Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Her eyes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

    You know, the more I've thought about that line (whoever wrote it: it's hard to unpack the attibutions at this point...), the better do I grasp the enormous difference Lechmere makes to the way these events look...

    Most argument still occupies the space between 'the Ripper was interrupted, probably by Diemschutz' and 'Different knife and cut, besides the lack of mutilations: it wasn't the Ripper who killed Stride...'

    But with Lechmere slotted in as our perpetrator, we get to run this another way: an imaginary scenario in which it *was* the Ripper, and he *wasn't* interrupted...

    The obvious differences observed in relation to his lashing out at Stride for whatever reason (and not for a moment do I believe he was seen) are to do with the uniqueness of the situation, socio-geographically speaking. His mum, current stepfather and eldest daughter live in a house literally streets away; he'd grown up in numerous houses in that area and lived there until mere months before; he's likely been close by for hours before the murder, possibly talking and drinking with people who knew him; it's not impossible that he had 'history' with Stride, who might have known or recognised him as a local; and there were old acquaintances of the family living literally in sight of Dutfield's Yard in the Marshall household. If he'd been visiting his mum or walking her back home in the dark, he probably didn't have his usual knife on him; and he'd probably downed a few pints by closing time -- very much unlike his 'armed and alert' workday morning killings.

    With all this in mind, it seems to me that the one thing we *shouldn't* expect to be seeing in Berner Street is a 'normal' Ripper killing.

    And, finally, if -- as we are constantly being told -- Lechmere 'really was known as Charles Cross', the one thing he -- as the official, named discoverer of Nichols' body -- couldn't afford to do was be remembered by a load of former neighbours as having been visibly present in the area where another obvious Ripper victim was then immediately found.

    You want to argue that Stride doesn't look like a Ripper victim? That's exactly what Lechmere wanted you to argue -- and exactly what Mitre Square was intended to confirm!

    Get my drift, esteemed fellow detectives...?

    -- Oo-er... Is this off-topic for the thread?? Apologies if so...

    Bests,

    Mark D.
    When you look at evidence based on an outcome or suspect youre going to see what fits with that and tailor your profile accordingly. Youll see what you planned on seeing. In Strides case there is doubt circumstantially, with physical evidence and outcome that all adds up to a man who wanted to kill a woman. Nobody thinking of ripping up anyone.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

      But with Lechmere slotted in as our perpetrator, we get to run this another way: an imaginary scenario in which...
      You'd be amazed at the scenarios I can run with Queen Victoria slotted in as our perpetrator! She had a deep seated grudge against the Swedes apparently, so went out of her way to send them a message with Stride's murder.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        Nobody thinking of ripping up anyone.
        That's only if the Ripper was not interrupted which there is some evidence that he was. The warm temperature of the body would suggest Stride was killed very recently. Btw, was her time of death ever estimated like the other victims? I can't find anything. It's very unfortunate if it wasn't because that'd be one of the surest ways to know if Stride is actually a Ripper victim or not.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Mortis View Post

          That's only if the Ripper was not interrupted which there is some evidence that he was. The warm temperature of the body would suggest Stride was killed very recently. Btw, was her time of death ever estimated like the other victims? I can't find anything. It's very unfortunate if it wasn't because that'd be one of the surest ways to know if Stride is actually a Ripper victim or not.
          Yes, Stride was killed between 12.55 and 1am. There was only a very narrow timeframe after 12.50 when people leaving the club cleared the yard and 1am when Diemschutz found her body.

          If she was a Ripper victim and he was indeed interrupted, I suspect the killing took place almost immediately before 1.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Mortis View Post

            That's only if the Ripper was not interrupted which there is some evidence that he was. The warm temperature of the body would suggest Stride was killed very recently. Btw, was her time of death ever estimated like the other victims? I can't find anything. It's very unfortunate if it wasn't because that'd be one of the surest ways to know if Stride is actually a Ripper victim or not.
            There is in actuality no evidence of any interruption, whether she was cut a minute before she was found or 5 minutes before there is no physical evidence that suggests any further activity was intended or omitted in haste. Her cut time is estimated to be as early as 12:46-:56, actual TOD to the minute would be difficult to determine then and now.

            I should just add that the cut time estimate is Blackwells, but when Phillips arrived at 1:30 he said " within the past hour". She may have been cut earlier than is currently believed.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Meet Ze Monster View Post

              Yes, Stride was killed between 12.55 and 1am. There was only a very narrow timeframe after 12.50 when people leaving the club cleared the yard and 1am when Diemschutz found her body.

