A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Steve S]

I like "Giggly".......

[Wickerman]

Hi,
Giggly perhaps?
A good description, and rather in line with Hutchinson's account, but that is taboo on Casebook , as it was all invented
Regards Richard.

Its safe to go back in the water richard, ...that taboo is broken.


Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Kelly was perfectly capable of being "blind drunk" without staggering. Drink affects different people in different ways after all. Mary Cox reported that Kelly was barely capable of bidding her a simple goodnight, which would indicate a fairly advanced state of intoxication, and it appears she had yet to consume more booze from Blotchy's ale pale at that stage.

If "that taboo is broken" is intended to imply that there has been a recent trend towards accepting Hutchinson's account, I'm afraid that's a complete fantasy, and the reverse is far nearer the mark.

[Michael W Richards]

Kelly was perfectly capable of being "blind drunk" without staggering. Drink affects different people in different ways after all. Mary Cox reported that Kelly was barely capable of bidding her a simple goodnight, which would indicate a fairly advanced state of intoxication, and it appears she had yet to consume more booze from Blotchy's ale pale at that stage.

If "that taboo is broken" is intended to imply that there has been a recent trend towards accepting Hutchinson's account, I'm afraid that's a complete fantasy, and the reverse is far nearer the mark.

From your fingertips to God's eyes Ben,... we can hope weve progressed far enough with these discussions to dispel some myths.

Cheers mate

[Bridewell]

If "that taboo is broken" is intended to imply that there has been a recent trend towards accepting Hutchinson's account, I'm afraid that's a complete fantasy, and the reverse is far nearer the mark.

There are two possibilities:

(1) Hutchinson was telling the truth
(2) Hutchinson was lying in whole or in part.

If anyone has proof of the matter one way or the other I'd be delighted to see it. Until then, all there is - for or against the veracity of Hutchinson - is opinion.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have mentioned many times over the years, that we have only one name put forward for the witness Hutchinson,by a member of his family, that being George WilliamTopping Hutchison aged 22 years, I month in Nov 1888.
For reasons of human nature , and a tendency to mistrust anything we can't understand, we have crucified this witness for many years now, labelling him as a mugger, stalker, pimp. liar, and even a killer.
I will not repeat all my case, as it irritates many, but for the life of me, fail to understand why Hutchinson's statement cannot be taken at face value, right down to the colour of the Handkerchief .
I consider this witness to have been taken very seriously by the police, and not dismissed as quickly as many accept .
Remember the payment ..I bet my bottom dollar it did exist, and he earned every penny, even though nothing materialised .
Proof .. no one can claim that, but the gossip sheet Wheeling does Toppings tale no harm..
Regards Richard.

[Bridewell]

Hi Richard,

Quite. Hutchinson is accorded the status of a proven liar on the back of no proof whatsoever. He may have been lying - but he may not.

We should probably return to the Mary Kelly access thing now though!

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

I have mentioned many times over the years, that we have only one name put forward for the witness Hutchinson,by a member of his family, that being George WilliamTopping Hutchison aged 22 years, I month in Nov 1888.

He most certainly isn't the "only one name put forward for the witness". He's just one candidate, and he just happens to be a particularly bad one, appearing as he did for the first time in the much ridiculed and much discredited "Ripper and the Royals". His handwriting also failed to match that of the real witness, according to the only document examiner to have studied the originals.

But it would be painful to go through all that Toppy business again, as I'm sure you'll agree!

I will not repeat all my case, as it irritates many, but for the life of me, fail to understand why Hutchinson's statement cannot be taken at face value, right down to the colour of the Handkerchief.

But with respect Richard, the above isn't an argument; it's merely a plea to accept the statement uncritically and for no good reason. There are very good reasons for not accepting the statement at "face value", and they have been discussed extensively on threads innumerable.

I consider this witness to have been taken very seriously by the police, and not dismissed as quickly as many accept.

But it was dismissed quickly. That is what all the evidence points to. You can argue that the police were wrong to dismiss it (if you really want to), but there's no disputing that it happened.

Remember the payment ..I bet my bottom dollar it did exist

I'll see your bottom dollar and raise you all my wordly possessions, Richard. There is no evidence that any substantial "payment" occurred (expenses are another matter), and every indication that it never happened.

but the gossip sheet Wheeling does Toppings tale no harm..

It does it no help either. It's a stand-alone piece of obvious nonsense, a bit like the claim in the same article that Barnett was "roaring drunk" at the inquest.

Finally, yes, it is "possible" that Hutchinson told the truth with some embellishments, but surely we're interested in separating the likely from the unlikely. It's "possible" that Packer and Violenia were both truthful too, but...

Anyway, I don't want another off-topic Hutchinson debate. I was only responding to the suggestion that there was some widespread anti-Hutchinson "taboo" that has somehow been broken.

