Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Her eyes?

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

  • #91
    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 agree the picture correctly depicts the position of his hand when he cut her throat. I agree she was already unconscious - it would be quite hard to get his victim to the ground without the risk of relaxing this grip and allowing his victim the opportunity to scream if this was his method of keeping them quiet.

    I don't understand why he would want to hide his use of a ligature? And it would be hard to line up his cuts with the ligature marks given the force required to make them IMO, especially in the dark.



    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
      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.
      Not exactly true. If you go by "what is known best", well you can probably try and argue that the killings have no connection whatsoever. They just happened. What instead is to be done is to always recognize the patterns, something you refuse to do.

      Where do you get that she "didn't bring customers in"? Her neighbors knew her as a prostitute. Many of them outright said that it was normal for them to bring clients home. There is nothing to suggest that Kelly plied her trade on the streets, let alone didn't bring men in the house. She didn't with Barnett, but that was before he left her. The only friend of Kelly that we know of is Barnett. If Blotchy was a friend, why wouldn't he come forward? And what business would a "shabby genteel" have with a prostitute? The extents you go to deny the obvious is amazing. Prater was at the entrance to the court somewhere around 1:00 to somewhere around 1:30 AM. She may have missed Cox due to her first going back to her room before waiting at the entrance, but if Blotchy had left, then he'd have to meet Prater. Because when Cox left around that time she reported that Kelly was still singing. There is a very miniscule timeframe here from which he could leave.

      As far as Lewis and Kennedy, both hardly knew Kelly. Their timings are off there.

      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.
      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.
      Nichols had no recent broken nose. Nothing in her autopsy would suggest that. There also wasn't a trace of blood. Wickerman, how would JTR manage to subdue a victim without making even the slightest bit of sound? People understimate how hard choking someone out is. It's not like the movies, even if you know what you're doing. To choke someone like Nichols out would take quite a bit of effort, something that would surely be heard by people, especially in the middle of the night where it is dead quiet. And for a cord to be used around her throat would be next to impossible. It'd take something akin to the butchering of Kelly to "mask" the marks that would be left from it. And even then I'm not so sure.

      Originally posted by Meet Ze Monster View Post
      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.
      I do not think the torso killer/s were the work of the Ripper. The MO simply doesn't match. The Ripper also didn't care to decapitate or amputate limbs, his only goal was to mutilate. One of the reasons the Ripper is the most famous serial killer of all time is precisely because of his incredibly distinctive MO that is simply not found anywhere. The very idea that there'd be multiple people like that running around in the same district, at the same time is an utter fantasy

      The very fact that they tried to find connections to the Ripper for any future victims who had their throat cut gives credence that it is very unlikely for Stride to have been a non-Ripper killing. MO is too specific, combined with the various coincidences on that night, it seems very unlikely she was a random victim, albeit it is possible with her.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Mortis View Post

        I do not think the torso killer/s were the work of the Ripper. The MO simply doesn't match. The Ripper also didn't care to decapitate or amputate limbs, his only goal was to mutilate. One of the reasons the Ripper is the most famous serial killer of all time is precisely because of his incredibly distinctive MO that is simply not found anywhere. The very idea that there'd be multiple people like that running around in the same district, at the same time is an utter fantasy

        The very fact that they tried to find connections to the Ripper for any future victims who had their throat cut gives credence that it is very unlikely for Stride to have been a non-Ripper killing. MO is too specific, combined with the various coincidences on that night, it seems very unlikely she was a random victim, albeit it is possible with her.

        It is always interesting to see strong support for the inclusion of Stride. Her case is often the fly in the ointment. I also feel that the bogus (?) Saucy Jacky postcard's mention of a double-event has helped to fuse Stride's murder to the c5. I think it's likely she was done in by Jack, but not a forgone conclusion.


        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Mortis View Post

          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.
          I didn't say 'make a clear distinction', I said he never described the 'recent' bruises in detail the way Llewellyn did, which would help to determine if they were due to being physically hit, or were they pressure marks - the same as with Nichols.
          You, are saying they were made by the killer, but you have nothing to support that claim.