              If she was a Ripper victim and he was indeed interrupted, I suspect the killing took place almost immediately before 1.
              If that is so, then the killer most definitely didn't have time. Even if the timing of her death is a little off, all the killer had time to do is bolt from the place as fast as possible.

              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              There is in actuality no evidence of any interruption, whether she was cut a minute before she was found or 5 minutes before there is no physical evidence that suggests any further activity was intended or omitted in haste. Her cut time is estimated to be as early as 12:46-:56, actual TOD to the minute would be difficult to determine then and now.

              I should just add that the cut time estimate is Blackwells, but when Phillips arrived at 1:30 he said " within the past hour". She may have been cut earlier than is currently believed.
              Of course there is no evidence, just like there is no evidence that Nichols was interrupted or that Chapman's uterus was taken by a medical student, as you've suggested. These are all speculations. Nothing as far as Jack the Ripper can be evidence because we do not have any fingeriprints or DNA to confirm anything we know about the killings. But is it likely? I would wager so. As far as this case as a whole goes, all we can work for is the likeliest scenarios. If I pose the question - is it possible that 4 deranged mutilators all worked their "craft" in the same district? Sure, I guess. Anything is possible. But is it likely? Not very.

              And this is why I think that Stride indeed was killed by JTR. Because the coincidences are simply too much. Don't get me wrong, it is possible that you are right, but it is one in a million shot for something like this to happen and everything surrounding it, and then in a walking distance for JTR to strike again. Unless you think that Eddowes' killer has nothing to do with Chapman/Nichols'?

              Btw, I'm curious. You believe Chapman and Nichols' killer were the same, Stride was different, Eddowes was different from all the others and Kelly's killer was different from all the previous victims? Am I understanding this correctly?

              Comment


              • #82
                Ive responded in your post..

                Originally posted by Mortis View Post
                Of course there is no evidence, just like there is no evidence that Nichols was interrupted or that Chapman's uterus was taken by a medical student, (yes there is, the medical expert who examined her suggested as much) as you've suggested. These are all speculations. Nothing as far as Jack the Ripper can be evidence because we do not have any fingeriprints or DNA to confirm anything we know about the killings. But is it likely?(An interruption? Likely because she wasnt mutilated too?...or likely why?) I would wager so. As far as this case as a whole goes, all we can work for is the likeliest scenarios. If I pose the question - is it possible that 4 deranged mutilators all worked their "craft" in the same district? Sure, I guess. Anything is possible. But is it likely? Not very. (dont know who suggested 4 men to you, but there ARE 13 murders in the unsolved file and only 5 are considered "Ripper" crimes)

                And this is why I think that Stride indeed was killed by JTR. Because the coincidences are simply too much.(What about all the inconsistent evidence...just troublesome?) Don't get me wrong, it is possible that you are right, but it is one in a million shot for something like this to happen and everything surrounding it, and then in a walking distance for JTR to strike again. Unless you think that Eddowes' killer has nothing to do with Chapman/Nichols'?

                Btw, I'm curious. You believe Chapman and Nichols' killer were the same, Stride was different, Eddowes was different from all the others and Kelly's killer was different from all the previous victims? Am I understanding this correctly?
                As for the final point, I am very comfortable with the opinion that Jack the Ripper as hes called killed Polly then Annie. I believe its possible he also killed Kate, but far less likely. She may have been blackmailing someone, a fatal mistake perhaps. I think Liz was killed by some street thug in a one second loss of judgement, maybe hired by the club as Security that night...likely due to inebriation, and in Marys case Im almost certain her killer knew her....which makes all the difference when assessing whether Jack killed her. Jack killed strangers, of that Im certain.

                Now, does that mean I see 4 independent killers? Maybe.
                Last edited by Michael W Richards; 10-20-2021, 07:14 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Mortis View Post

                  ...."The injuries were certainly not self-inflicted. The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and side of the jaw, but the bruises in front of the chest and temple were of longer standing -- probably of days"

                  Evidently he controlled her in some way.
                  Kind of vague though isn't it, and he doesn't described where they were in any detail. Those bruises could have been from another altercation while drunk, nothing to do with her murder.

