Oh, murder!

[curious4]

Comfortable

"You will be comfortable". That indicates to me that Astrachan man may have planned to stay the night. Not something to a customer coming in for a quickie. Perhaps telling Mary that he needed somewhere to wait for an early train. "You will be all right for what I have told you". Sounds as though he was offering her extra money. A quickie (possibly) AND a place to wait. For anything. Mary falls asleep, A man sitting up and waiting. I believe Mary pulled the sheet over her face, instinctively trying to hide, having woken up to the sight of a knife-wielding maniac. She had what could have been a defence wound on her thumb. She cries out "murder" in shock. Astrachan man doesn't seem to have been a stranger to her and therefore someone she trusted. Strange that Hutchinson never mentions the man's voice or accent. Perhaps that was a detail the police deliberately kept to themselves.

Best wishes
C4

[Jon Guy]

I believe Jon that the items that were found in the ashes, or grate as its referred to, were found Friday afternoon, before they left the room. Abberline returned with some men Saturday morning to re-sieve them.

Do you have any reference for a search of the fire on the Friday, Mike ?

We do know Abberline was in a room upstairs in Millers Court interviewing all the residents and Barnett that afternoon.

[Abby Normal]

As for the cry out at around 3:45am, a few things we need to bear in mind;

The phrase was often used as an exclamation in that district, not as a cry for help.

No-one later claimed to be in that courtyard at that time of night. Only 1 courtyard occupant could not later claim that call.

Using both descriptions it seems logical that the voice did in fact originate in the courtyard.

Using the descriptions made by Prater it seems logical to assume that room 13was dark and quiet at that time, necessitating an earlier or later visible fire.

Since Prated stated she could hear when Mary "moved about" below her, likely due to the creaks rather than actual footsteps sounds, it is logical to assume that an attack that included a struggle initially did not commence immediately after the call of "oh-murder". Prater was awake and listening for a follow up to the "oh-murder", there was no other sound. Yet the physical evidence indicates some struggle.

How the killer entered the room is the key to this murder, was he invited in, or did he break in and get to Mary before she could scream bloody murder.

except they said that it sounded as if from a young woman and that it came from the direction of marys room. Prater didn't see any light in the room because mary was passed out by then and the large fire had not yet been lit because the killer hadn't started it yet.

How the killer entered the room isn't the key. she could have let him in-Blotchy or anyone else, or they could have snuck in while she was passed out-hutch or anyone else.

The key is that she was murdered in her own room and that erything else indicated she knew her attacker.

But please keep exploring other creative ideas-in other word fairy tales.

[Pierre]

except they said that it sounded as if from a young woman and that it came from the direction of marys room. Prater didn't see any light in the room because mary was passed out by then and the large fire had not yet been lit because the killer hadn't started it yet.

How the killer entered the room isn't the key. she could have let him in-Blotchy or anyone else, or they could have snuck in while she was passed out-hutch or anyone else.

The key is that she was murdered in her own room and that erything else indicated she knew her attacker.

But please keep exploring other creative ideas-in other word fairy tales.

Hi Abby,

I think your view of what could have happened in Millerīs Court that night might be rather representative for what most people seem to think happened.

And thatīs ok but it hasnīt solved the case yet.

But when you read the inquest for the murder on Kelly, isnīt there anything strange in this inquest?

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Do you have any reference for a search of the fire on the Friday, Mike ?

We do know Abberline was in a room upstairs in Millers Court interviewing all the residents and Barnett that afternoon.

I had a feeling you might ask that Jon.

From the Star on Nov 10th:

"The opinion is entertained by some of the Scotland-yard officers that the missing organ has been burnt in the fireplace in the murdered woman's room. There is a mass of ash and rubbish under the grate, among which are portions of a coat and hat; and the police intend EXAMINING THE ASHES with the assistance of Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, for the presence of any fatty matter, or any trace of burnt flesh. The whole of the rubbish, in fact, will be carefully sifted and scrutinised, because if the burnt coat should happen to be part of the murderer's clothing a clue of some sort, meagre enough, perhaps, but better than nothing at all, would be supplied."

The missing organ may have incited the sieving Jon, but it doesn't explain why they would need to sieve twice.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

except they said that it sounded as if from a young woman and that it came from the direction of marys room. Prater didn't see any light in the room because mary was passed out by then and the large fire had not yet been lit because the killer hadn't started it yet.

How the killer entered the room isn't the key. she could have let him in-Blotchy or anyone else, or they could have snuck in while she was passed out-hutch or anyone else.

The key is that she was murdered in her own room and that erything else indicated she knew her attacker.

But please keep exploring other creative ideas-in other word fairy tales.