          Yeah, but here's my problem with this theory. Nichols and Chapman were very big women. To incapacitate them would cause quite a ruckus...
          When using a cord, and from behind, it makes no difference how big the victim is. Pee-Wee Herman could bring down a gorilla with a cord from behind. A cord cuts off the air flow & the blood flow to the brain, at the same time, they collapse in seconds.


          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.
          "It's highly unlikely that Mary would have eaten in the early hours of the morning"?

          Why do you think food vendors were still open in the early hours?
          Hint....because people do eat at that hour, hunger is not limited to 9 till 5, in fact we/they will eat around the clock.
          One witness in the killing of McKenzie was on his way to McCarthy's for some supper at 1:00am, McCarthy's was open till 3:00am selling food.
          "Kelly not eating" at an early hour is an unsupportable argument.


          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?
          Prater didn't see Cox, and Cox didn't mention Prater, so it is quite reasonable to conclude their statements are not complete. As Prater was talking to Mrs McCarthy, and it was apparently raining outside, then Prater was likely inside McCarthy's shop while talking to Mrs McCarthy. Therefore, Prater would not see anyone enter or leave Millers Court - as she said was quite possible.
          McCarthy's shop door faced onto Dorset st. anyone inside the shop cannot see people enter or leave the court.
          And, Cox wouldn't see Prater, as was evident.
          That, in my view, is the likely solution.
          Prater didn't see Kelly & Blotchy leave Millers Court between 1:00-1:20am.
          Blotchy goes on his way, and Kelly goes to find something to eat. There was an all-night eatery in Thrawl street that sold fish.
          Perhaps Kelly didn't use McCarthy's because she had been hassled for the overdue rent?


          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.
          I'm not seeing what you think is suspicious about that, it seems quite normal to me.


          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.
          "Hail him from afar"?
          This was 2:00 in the morning, how far do you think you can see at that hour?
          The story reads to me like Astrachan made some kind of joking remark, as Hutchinson said, "they both burst out laughing".
          Does that sound like they are strangers?


          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.
          Yet, she was able to sing clearly enough. And it is known what the song was so her words cannot have been too garbled.
          Are you sure you are not trying too hard to dismiss Hutchinson's story, by choice?
          You just refuse to accept it?


          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.
          They charged more for a bed, as opposed to in a dark ally. I think that was the 'sixpence' mentioned by Hutchinson, as opposed to the normal 'fourpence' for a knee-trembler down some back ally.

          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.
          They don't earn much during daylight hours, their clientel are generally at work.
          McCarthy said the late morning is the best time to catch them in (asleep), as they are generally out all night.


          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.
          It was her parents house, she was "staying there", not visiting. Where does any report say she was "visiting"?
          Sarah Lewis says, "I visited a friend at Millers Court", Mrs Gallagher was not her friend, it was Kennedy who was her friend.
          Kennedy lived with her parents, but it was her parents home. As we are told, she had separated from her husband, so naturally she came home to stay with her parents for some time.


          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.
          Hutchinson makes no distinction between standing at the entrance to Millers Court, or standing on the opposite side of the street, thats all.
          As Lewis approached she saw him standing opposite, which must be the side of the road he walked along while Astrachan & Kelly walked along the northern side.
          Lewis saw him standing there as she noticed the couple ahead of her walk up the passage. Lewis followed, up the passage.
          Hutch says he walked up the court "to see if he could see them" (Astrachan & Kelly), "but could not".
          Where is the conflict?

          Hutchinson simply waited for Lewis to pass before he crossed the street to walk up the court himself.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Mortis View Post

            People understimate how hard choking someone out is.
            In current terminology 'choking someone out' means strangling someone until unconscious - people underestimate how easy that is to do.

            Chocking someone unconscious would take a lot longer, so it depends on precisely what you mean by 'choking someone out'

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Greenway View Post

              In current terminology 'choking someone out' means strangling someone until unconscious - people underestimate how easy that is to do.