                  As opposed to Llewellyn who went into some detail over the bruises on Nichols face:
                  "On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers."
                  Which is very easy to visualize.




                  No killer does a murder or a crime in the same way always. My point was that the killer obviously slashed their throats first. How he went about it is up to speculation. If he strangled them with bare hands, that would leave a lot more bruising than any of the victims have showcased except Mary whose face was butchered and there's no way to tell.
                  Although I say 'strangle', I make no distinction between that and suffocation. What I believe is he rendered them unconscious first, and used the knife to slice their throat when they were on the ground, at least with Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.


                  Nobody can be sure at what time Mary died because of the state of her body, but we can make a pretty reasonable guess. Anything past 02:00 AM is very suspect because the traces of food remaining would push her time of death way before she was even discovered. It's not about opinion anymore but about the fact that she must have eaten somewhat close to her time of death. This is based on everything we know about the digestion process.
                  Yes, we've had numerous debates over the timing of the digestion process of potato & fish, nothing can be concluded with any degree of accuracy. Those late night eateries were open till about 3:00 am, while on the main street - Whitechapel High street, food carts & coffee stalls were present all through the night.
                  The problem with any modern estimate of digestion is, Dr Bond does not say if there was any fish & potato in the intestines. If there was none then she ate less than an hour before she was killed.
                  If there was fish & potato in her intestine then she could have ate several hours before she died.
                  Therefore, nothing can be concluded from that line of inquiry.


                  Why? Per Cox's statements Mary was already drunk with even more alcohol in the hand of Blotchy that is highly likely they drank to the bottom. Mary's neighbor Pickett and her husband confirm that up until 12:30 AM Mary is still singing, Cox returns home somewhere around 01:00 AM, she attests that Mary is still singing, but curiously enough when she leaves back out again whether she continued singing or not isn't mentioned.....
                  Yes it is actually, Cox says she stayed long enough to warm her hands and then left again. Kelly was still singing. Unfortunately Cox does not provide a time.
                  Prater stood at the end of the court from 1:00-1:20 and makes no mention of seeing Cox, either come in or go out between 1:00-1:20, so how much attention was she paying to the comings & goings of other people?

                  Notably though, Prater does admit to possibly not seeing a light in the room as she passed on the stairs.
                  "On the stairs I could see a glimmer through the partition if there had been a light the deceased room I might not have noticed it. I did not take particular notice."
                  We also see that Prater admits that Cox could have come down the passage without her seeing her.

                  So within that roughly 30 minutes, Cox came home, and left shortly after, hearing Kelly singing both times.
                  Prater was not sure if there was a light in the room about 1:20, but she heard no singing or noise of any kind.
                  So you see, the times are so complete as has been made out.
                  As Prater said she was talking with Mrs McCarthy, who ran the shop, do you think Mrs McCarthy stood outside her shop in the rain?, or stood inside the passage talking to Prater?
                  Isn't it more likely McCarthy was inside her shop & Prater was inside the shop too?
                  If that is the case then Prater couldn't have seen everyone coming and going, she was inside McCarthy's shop talking to Mrs McCarthy.


                  She is supposedly seen around 02:00 AM by Hutchinson, asking him for money (but why would she ask him for money when Blotchy should have given her money?
                  You don't know if Blotchy completed the transaction, but even if he did then Kelly had money to go buy the food between 1:00-2:00am.

                  As she is walking by, a man approaches her from out of nowhere and they both suddenly, like they know each other, go back to her room.
                  Not 'like they know each other', she was using her room for business, Prater told the Daily Telegraph: "...it was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them".


                  Here's my problem with this - Astrakhan, by the dialogue Hutchinson gave him, seems like a client. But a client doesn't just stop a random woman on the street and talk her into ******* him. It makes no sense.
                  No-one knows if Kelly & Astrachan knew each other, you seem to be assuming they didn't. Assuming too much will lead you down the wrong path.


                  Hutchinson's testimony also never mentions Kelly as drunk, in fact she appears quite sober, capable of conversing with him freely while Cox said Kelly could hardly reply reply to her.
                  You do know what "spree'ish" means?
                  Hutchinson said she didn't seem to be drunk, but was a little spree'ish. What do you think he meant?

                  Then we're supposed to believe that Kelly went out again before getting another man back in the house.
                  Naturally, she owed several weeks rent, what better reason did she have for looking for business. The night is when street-walkers earn their income.


