MO was to strike quickly and suddenly, before any of his victims had a chance to utter a sound. People slept very close to the murders and didn't hear a thing.

On the basis of his mysogyny or hatred specifically of prostitutes, it was extremely unlikely he proposed sex with Mary Kelly and then accompanied her to her room, and then waited for her to undress and climb into bed. Almost certainly he would have struck at her as soon as the door was closed behind. Even less likely is the possibility that the serial kiler had sex with Kelly before killing her.

The only possible scenario is that the serial killer knew of Kelly, broke into her room perhaps by releasing the spring latch through the broken window, and killed her while she was asleep, or more likely in a drunken stupor. That's assuming that Kelly didn't wedge a table against her door as was common in 'do as you please' street. It's possible she didn't wedge a table if she undressed and fell into bed drunk, or remained asleep after a client left. But all of this assumes the serial killer knew of Kelly and the broken window and was able to get into her room. Without that knowledge even the police didn't get into her room the next day until they broke the door down.

Evidence may be cloudy on the last night and Hutchinson's testimony suspect, but the basics are two possible scenarios. If it were the killer of the other women then he broke into Kelly's room and killed her in her bed while she was asleep, or Kelly's murderer was someone else.

There are other anomalies with Kelly's murder beyond her being undressed in bed, and those are that she was younger than the other victims and we don't know if that is significant or not, and she was much more mutilated. The latter may be explained by the time and space that her own room allowed.

But on the balance of probabilities based upon the serial killer's hatred of women or prostitutes and his behaviour to that point in time, I believe that someone else killed Kelly by cutting her throat, and it was common knowledge that the other victims had their throats cut, and then butchered her to make the murder seem like the serial killer.

Every act that the killer had performed on previous victims was published in detail in the papers and discussed openly at the Inquests....so I agree with your conclusion here,.... but there are also many irregularities found in this murder when attempting to marry it, by killer, with the previous "Canonicals".

Heres one.....You noted the lack of any appreciable noise,... witnesses in the same house heard nothing out of the ordinary...aside from the faint cry out at around 3:45, (which Sarah Lewis validates), so it appears that the killer accessed the room, faced his victim and attacked her while her back was turned to the wall, without making any scratches on the wooden floor, or squeaks from the bed, from Mary, or struggle noises.

Hypothetically I can see Mary stumbling out of a drunk sleep to a soft knock on the door, one that woke the upstairs cat, then Mrs Prater, ...making a disappointed exclamation, "oh-murder" that was heard by 2 witnesses, leaving the door open for the visitor and then padding back to bed, this time on her right side on the right side of the bed, and trying to return to sleep...the man closes the door quietly, lights a candle, and makes like he will be preparing for bed, siding in behind her in a spoon position perhaps. She dozes again quickly due to the amount of alcohol she is sleeping off, and with his weight being placed softly behind Mary on the bed, reaches over with his left hand, places the knife tip to the point closest to the right side of her neck, and slips his right hand under her head and over her mouth just as he cuts her.

No noise, little if any struggle.

That is not someone who picked up a working street prostitute that he did not know, Polly and Annie met that fellow for sure...but Mary,....someone in her life did this. That is not to say it was a passion crime, Mary may well have had knowledge of people or activities that put her in harms way...we have no way of telling at this point.

Cheers Mark