              Chocking someone unconscious would take a lot longer, so it depends on precisely what you mean by 'choking someone out'
              Manuel: Que? - YouTube

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                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.
                We only 'know' what was written, we have no other sources. And, it was written that all the women brought men home. "All" is likely a reach too far, some were married, so we can at least take from Prater's words that 'those women who were available' - All - brought men home, or at least it was a frequent enough occurrence that it was taken to be normal practice.
                While Barnett lived with Kelly, we will assume Kelly was not available.
                However, when Barnett left her on the 30th, Kelly was able to bring men home with her as Prater indicated, and she could have done for about eight days straight.


                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.
                If you blindly choose to ignore TWO separate home addresses, TWO separate story 'details', & TWO separate arrival times, for the TWO separately named women.

                Even George Sims, writing at the time described them as TWO separate women.
                This idea that they were the same person is purely modern, and purely wrong.


                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.
                Why would he need a story?, I'm sure he was well aware of the Wideawake hat, he doesn't need to wait for it to appear in a newspaper story.


                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.
                What was the story he changed?

                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by DJA View Post
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKpQYwVJASQ

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiBG3CXr3vQ

                  Comment


                  • #99

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKr17h2nHbM

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Meet Ze Monster View Post


                      It is always interesting to see strong support for the inclusion of Stride. Her case is often the fly in the ointment. I also feel that the bogus (?) Saucy Jacky postcard's mention of a double-event has helped to fuse Stride's murder to the c5. I think it's likely she was done in by Jack, but not a forgone conclusion.

                      The card, that is most likely fake, is hardly relevant. What is way more relevant are the circumstances around her murder and the fact that within a walking distance a definitive Ripper killing occurs, on the same night, in almost precisely the time it would take to go from Dutfield's Yard to Mitre Square and chat a prostitute up. And we know that unlike the previous victim the Ripper wouldn't spent a lot of time with Eddowes because was released shortly after 01:00 AM and she'd be killed some 40 minutes later. Don't get me wrong, I myself am not sure on whether Stride is a Ripper killing or not, but it'd be hell of a coincidence if she is not.

                      Originally posted by Greenway View Post

                      In current terminology 'choking someone out' means strangling someone until unconscious - people underestimate how easy that is to do.

                      Chocking someone unconscious would take a lot longer, so it depends on precisely what you mean by 'choking someone out'
                      Well, I'd beg to differ on the difficulty. Furthermore, whether she was choked out till she fell unconscious or until the victim died would be quite problematic given where the victims were killed. And you gave a video of a UFC bout, but let's be honest - the Ripper was certainly not an MMA artist.

                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      I didn't say 'make a clear distinction', I said he never described the 'recent' bruises in detail the way Llewellyn did, which would help to determine if they were due to being physically hit, or were they pressure marks - the same as with Nichols.
                      You, are saying they were made by the killer, but you have nothing to support that claim.
                      Yes, he doesn't describe where the bruises came from, that much is true, but he makes a clear distinction from the bruises that were likely done to her in her fight and those that may have been to by her killer. He wouldn't need to make that distinction if it wasn't relevant. How an autopsy is described depends entirely on who does it. For example, the case about the medical knowledge and how different surgeons would say different things.

                      When using a cord, and from behind, it makes no difference how big the victim is. Pee-Wee Herman could bring down a gorilla with a cord from behind. A cord cuts off the air flow & the blood flow to the brain, at the same time, they collapse in seconds.
                      But a cord would leave quite a lot of marking that would be impossible to be ignore. We've seen this with Stride where the Ripper didn't even use anything to strangle her with, he just used the handkerchief to pull her head and slice her throat.

                      "It's highly unlikely that Mary would have eaten in the early hours of the morning"?

                      Why do you think food vendors were still open in the early hours?
                      Hint....because people do eat at that hour, hunger is not limited to 9 till 5, in fact we/they will eat around the clock.
                      One witness in the killing of McKenzie was on his way to McCarthy's for some supper at 1:00am, McCarthy's was open till 3:00am selling food.
                      "Kelly not eating" at an early hour is an unsupportable argument.
                      Nobody said it was "impossible", but it is unlikely. How many people you know eat in the early hours of the morning? Yeah, sometimes it might happen, but I think it's a good idea to deal with the more likely scenarios here rather than argue on what is possible like Michael does. For example, she spent some time drinking with Blotchy. People often eat when they drink. It would be logical to assume she ate with him before going back home.