                  It is a pretty easy conclusion to make given that Kennedy was not a resident at Miller's Court but was simply visiting her parents that night.
                  Kennedy was living there.
                  "On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs Kennedy came home, however, at a late hour".
                  Sarah Lewis was the one visiting, Kennedy was living there.

                  But the couple Lewis saw directly contradicts Hutchinson's testimony. For one, Hutchinson's whole testimony is that he followed Kelly and Astrakhan back to her place. Kelly and Astrakhan stopped at the entrace to the Court, exchanged kissing and sweet words for some time. Then they went in Kelly's room with Hutchinson overlooking them and waiting for them for some time. Not only is Lewis location wrong, but the couple couldn't be Kelly and Astrakhan per Hutchinson's description because they'd be passing him while he was looking for Kelly in the court.
                  Not sure you are talking about the same issue, Lewis mentions Millers court, that's where Hutchinson was watching. How can it be different?

                  Lewis was walking down Dorset st. she saw a man & woman further on, ahead. Lewis saw the man & woman enter Millers Court, as she arrived at the court she noticed a man standing opposite (Hutchinson). Lewis admits there was no-one in the court as she went up. Therefore, the couple she was must have gone into one of the rooms.
                  All this ties in very well with what Hutchinson said Kelly & Astrachan did.

                  But are we supposed to believe that a very drunk Kelly just went through 3 clients in the space of 4 hours? That's very, very unlikely.
                  You think 'spree'ish' means very drunk?
                  Cox understood what Mary said well enough, then Mary sang for over an hour. Don't you think calling her 'very drunk' is a little exaggeration?



                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                    Ive responded in your post..
                    (yes there is, the medical expert who examined her suggested as much
                    Who also believed that the murders were committed by the same hand, yet you don't. Why do you pick and choose what to believe?

                    An interruption? Likely because she wasnt mutilated too?...or likely why?)
                    No, because she was dispatched like the rest of the victims and given the time of death the killer literally did not have enough time to do anything else. Obviously, it is speculation on my part, but it is a likely scenario.

                    dont know who suggested 4 men to you, but there ARE 13 murders in the unsolved file and only 5 are considered "Ripper" crimes


                    And for a good reason. The Ripper had a very specific and extremely rare MO that is very easy to distinguish.

                    What about all the inconsistent evidence...just troublesome?
                    Which inconsistent evidence?


                    As for the final point, I am very comfortable with the opinion that Jack the Ripper as hes called killed Polly then Annie. I believe its possible he also killed Kate, but far less likely. She may have been blackmailing someone, a fatal mistake perhaps. I think Liz was killed by some street thug in a one second loss of judgement, maybe hired by the club as Security that night...likely due to inebriation, and in Marys case Im almost certain her killer knew her....which makes all the difference when assessing whether Jack killed her. Jack killed strangers, of that Im certain.

                    Now, does that mean I see 4 independent killers? Maybe.
                    Why? For one, Polly wasn't mutilated. Chapman, Kelly and Eddowes killer have more in common with each other than Polly and Chapman's did. Yes, Polly was dispatched in the same way as the rest and the killer looks to have been interrupted, yet for one reason or another you don't count Stride, but do with Polly.

                    Why would a person butcher Eddowes' corpse like that if she was "blackmailing" somebody? And what would a woman who doesn't have a penny to her name know and living day to day would know about anyone? This theory might as well be in the realm of science fiction. It is possible you're right about Stride, this theory holds some theory and is somewhat likely. I have no problem with it. And why would you suggest Mary's killer knew her personally? What about anything we know would suggest that?

                    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    Kind of vague though isn't it, and he doesn't described where they were in any detail. Those bruises could have been from another altercation while drunk, nothing to do with her murder.

                    As opposed to Llewellyn who went into some detail over the bruises on Nichols face:
                    "On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers."
                    Which is very easy to visualize.

                    Why would Philips make a clear distinction between the bruises if they are not relevant? The bruises on her face are said to be "recent" and he continues on to say that the bruise to the temple specifically is "from days". This says to me that the bruises that are very recent are more than likely done by her killer.

                    Yes, Llewellyn gave more detail, that's because every surgeon performs an autopsy hold different opinions and focus on different details.