Obviously you missed the obvious point here, how the killer entered the room is paramount, because if she let him in people like yourselves who espouse this as a Ripper victim/stranger kill, need to explain why he is now killing people known to him. People who espouse this as a random acquisition need to explain why he now is heading into small courtyards with 1 exit and a tunnel to look for women who are actively soliciting.....which was his MO on the C1 and C2 murders, and something unknown about the supposed 3rd and fourth.

You say everything else indicates he was known to her...which is false, it could just as easily have been a stranger encounter with a client. Something I don't buy, but it isn't off the table.

And please think your thoughts through from all sides before accusing anyone of stories from a fairy tale world. Since all you did was give an opinion...which with 2 dollars is worth a coffee.

[Jon Guy]

I had a feeling you might ask that Jon.

From the Star on Nov 10th:

"The opinion is entertained by some of the Scotland-yard officers that the missing organ has been burnt in the fireplace in the murdered woman's room. There is a mass of ash and rubbish under the grate, among which are portions of a coat and hat; and the police intend EXAMINING THE ASHES with the assistance of Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, for the presence of any fatty matter, or any trace of burnt flesh. The whole of the rubbish, in fact, will be carefully sifted and scrutinised, because if the burnt coat should happen to be part of the murderer's clothing a clue of some sort, meagre enough, perhaps, but better than nothing at all, would be supplied."

The missing organ may have incited the sieving Jon, but it doesn't explain why they would need to sieve twice.

Many thanks for the reference, Mike, appreciated...however, wasn`t the Star an evening paper, so the Star of the 10th (Sat) could be referring to the search made after the post mortem ?

[Robert St Devil]

This post is in response to posts on this thread about sound location. If Lewis and Prater heard the sound coming from the courtyard, could May have been attacked in the courtyard?

Since Lewis heard the words more distinctly (ie "loudly") and she was in Room 1, could the noise have been coming froman area outside but close to her door?

Hello Pierre. I am still weighing my answer, connsidering the killer does want the murders to be discovered.

[Abby Normal]

Obviously you missed the obvious point here, how the killer entered the room is paramount, because if she let him in people like yourselves who espouse this as a Ripper victim/stranger kill, need to explain why he is now killing people known to him. People who espouse this as a random acquisition need to explain why he now is heading into small courtyards with 1 exit and a tunnel to look for women who are actively soliciting.....which was his MO on the C1 and C2 murders, and something unknown about the supposed 3rd and fourth.

You say everything else indicates he was known to her...which is false, it could just as easily have been a stranger encounter with a client. Something I don't buy, but it isn't off the table.

And please think your thoughts through from all sides before accusing anyone of stories from a fairy tale world. Since all you did was give an opinion...which with 2 dollars is worth a coffee.

Obviously you missed the obvious point here, how the killer entered the room is paramount

No I didn't miss the point. you did. But Ill explain again. How they entered the room is irrelevant concerning whether or not they knew her. Known or unknown they could have knocked on her door and or snuck in. she may have opened her door either way, or if she was passed out they could have snuck in. But their are many other indicators that they knew each other-not having to do with how the killer got in.

because if she let him in people like yourselves who espouse this as a Ripper victim/stranger kill, need to explain why he is now killing people known to him.

The only thing im espousing is that it was a ripper killing and that they were probably known to each other. "Why he is now killing people known to him"?
How do we know he didn't know in some way the other victims. I don't think he did but since he was more than likely a local pub going Joe he might have been familiar to the earlier victims to some extent.
In marys case the simple explanation is she was unlucky to know someone who was a serial killer.
Also, there were many men who we know their names surrounding her that have been brought up as valid suspects who we also know that they knew each other-Flemming, Barnett, Hutch, Bowyer, possibly Blotchy.

Since mary was young attractive and social, and we already know she knew a lot of named men, in all likelihood she knew a lot of other men that we havnt heard about-men she met when out and about at the pubs, possibly previous clients.

She was just was unlucky enough to know one who was the ripper. Simple as that-no need for far fetched theories.

You say everything else indicates he was known to her...which is false, it could just as easily have been a stranger encounter with a client.

It could have been a stranger encounter but I doubt it. Flemming, hutch, Bowyer, mcCarthey,-all known to her. Then if not them then perhaps it was Blotchy and their is a lot of indications she knew him and had no intentions of going out again that night:
She was very comfortable with him
brought him back to her place
singing to him
Drinking and eating together
warm fire
cold rainy night

So most of what we know is that she knew the men who could have killed her and the circumstances around that night show she was probably not going out again that night even if Blotchy was her killer.

And please think your thoughts through from all sides before accusing anyone of stories from a fairy tale world. Since all you did was give an opinion...which with 2 dollars is worth a coffee.

Oh I have thought it through many times from all sides. I even do you the courtesy of reading through your entire posts to try to understand them and respond accordingly. something which you obviously don't do in return.

And yes I did give my opinion-one based on the evidence and with analysis and rational reasoning. with the simple and most likely explanation.