                      Prater didn't see Cox, and Cox didn't mention Prater, so it is quite reasonable to conclude their statements are not complete. As Prater was talking to Mrs McCarthy, and it was apparently raining outside, then Prater was likely inside McCarthy's shop while talking to Mrs McCarthy. Therefore, Prater would not see anyone enter or leave Millers Court - as she said was quite possible.
                      McCarthy's shop door faced onto Dorset st. anyone inside the shop cannot see people enter or leave the court.
                      And, Cox wouldn't see Prater, as was evident.
                      That, in my view, is the likely solution.
                      Prater didn't see Kelly & Blotchy leave Millers Court between 1:00-1:20am.
                      Blotchy goes on his way, and Kelly goes to find something to eat. There was an all-night eatery in Thrawl street that sold fish.
                      Perhaps Kelly didn't use McCarthy's because she had been hassled for the overdue rent?
                      But the problem with Prater and Cox is that it can easily be explained. It'd be normal to presume that since they both went out at approximately the same time, they missed each other. Around 01:00 AM Cox was leaving to go find work while Prater was coming down from her room to wait for her husband. It would take only a few seconds for them to miss each other in this type of scenario. But afterwards we know Prater stayed around 20 minutes to half an hour waiting for her husband at the entrance. And she specifically mentions that towards the end she goes to speak to McCarthy before going back to her room. The whole point of her waiting her husband was for him to notice her and they can go home. How would her husband know she is in McCarthy's shop, for example? Yes, you're right, maybe they missed each other and Blotchy left with no-one noticing, but again we come down to the question of how likely this is? I do not think it is very much.

                      I'm not seeing what you think is suspicious about that, it seems quite normal to me.
                      How often do you see a guy in the middle of the night, out of nowhere, put a hand on a woman's shoulders and tell her a joke?


                      "Hail him from afar"?
                      This was 2:00 in the morning, how far do you think you can see at that hour?
                      The story reads to me like Astrachan made some kind of joking remark, as Hutchinson said, "they both burst out laughing".
                      Does that sound like they are strangers?
                      I don't know. Only Hutchinson, Kelly or Astrakhan (if he exists) would appear to know that. And as far as Kelly not being able to recognize him as a friend (Astrakhan, I mean). I doubt that. I can recognize the people I know easily at all hours.



                      Yet, she was able to sing clearly enough. And it is known what the song was so her words cannot have been too garbled.
                      Are you sure you are not trying too hard to dismiss Hutchinson's story, by choice?
                      You just refuse to accept it?
                      I knew you would counter with that. We do not know how clearly she sang. We know the song, but Cox didn't exactly give a detailed description if Kelly hit the notes. Suffice to say, she must have been drunk enough that even a passing greeting would give the impression she was drunk. I'm only dismissing Hutchinson's story because it doesn't fit with the evidence, there is zero evidence that he knew Kelly and because his description is very suspicious. He also appears to be a guy that would go out and look for fame and money. Not exactly the most trustworthy of sources, that's for sure.

                      They charged more for a bed, as opposed to in a dark ally. I think that was the 'sixpence' mentioned by Hutchinson, as opposed to the normal 'fourpence' for a knee-trembler down some back ally.
                      You may be right. As I said, I have little knowledge on prostitutes, especially those of 19th century.

                      They don't earn much during daylight hours, their clientel are generally at work.
                      McCarthy said the late morning is the best time to catch them in (asleep), as they are generally out all night.
                      Wouldn't late evening hours be the best time to catch clientel? They'd just be coming off from work, would have enough time to relax and then go home for the next day? Early hours in the morning would be too late for the majority of them to even get the slightest bit of sleep.

                      It was her parents house, she was "staying there", not visiting. Where does any report say she was "visiting"?
                      Sarah Lewis says, "I visited a friend at Millers Court", Mrs Gallagher was not her friend, it was Kennedy who was her friend.
                      Kennedy lived with her parents, but it was her parents home. As we are told, she had separated from her husband, so naturally she came home to stay with her parents for some time.
                      Where do you get that from? From what I've seen Kennedy is described as a "married woman". And as far as staying there, that could be interpreted both ways. For what purpose would the article read that "she was staying there on the night"? If she lived permanently with her parents, would "staying" even be mentioned, let alone her parents?