                    Although I say 'strangle', I make no distinction between that and suffocation. What I believe is he rendered them unconscious first, and used the knife to slice their throat when they were on the ground, at least with Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.
                    Yeah, but here's my problem with this theory. Nichols and Chapman were very big women. To incapacitate them would cause quite a ruckus. There's only very slight bruising on them, in contrast to what they would have if they were choked out. Given the thumb marks on Nichols face, doesn't that say that the killer used his hand to prevent any noise coming from her while she is dying rather than actually choke her to death or at least unconciousness?




                    Yes, we've had numerous debates over the timing of the digestion process of potato & fish, nothing can be concluded with any degree of accuracy. Those late night eateries were open till about 3:00 am, while on the main street - Whitechapel High street, food carts & coffee stalls were present all through the night.
                    The problem with any modern estimate of digestion is, Dr Bond does not say if there was any fish & potato in the intestines. If there was none then she ate less than an hour before she was killed.
                    If there was fish & potato in her intestine then she could have ate several hours before she died.
                    Therefore, nothing can be concluded from that line of inquiry.
                    But the more you push her eating, the more unlikely it becomes she was killed in the latter hours. Plus, it's highly unlikely that Mary would have eaten in the early hours of the morning. And Bond says nothing about food in her intestines:

                    "In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines."

                    Maybe it is an oversight.




                    Yes it is actually, Cox says she stayed long enough to warm her hands and then left again. Kelly was still singing. Unfortunately Cox does not provide a time.
                    Prater stood at the end of the court from 1:00-1:20 and makes no mention of seeing Cox, either come in or go out between 1:00-1:20, so how much attention was she paying to the comings & goings of other people?
                    "I remained a quarter of an hour in my room and went out. Deceased was still singing at one o'clock when I returned. I remained in the room for a minute to warm my hands as it was raining, and went out again. She was singing still, and I returned to my room at three o'clock. The light was then out and there was no noise."

                    She actually says it. She leaves a minute or two after warming her homes back home at 01:00 AM. Going by Prater, we have a 20-30 minute time window that Mary stops singing and the lights go off.

                    Notably though, Prater does admit to possibly not seeing a light in the room as she passed on the stairs.
                    "On the stairs I could see a glimmer through the partition if there had been a light the deceased room I might not have noticed it. I did not take particular notice."
                    We also see that Prater admits that Cox could have come down the passage without her seeing her.

                    So within that roughly 30 minutes, Cox came home, and left shortly after, hearing Kelly singing both times.
                    Prater was not sure if there was a light in the room about 1:20, but she heard no singing or noise of any kind.
                    So you see, the times are so complete as has been made out.
                    As Prater said she was talking with Mrs McCarthy, who ran the shop, do you think Mrs McCarthy stood outside her shop in the rain?, or stood inside the passage talking to Prater?
                    Isn't it more likely McCarthy was inside her shop & Prater was inside the shop too?
                    If that is the case then Prater couldn't have seen everyone coming and going, she was inside McCarthy's shop talking to Mrs McCarthy.
                    Let's pretend that both Cox and Prater are telling the truth. Unlike Hutchinson, they don't appear to be vying for attention or anything and their testimonies are completely normal. They seem very credible.

                    The singing stops somewhere after 01:00 AM. Prater herself wasn't a 100% sure about light coming from Mary's room, albeit Cox would most definitely see it. So it is likely that the lights went off somewhere before Prater returned home, but it is also possible Prater missed it. Anyway, whatever is the case when the singing stops it is very unlikely Blotchy would simply leave. As Michael would say, I doubt he ordered a serenade from Kelly. So he more than likely stayed, at least for a bit. But despite what that would entail, Prater seems to hear zero sound. Given how thin the walls are, wouldn't that say something? There was unlikely to be any sex, nor anyone heard leaving Kelly's room. Okay, let us pretend that somehow he sneaks out without alerting anybody. Kelly then leaves and meets Hutchinson. What would a drunk Kelly be doing at 02:00 AM while it is raining when she just had a client?



                    You don't know if Blotchy completed the transaction, but even if he did then Kelly had money to go buy the food between 1:00-2:00am.
                    But per McCarthy she owed rent. Why would she buy food at 02:00 AM? That seems extremely unlikely. A prostitute would only roam around in that hour because she desperately needs said money - rent or so. Cox basically confirmed that. She couldn't even sleep because she had no money for rent. What would Kelly do after having a client? Blotchy not completing the transaction is highly unlikely because then Kelly would probably be quite mad about it.

