Tweet
If Hutchinson has embellished the truth then doesn't Kelly's other client with the beer can resemble the description by Marshall with the Stride murder and a few more?
-
Bona fide canonical and then some. -
Hutchinson may have embellished his story, but the question is, did he see Mary Kelly on the streets about 2:00 am, or not?
And then there's Mrs Kennedy, about 3:00 am:
Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday.
Evening News, 10 Nov. 1888.
If Mary Kelly did go out after her liaison with Blotchy at midnight then Blotchy is in the clear, is he not?Regards, Jon S. -
Yes, it would seem MJK was with another client before she met JtR if Kennedy is correct in that she saw MJK with this man.
This man though is not like Hutchenson's description much.Bona fide canonical and then some.Comment
-
Good point Batman.Originally posted by Batman View Post
I am surprised how few people give credence to the blotchy faced man man seen entering Millers Court with Kelly by Mrs Cox.
I personally don't think that Kelly left Milers Court after her assignation with "blotchy".
A lot of the points relating to this were covered in an earlier post.
(link attached)
Comment
-
Holy stout ale batman,Originally posted by Batman View Post
Imagine stout was a common description:
"Richardson, who was described as tall, stout with dark brown hair and a brown moustache, and who spoke with a rather husky voice"Last edited by RockySullivan; 12-31-2014, 10:29 PM.Comment
-
Right, this would suggest Astrachan was not her killer.Originally posted by Batman View Post
Instead, we are presented with an unknown figure with a reputation for accosting women, and trying to entice them down dark alley's.
Not such a long shot for the Whitechapel murderer....Regards, Jon S.Comment
-
Who isn't Jewish.Bona fide canonical and then some.Comment
-
Does the killer need to be Jewish?Regards, Jon S.Comment
-
Its a tough call and an important one. Nearly all the lead investigators drew this conclusion. I think what happened was they postponed major leads after the house to house searches following the murder of Kelly. It appears that the killer and or his family where interviewed and likely came from a Jewish district. Some of the witness statements support a Jewish suspect. This is as good a reason as any for the murders ceasing.
However some evidence points directly away from a Jewish suspect.Bona fide canonical and then some.Comment
-
-
The evidence points towards Mary having remained in her room after arriving home at around 11:45pm, although, admittedly, its not conclusive. Marys condition, and her singing off and on for over an hour might be indicative of some fatigue by just after 1am.
The evidence given by Mary Ann Cox and Elizabeth Prater indicate that Mary was heard singing off and on until shortly after 1am, when she ceased singing and the lights were off. The room was in that condition when Elizabeth climbed the stairs on the other side of the partition wall, so, the room was quiet and dark when she was in the "tunnel" that led to the yard, some accounts mention her using McCarthys tuck shop window which was inside that tunnel, the door to 26 was also in the tunnel. The singing was heard by Cox until around 1:15....,meaning, the singing ceased and the light went dark at a point in time when Mary and anyone else leaving the room would have to exit through that same tunnel..yet no-one was seen or heard doing so.
Hutchinson becomes discredited according to all the reports, so, there is a high probability neither Mary nor Blotchy left before 1:30, when Elizabeth enters the house. Mary Ann Cox comes and goes a few more times, and the room doesn't change nor does she she Mary out on the street. We do have a report from Ms Lewis, who is in all probability the Mrs Kennedy mentioned earlier. Her statement reads; "I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house. I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock. When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court. I dozed in a chair at Mrs. Keyler's, and woke at about half- past three. I heard the clock strike".
This establishes a man watching the court at around 2:30, which suggests that the room was occupied at that time. Yet there is no indication that light was on in # 13 from Mary Cox, who finally returns again to her room a little after 3am. A woman whose testimony includes self incriminating details about her activities that night, which suggest her statement was not tailored in any way to disguise her own lifestyle.
The witness that testified to seeing Mary alive at the Inquest, Caroline Maxwell, was warned on the stand by the examiner that her evidence contradicts all the known, (and accepted), evidence.
So....there is some accepted evidence with statements that indicate Mary and Blotchy stayed in, not the opposite.
What you don't see in any of the above facts are any indications whatsoever that a man who was a stranger to Mary picked her up on the streets for sexual congress, either in her room or in an alley, and the evidence suggests that the assailant didn't enter later via the windows, both were found latched as well as the door.
Which makes Blotchy suspect #1 in this murder, and his fleeing a witness who identified him from the papers description a few days later makes his actions after the fact suspicious.
Which leads to a preliminary conclusion that Mary was likely murdered by Blotchy, and since we know he entered the room with Mary, he is no stranger to her.
Which is contrary to most peoples "understanding" of what Jack the Rippers MO was based on the previous kills...which is a mentally disturbed man who picks up strange women who are soliciting at the time and takes, or follows them, to a dark place to kill and disembowel them.
Since in this case, (Marys), its unlikely that MO applies, and since we don't know that Kate Eddowes and Liz Stride were in fact soliciting, I think it would be more realistic if we surmised that A Stoutish Man may have killed Mary than a Stout Man was JtR.
If more people considered the true parameters of the actual known physical and qualified circumstantial evidence in each individual Canonical murder, and stopped making broad assumptions to address any unknowns or questions, then it would be hard to continue using JtR as the scape goat for every violent act in the East End in 1888.
Maybe 2015 can be different, non?.......as my friend David might phrase it.
Happy New Years all.Comment
-
Mary had one small penny candle in her room. How much light would that cast to observers outside, especially with a coat hanging over the window? Anyone who's been caught in an electricity cutout at night for any reason could answer that. It would be a pinprick of light and might not be at all noticeable outside the room, especially if Mary just put it on the side table. It's hardly a pointer, in my opinion, as to whether she was in or out, especially if she hadn't lit a fire.Comment
-
Longue et dure, mon cher !Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostMaybe 2015 can be different, non?.......as my friend David might phrase it.
Happy New Years all.Comment
-
-
Was Kennedy discredited?Bona fide canonical and then some.Comment
Comment