                      Hutchinson makes no distinction between standing at the entrance to Millers Court, or standing on the opposite side of the street, thats all.
                      As Lewis approached she saw him standing opposite, which must be the side of the road he walked along while Astrachan & Kelly walked along the northern side.
                      Lewis saw him standing there as she noticed the couple ahead of her walk up the passage. Lewis followed, up the passage.
                      Hutch says he walked up the court "to see if he could see them" (Astrachan & Kelly), "but could not".
                      Where is the conflict?

                      Hutchinson simply waited for Lewis to pass before he crossed the street to walk up the court himself.
                      It's not about where he is standing, but the fact that the couple Lewis sees would pass Hutchinson while he is looking for Kelly in the court because the man standing on Dorset street, observing the court would presumably be Hutchinson, but the couple of Lewis' testimony comes AFTER he is already looking at the court. And if the couple is some random couple with no relation to Kelly, then only a very small, insignificant part of what Hutchinson said is true.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mortis View Post
                        Well, I'd beg to differ on the difficulty. Furthermore, whether she was choked out till she fell unconscious or until the victim died would be quite problematic given where the victims were killed. And you gave a video of a UFC bout, but let's be honest - the Ripper was certainly not an MMA artist.
                        In the video above your post someone gets 'choked out' (or more properly 'rendered unconscious through strangulation') accidentally, in about 3 seconds - it looks very easy to do in the video.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

                          In the video above your post someone gets 'choked out' (or more properly 'rendered unconscious through strangulation') accidentally, in about 3 seconds - it looks very easy to do in the video.
                          Here's a 'real life' example from a standing position - the strangler is around the same height as the strangled, demonstrating that you don't need to be significantly taller to successfully strangle someone from a standing position:

                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c3WqDzQEvI

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mortis View Post

                            Yes, he doesn't describe where the bruises came from, that much is true, but he makes a clear distinction from the bruises that were likely done to her in her fight and those that may have been to by her killer. He wouldn't need to make that distinction if it wasn't relevant....
                            Phillips made the distinction that the bruises were of different ages, not that the younger bruises were made by the killer. He didn't suggest that, he didn't say that, he also didn't choose to describe the younger bruises as an indication of anything concerning the murder.
                            He didn't, because he couldn't.
                            Therefore, what we can deduce from that is those bruises did not form a pattern of finger marks indicative of restraint in any form.

                            The vertical scratches on her neck are another matter, possibly left by the killer as he grasped her neck some have thought.
                            However, more likely in my opinion made by Chapman herself in trying to grasp something very thin & tight wrapped around her throat.


                            But a cord would leave quite a lot of marking that would be impossible to be ignore.
                            One mark actually, a continuous line around most of her neck. Why else would this killer cut her neck with a circular sweep of the knife? It didn't achieve anything that we can see.


                            ...... For example, she spent some time drinking with Blotchy. People often eat when they drink. It would be logical to assume she ate with him before going back home.
                            Sure, but some would argue that if they carried food into the room Cox would have seen it, likely even smelled it, especially as it included fish, and Cox was walking behind down the passage.


                            How often do you see a guy in the middle of the night, out of nowhere, put a hand on a woman's shoulders and tell her a joke?
                            From my experience, at night people generally only speak if they do know each other. The very fact this occurred suggests he recognised her, then she him.


                            I don't know. Only Hutchinson, Kelly or Astrakhan (if he exists) would appear to know that. And as far as Kelly not being able to recognize him as a friend (Astrakhan, I mean). I doubt that. I can recognize the people I know easily at all hours.
                            Well of course, the streets at night today are considerably better lit than the sparsely gas-lit streets of the 19th century. Once you stepped out of the halo of light around the lamp, you're pretty much in semi-darkness.