                    Not 'like they know each other', she was using her room for business, Prater told the Daily Telegraph: "...it was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them".
                    Well, that much is obvious or else Blotchy wouldn't be in Kelly's room regardless. My point is that they meet in the middle of the street and Astrakhan, without any prompt, talks her up and charms her like some bad horror movie, and she invites him to her house.



                    No-one knows if Kelly & Astrachan knew each other, you seem to be assuming they didn't. Assuming too much will lead you down the wrong path.
                    So Mary wanders around 02:00 AM, asking for money. Then conveniently a guy stops her out of nowhere and neither he or Astrakhan seem to know each other, then she happily goes with him, passing Hutchinson on the way. Nah, I don't buy that. Seems absurd to me. There is no indication Kelly knew Astrakhan. If she did, she'd probably hail him from afar, but he is the one who stops her and whispers something in her ear.

                    You do know what "spree'ish" means?
                    Hutchinson said she didn't seem to be drunk, but was a little spree'ish. What do you think he meant?
                    This was later added to the press, presumably after he learned of what Cox said about Mary's drunken state. There is nothing in his statement to the police that indicates that Kelly was drunk... like at all. While Cox said that Mary had trouble even saying good night to her. Obviously, there isn't much detail to it, but I would presume that for Cox to say that Mary was heavily slurring her words.

                    Naturally, she owed several weeks rent, what better reason did she have for looking for business. The night is when street-walkers earn their income.
                    She did, according to McCarthy, who may have lied to appear sympathetic. Rent was due on a day to day basis from what I've read. And unless he has some preference to Mary, why would Cox not being able to pay her rent cause her such distress? But regardless, even if he tells the truth, Mary has already earned her rent for the day with Blotchy. She was already drunk. If her goal was to make as much as money as possible, she wouldn't have invited Blotchy to retire in her home, rather she probably would have had sex in some dark corner. Because otherwise we'd have to assume that Kelly constantly went in and out with clients, which would seem unlikely.

                    Street walkers earn their income at all hours. But only the most desperate seem to broad the night at such early hours in the morning. We know that at least 3 of the victims were incredibly desperate and basically needed money to even spend a night under a roof. In contrast, Mary didn't really seem that desperate.

                    Kennedy was living there.
                    "On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs Kennedy came home, however, at a late hour".
                    Sarah Lewis was the one visiting, Kennedy was living there.
                    No, that's not true:

                    "A woman named Kennedy was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found."

                    "states that about three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset-street on her way to her parent's house"

                    A married woman staying in her "parent's" home would suggest that she didn't live there permanently but was simply visiting.


                    Not sure you are talking about the same issue, Lewis mentions Millers court, that's where Hutchinson was watching. How can it be different?

                    Lewis was walking down Dorset st. she saw a man & woman further on, ahead. Lewis saw the man & woman enter Millers Court, as she arrived at the court she noticed a man standing opposite (Hutchinson). Lewis admits there was no-one in the court as she went up. Therefore, the couple she was must have gone into one of the rooms.
                    All this ties in very well with what Hutchinson said Kelly & Astrachan did.
                    Hutchinson:
                    "They both went into Dorset Street. I followed them. They both stood on the corner of the court for about three minutes. He said something to her. She said: “All right, my dear. Come along. You will be comfortable”. He then placed his arm on her shoulder and she gave him a kiss. She said she had lost her handkerchief. He then pulled out his handkerchief, a red one, and gave it to her. They both went up the court together. I went to the court to see if I could see them, but I could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out. They did not, so I went away.”

                    Okay in short, he followed them, they stayed at the entrance of the court for a few minutes before going in, Hutchinson followed them to the court and looked to see if they'll leave. And it is at this point Lewis testimony comes in:

                    "When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset Street standing alone by the lodging house. He was not tall - but stout - had on a black wideawake hat - I did not notice his clothes - another young man with a woman passed along - the man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out,"

                    But her testimony doesn't fit with Hutchinson aside from seeing him standing in the court. Because if the man and woman were Kelly and Astrakhan, they'd be passing Hutchinson, but Hutchinson himself already states he saw Kelly and Astrakhan going in the court before waiting at the entrance. It doesn't fit aside from Hutchinson maybe being there.