Not some far fetched pre-conceived theory that with 2 dollars would buy you a cup of bullshit.

[Michael W Richards]

No abbynormal......known and unknown could NOT gain access equally...that's exactly why I said what I said. Mary rented the room in her own name. There is no record of her EVER bringing clients into that room. Therefore, someone that knocks who is unknown to her would likely have received a "piss off" rather than an invite in. To suggest that she would accept anyone in her home at 3:45am is ludicrous, and defies the known evidence...such as Marys fear of strangers killing women out soliciting at night.

And read that last line again. OUT SOLICITING at NIGHT...not sleeping in their underwear in a bed that they rent by the week.

People like you who change the profile of the killer every time a new killing happened that was out of character with previous murders is one reason why this study stagnates. If people would accept what is there and base any proposed scenario on that which is known and accepted then we might actually get somewhere.

But of course youre not tasked with the solving of any so-called Ripper cases, and no-one would pay for the opinions you give, nor are you bound to use only accepted evidence, so play on.

[Michael W Richards]

This post is in response to posts on this thread about sound location. If Lewis and Prater heard the sound coming from the courtyard, could May have been attacked in the courtyard?

Since Lewis heard the words more distinctly (ie "loudly") and she was in Room 1, could the noise have been coming froman area outside but close to her door?

Hello Pierre. I am still weighing my answer, connsidering the killer does want the murders to be discovered.

Robert,

If Mary was attacked outside her room then it was without a knife being used and without any sounds...so, highly unlikely. She was first attacked with the knife while in bed facing the partition wall.

If you know the courtyard layout then you know it was about 10 feet wide and not very long...so any sound might sound like it was close to her room. Or any room. Sarah said it was "as if at her door", which to me, narrows down where the sound actually came from.

[Abby Normal]

No abbynormal......known and unknown could NOT gain access equally...that's exactly why I said what I said. Mary rented the room in her own name. There is no record of her EVER bringing clients into that room. Therefore, someone that knocks who is unknown to her would likely have received a "piss off" rather than an invite in. To suggest that she would accept anyone in her home at 3:45am is ludicrous, and defies the known evidence...such as Marys fear of strangers killing women out soliciting at night.

And read that last line again. OUT SOLICITING at NIGHT...not sleeping in their underwear in a bed that they rent by the week.

People like you who change the profile of the killer every time a new killing happened that was out of character with previous murders is one reason why this study stagnates. If people would accept what is there and base any proposed scenario on that which is known and accepted then we might actually get somewhere.

But of course youre not tasked with the solving of any so-called Ripper cases, and no-one would pay for the opinions you give, nor are you bound to use only accepted evidence, so play on.

you are too busy preoccupied with your own preconceived fairy tales to even understand anything I said in my post, let alone respond in a rational manner, that trying to exchange with you is pointless.

B]People like you who change the profile of the killer every time a new killing happened that was out of character with previous murders is one reason why this study stagnates. [/B]

case in point. Good grief.

say hi to the unicorns for me.

[Michael W Richards]

you are too busy preoccupied with your own preconceived fairy tales to even understand anything I said in my post, let alone respond in a rational manner, that trying to exchange with you is pointless.

case in point. Good grief.

say hi to the unicorns for me.

All killers are not alike, nor are the kills within the Canonical Group. But group them for your own pleasure.

The Assumption Squad doesn't like it when reality pokes its head in.

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre. I am still weighing my answer, connsidering the killer does want the murders to be discovered.

Hello Robert,

Great! Looking forward to your answer.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;361302]As for the cry out at around 3:45am, a few things we need to bear in mind;

The phrase was often used as an exclamation in that district, not as a cry for help.

So if it wasnīt a cry for help - what might it have been?

No-one later claimed to be in that courtyard at that time of night. Only 1 courtyard occupant could not later claim that call.

But if they were there and didnīt claim to be, what could the reason for that have been?

Using both descriptions it seems logical that the voice did in fact originate in the courtyard.

We canīt listen to sounds from the past.

Using the descriptions made by Prater it seems logical to assume that room 13was dark and quiet at that time, necessitating an earlier or later visible fire.

This is a very important question. We can assume that the fire was burning when the killer was in the room. So when could that have been?

Prater said:

"I should have seen a glimmer of light in going up the stairs if there had been a light in deceased's room, but I noticed none...

I went to bed at half-past one and barricaded the door with two tables. I fell asleep directly and slept soundly.

A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four.

I went asleep, and was awake again at five a.m. I passed down the stairs, and saw some men harnessing horses."

Donīt you think this leaves us with a space of three hours, from 1.30 to 4.30, where the killer could have murderer Kelly, lit the fire and performed the mutilations?

And if you think so, then we do have a problem with the hypothesis of the victim screaming "Oh, murder!" at 3.30/3.45, donīt we?


Regards Pierre