                            I knew you would counter with that. We do not know how clearly she sang. We know the song, but Cox didn't exactly give a detailed description if Kelly hit the notes. Suffice to say, she must have been drunk enough that even a passing greeting would give the impression she was drunk....
                            Kelly apparently wasn't too drunk that she couldn't walk straight, and not too drunk ,as Cox said she (only?) noticed Kelly was drunk as she said good night, which tends to suggest it wasn't obvious.
                            In the Daily Telegraph we read: "I did not notice she was drunk until she said goodnight".
                            Which is at least consistent with Hutchinson's "spree'ish", not overly drunk but giggly/carefree.


                            I'm only dismissing Hutchinson's story because it doesn't fit with the evidence, there is zero evidence that he knew Kelly and because his description is very suspicious. He also appears to be a guy that would go out and look for fame and money. Not exactly the most trustworthy of sources, that's for sure.
                            Odd that, because it is precisely because his story does fit what little evidence we have that I do believe him.
                            Hutchinson was not in the position of having to prove his story, he was a witness. He said he had known her for 3? years, well, three year prior Kelly was living at 79 Pennington street, and Stephen Maywood also lived there (or next door), who was a horse dealer with stables at Romford.
                            Did Hutchinson, a horse-groomer, and connections to Romford, know Stephen Maywood three years ago?


                            Wouldn't late evening hours be the best time to catch clientel? They'd just be coming off from work, would have enough time to relax and then go home for the next day? Early hours in the morning would be too late for the majority of them to even get the slightest bit of sleep.
                            I'm going on McCarthy's own words.
                            I just noticed, earlier you wrote that you believed rents were paid daily? - it was McCarthy who told the inquest it was due weekly.


                            Where do you get that from? From what I've seen Kennedy is described as a "married woman". And as far as staying there, that could be interpreted both ways. For what purpose would the article read that "she was staying there on the night"? If she lived permanently with her parents, would "staying" even be mentioned, let alone her parents?
                            I used quotes from the press.
                            https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...l?printer=true
                            There we read that Kennedy was married, but was staying at her parents house.
                            Several generations; grandparents, parents, children, all occupied these dirty little hovels, in fact often they share just one room, it wasn't just two people.
                            We have no alternate address for Kennedy, and her husband is not mentioned, so, was he also living there, or perhaps they had a fight and Kennedy goes back to live with her parents for a few days - it's not like this is unknown.
                            It could be either, we simply don't know.
                            Not one report suggests she was "visiting", that was Lewis.


                            It's not about where he is standing, but the fact that the couple Lewis sees would pass Hutchinson while he is looking for Kelly in the court because the man standing on Dorset street, observing the court would presumably be Hutchinson, but the couple of Lewis' testimony comes AFTER he is already looking at the court. And if the couple is some random couple with no relation to Kelly, then only a very small, insignificant part of what Hutchinson said is true.
                            Lewis only noticed the man (Hutchinson?) as she reached the court herself.
                            As she says: "....when I went in the court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset street."
                            By then, the couple ahead of her had entered Millers Court. So, it cannot be argued that the couple must have passed the man - Lewis doesn't say where the man was before the couple enter Millers Court.

                            As Lewis is walking towards Millers Court, in one report she says "ahead", in another she says "further on", she saw a couple, they entered the court.
                            Only as she arrived at the court did she notice the man standing opposite.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Going slightly off topic. But I often wonder if MJK was pretending to be drunker than she actually was to make the punters more at ease. It always just seems odd that one minute she is very drunk, the next not so. I don't believe it would be possible to sober up that quickly. As she was likely an alcoholic I don't think this bit of acting is beyond the realm of possibility.
                              Best Regards,

                              Tristan

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                The id of Barnett was made by using her "air and eyes", only her "air" is visible while in her room. So his id was at the mortuary, which presumably would be after the "volte face" was completed, or with only her face exposed. One wonders why the person she had been the most intimate with wouldnt be given other less mutilated parts to look at also...like her hands, or feet. Intimate people would know the others features.

                                People have imagined they see features like an eye of Marys in the surviving photos, or make out her mouth clearly. But thats really not possible when Bond himself thought her face had been hacked beyond recognition.
                                Barnett was able to positively identify Kelly from the features mentioned, so there was no need to put him through any more by showing him her hands, feet or anything else.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X