                    You think 'spree'ish' means very drunk?
                    Cox understood what Mary said well enough, then Mary sang for over an hour. Don't you think calling her 'very drunk' is a little exaggeration?
                    For Cox to say that she understood Mary was very drunk because of her saying "good night, I'm going to have a song" would suggest that Mary was slurring her words and having difficulty speaking. As far as the singing, Mary was often heard singing drunk, per many witnesses. We really do not know how well she sang, only that she did so. Could have she basically sang almost unintelligeble gibberish, there is no mention as to the quality of her singing.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      If Nichols' visibly broken nose is added to that image, don't we get a pretty clear idea of the killer's left hand pressed hard over her face, the thumb to her right, silencing her, holding her head hard against the ground, and smothering her, as the knife is readied...?

                      Bests,

                      Mark D.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        When trying to sort things out its best to use what is known and not what is speculated. What is known is that if Mary had been working the streets when Barnett still lived there she didnt pay her rent, and that she worked the streets in the first place when working, She didnt bring customers to that room.. according to what is known. Never. So Blotchy may well have been a friend or associate, which would explain why song vs sex. The room was dark and quiet when Prater ascended the stairs although that is discounted in error in a previous post, which means by 1:30 Blotchy either has already left, or is still there. It is known no-one saw him leave. Its is also known but not universally accepted that the story given by Sarah Lewis and Ms Kennedy are essentially the same and almost certainly from the same person. Its is also known that Wideawake was part of a story given Friday, so Hutchinson would have learned of that story and Wideawake before he came in Monday night. It is not known for a fact but its highly probable the Pardon offer Saturday was based on Wideawake being some sort of Accomplice..."if even after the fact". Which means that Hutchinsons statement Monday night may have changed the whole perspective on Wideawake's possible involvement and been responsible for police putting less potential on the Accomplice angle. He changed the investigation. My contention is that the reason he came forward at all was to do just that.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                          If Nichols' visibly broken nose is added to that image, don't we get a pretty clear idea of the killer's left hand pressed hard over her face, the thumb to her right, silencing her, holding her head hard against the ground, and smothering her, as the knife is readied...?

                          Bests,

                          Mark D.
                          Precisely, the bruising is not consistent with her being suffocated, but that with his left hand he pressed her head against the ground, while he sliced her throat with the knife in his right hand.



                          My view is that he used a cord around the throat, not his hands or arm. This is the reason for the second cut to the throat. He ran the blade along the line made by the cord to eliminate the fact a cord was used.
                          This killer was a garroter.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            [/QUOTE]
                            As far as this case as a whole goes, all we can work for is the likeliest scenarios. If I pose the question - is it possible that 4 deranged mutilators all worked their "craft" in the same district? Sure, I guess. Anything is possible. But is it likely? Not very.

                            And this is why I think that Stride indeed was killed by JTR. Because the coincidences are simply too much.
                            [/QUOTE]

                            Furthermore, 4 killers with the same sadistic M.O. - none of whom where caught! Even less likely. Then again, there's the torso murders which are (unlikely?) the work of the Ripper. I'm not even sure where many ripperologists stand on the torso killings and if they are related or not. I wouldn't be surprised if they were the work of organised criminals sending rather sick messages to the authorities.

                            As for Stride, it could be seen as too coincidental that her throat was cut, or it could have been a gang related attack (disorganised crime). It would be ideal to be able to quote a statistic here on gang related attacks on prostitutes using knives, but I have no such data. Yes, Stride was not mutilated, but it's an each way bet in my opinion. The disturbed Ripper yarn is as good a possibility as an unrelated gang-style killing.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Precisely, the bruising is not consistent with her being suffocated, but that with his left hand he pressed her head against the ground, while he sliced her throat with the knife in his right hand.



                              My view is that he used a cord around the throat, not his hands or arm. This is the reason for the second cut to the throat. He ran the blade along the line made by the cord to eliminate the fact a cord was used.
                              This killer was a garroter.
                              I'm no kind of expert on this; but surely he's closing her mouth and nose at the same time, preventing her breathing?

                              M.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                                I'm no kind of expert on this; but surely he's closing her mouth and nose at the same time, preventing her breathing?

                                M.
                                Indeed, but unconsciousness by suffocation (preventing air reaching the lungs) will take at least a minute. (Choking (blocking the airway) is a form of suffocation).

                                Strangulation (preventing blood reaching the brain) takes about 5-10 seconds to render someone unconscious.
                                Last edited by Greenway; 10-21-2021, 02:45 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X