Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Mary know her killer?

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

  • #76
    Before midnight seems early for a girl like MK
    If she was passed out someone breaking in the window might not wake her

    Comment


    • #77
      After coming home drunk and drinking up a portion of Blotchy's Ale tank, I think even she could have slept through a racket in her room. At best mumble something or in a body's last ditch effort to survive cry murder.
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • #78
        Hi batboy, Was mary a pretty seasoned drinker? What do you make of Maxwell seeing MK throwing up in the am?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
          Hi batboy, Was mary a pretty seasoned drinker? What do you make of Maxwell seeing MK throwing up in the am?
          Maxwell, like Kennedy, like Hutchinson, like Paker is just yet another of many attention seekers who contribute nothing and can't be corroborated by anybody else, of which the Whitechapel investigators had hoards to deal with.

          The fact is Mary could only be identified by her eyes and ears by Barnett because her face was so destroyed that it appears no other identification was made so we are just accepting these witnesses know who they are talking about. Maxwell might have been talking about someone else.
          Bona fide canonical and then some.

          Comment


          • #80
            Not only did mary not venture out again after blotchy, she was never planning to.

            And she knew her killer.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Batman View Post
              Maxwell, like Kennedy, like Hutchinson, like Paker is just yet another of many attention seekers who contribute nothing and can't be corroborated by anybody else, of which the Whitechapel investigators had hoards to deal with.

              The fact is Mary could only be identified by her eyes and ears by Barnett because her face was so destroyed that it appears no other identification was made so we are just accepting these witnesses know who they are talking about. Maxwell might have been talking about someone else.
              good point and agree.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                Considering that there is no evidence that the killer entered the room from any other access point than the door, and that we hear of a cry from the "courtyard" that 2 people hear at 3:45 that is claimed by no living person, and since Mary is attacked while on the right side of the bed...on her right side... facing the wall, ..I would think that its almost a certainty that the killer was granted access to the room.

                Making him a known person to Mary.

                The only possible other access via the door is one that pre-supposes that the killer could open the door, walk across creaky floorboards that Mrs Prater stated allowed her to hear whenever Mary moved about in the room, sneak up onto the bed behind Mary, before she wakes,...and that possibility doesn't address who called out at 3:45 from the court. The windows are a non starter, I don't imagine that anyone could have seen the opportunity to open the door via the latch at almost 4am, Barnett seems to have an accepted alibi,..and even if they figured out the window method you still have the issue of egress without waking Mary. The call, as we know, didn't come from her room specifically...and the witness in the courtyard heard it "as if at her door", while Mrs Prater heard it "as if from the court". Which substantiates a person calling out from her room in the courtyard via the open door.

                The safe money is on a scenario that the killer was either granted access to the room with her at 11:45, or she later granted him access.

                Cheers
                Just because she granted some person access to her room does not automatically mean the killer was known to her. It's Certianly a possibility but far from a drawn out conclusion.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by elleryqueen74 View Post
                  Just because she granted some person access to her room does not automatically mean the killer was known to her. It's Certianly a possibility but far from a drawn out conclusion.
                  Especially for a prostitute.
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Hello Michael,

                    But the question is known to her in what way? As GUT points out, prostitutes routinely go off to dark places and have sex with someone they just met. So "knowing" in this case always has to be qualified from that perspective.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      I forgot to add that opening the door to someone she barely knew or even a stranger is not at all far fetched and would be in keeping with what prostitutes had to resort to to make a living.

                      c.d.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Batman View Post
                        Maxwell, like Kennedy, like Hutchinson, like Paker is just yet another of many attention seekers who contribute nothing and can't be corroborated by anybody else, of which the Whitechapel investigators had hoards to deal with.
                        Uncorroborated stories?, you can add Cox to that list.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Maurice Lewis sees Mary Kelly in the morning as well as Maxwell. Doesn't that mean it's somewhat corroborated?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            Considering that there is no evidence that the killer entered the room from any other access point than the door, and that we hear of a cry from the "courtyard" that 2 people hear at 3:45 that is claimed by no living person, and since Mary is attacked while on the right side of the bed...on her right side... facing the wall, ..I would think that its almost a certainty that the killer was granted access to the room.

                            Making him a known person to Mary.
                            Cheers
                            I let an absolute stranger wander about my house for about 5 minutes because I assumed it was my fiance coming home. He had been on second shift, so he was getting home at about one, so I just went back to sleep when I heard the door open. It took me a few minutes to realize that my fiance was two feet away from me in bed to realize my error. He had gotten off second shift a week earlier. I had to usher my drunk neighbor out of our bathroom back to his home.

                            Weird things happen, for lack of a better phrase. Sure, it makes sense that the reason she wouldn't react to the killer's entrance is because she knew him. It's just not the only reason. Carelessness, habit, and booze are also all powerful factors in letting a stranger wander around your room.
                            The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Errata View Post
                              I let an absolute stranger wander about my house for about 5 minutes because I assumed it was my fiance coming home. He had been on second shift, so he was getting home at about one, so I just went back to sleep when I heard the door open. It took me a few minutes to realize that my fiance was two feet away from me in bed to realize my error. He had gotten off second shift a week earlier. I had to usher my drunk neighbor out of our bathroom back to his home.

                              Weird things happen, for lack of a better phrase. Sure, it makes sense that the reason she wouldn't react to the killer's entrance is because she knew him. It's just not the only reason. Carelessness, habit, and booze are also all powerful factors in letting a stranger wander around your room.
                              Or even a really sound sleeper, I had an Uncle and one year we let a twopenny banger [really loud firework] off under his bedroom window, he slept right through.
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Robert View Post
                                Could you expand, Errata?
                                The pose, the facial injuries, the missing heart... if you were writing a screenplay for a horror movie about an insane stalker, Mary Kelly is exactly what the murder would look like, adding only obsessive scrawling on the walls and possible a hanged culprit in the corner. Kelly's murder is different than the others, and it's about the tone and potential message sent. It feels targeted. Which doesn't mean Kelly was killed by someone else necessarily, but I think it does mean she was killed for a different reason. I mean, this guy could have sold her buttons a few times and that was enough for him to decide they were destined to be together. He didn't have to actually know her. Most stalkers don't know their victims. They make up a story. And Kelly's killer could have had some little lost girl who just needed a kind man to take her away from the squalor of her life thing going on. Pretty common fantasy. She breaks the fantasy and he kills her. It's personal because he thought he knew her. She failed him. Rationally you can't fail someone you don't know. Tell a stalker that, though.

                                It feels personal. That doesn't mean actual knowledge of each other. It means he saw her at some point and got insanely attached. He thought they were soulmates. Sure, it was because she smiled at him when he dropped his paper across the street from her, but for him it was enough.
                                The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X