Meanwhile, back on topic...

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Gary: Logistics here. The windows were found locked. Unless the man knew about the broken pane and latch on the door, he would have had to have found the door unlocked and latched when he arrives.

Perhaps, Mike.

As soon as the door opens the light from the gaslamp on the opposite wall spills in …

Only assuming that the light was still on when he entered the room, Mike.

… then he has to make his way across creaky floorboards that apparently Liz could hear upstairs at times.

Only when she was ascending the staircase. The evidence would appear to indicate that Mrs Prater’s room was at the front of the building, not as is frequently assumed directly above Kelly’s. Likewise, Kelly was near-incoherently drunk on the night in question, so there’s no guarantee that she would have heard her killer entering the room even if he was the clumsiest burglar in the annals of British crime.

Add to that someone called out at 3:45am and from that courtyard.

Had the call emanated from the courtyard itself, Mike, the likelihood is that all of the court’s residents and visitors would have heard it. Since they didn’t, my guess is that the call originated from Kelly’s room and escaped into the court via the broken window panes.

The only way a woman in her undies makes a call that sounds from the courtyard is by doing so at her open door.

Not if the broken window panes are duly considered, Mike.

As to the sleeping position, its the fact that she is on the far right of the bed while doing so that makes me suggest she was expecting someone to slip in behind her.

But we know that Kelly spent a period of time in the room with Blotchy. The most plausible solution to Kelly’s position on the bed, at least to my mind, is that Kelly and Blotchy got into bed together at about 1:30am. If Blotchy went off to work or back to his wife at some point thereafter, Kelly would have been left alone in the bed and positioned close to the partition wall. As it happens, we have no evidence that anyone called on Kelly in the small hours. No-one heard a knock on the door, and no-one overheard Kelly in conversation with any such caller. This being the case, the overwhelming probability is that Kelly was either killed by Blotchy or by someone who let himself into her room whilst she was sleeping. For what it’s worth, my money is on the latter.

[Garry Wroe]

Kelly had been, until a couple of weeks previously, in a relationship with Barnett. Whoever killed her must have been reasonably confident that someone wasn't going to walk into the room whilst he was at work.

Agreed, Colin.

Whoever killed Kelly, in my view, knew that she was single and not expecting the return of a husband/boyfriend.

Agreed again, Colin. I also think it likely that he refrained from killing Kelly until he was absolutely sure that no unwelcome visitor would happen on the scene and disturb him in the act.

Kelly was killed by someone who knew her.

The alternative, Colin, is that Jack the Ripper, intent on committing an indoor crime, tried the door of every prostitute in Spitalfields and, as luck would have it, just happened to find one of the few who lived alone. This is preposterous to my way of thinking. Overwhelmingly, therefore, the probability is that Mary Jane was deliberately targeted by her killer, selected as a potential victim at least days in advance of the actual crime. And this of course is strongly suggestive of a pre-existing relationship between Kelly and her murderer.

[Bridewell]

Access to Kelly:

Someone opened the door. The possibilities I can think of are:

(1) Kelly opened the door to someone she knew - and let him in.

(2) Kelly opened the door to someone she didn't know - and let him in.

(3) Kelly opened the door to someone she didn't know - and the killer forced his way in.

(4) Kelly left the door unlocked

(5) The killer had a key

(6) The killer knew how to open the door without a key

Bearing in mind that a man was killing and mutilating prostitutes in the area, (2) & (4) seem highly unlikely. (3) is possible but improbable because someone unknown to Kelly probably didn't know her well enough to be sure that there wasn't someone else in the room. (1) & (5) clearly indicate someone she knew. (6) indicates either someone she knew or, at the very least, someone who had visited the room before.

For me, on the balance of probabilities, Kelly knew her killer.

[Sally]

Hi Colin

Regarding (5) and (6), which I consider to be most plausible.

So far as we know, the key was never recovered - where did it go? Was it simply lost? Or did somebody take it? Perhaps the killer had the key.

Alternatively, perhaps the killer let himself in by reaching through the broken window.

In either case, the scenario suggests not merely a person who was known to Kelly, but one with whom she was on fairly intimate terms. He (I think we can fairly safely assume a 'he') would have had to know where she lived - it seems quite likely that he may have visited the premises before - and almost certainly he himself lived in close proximity.

Oh dear...If I'm not careful, I'll be talking myself into suspecting Barnett!

[Bridewell]

In either case, the scenario suggests not merely a person who was known to Kelly, but one with whom she was on fairly intimate terms. He (I think we can fairly safely assume a 'he') would have had to know where she lived - it seems quite likely that he may have visited the premises before - and almost certainly he himself lived in close proximity.

Oh dear...If I'm not careful, I'll be talking myself into suspecting Barnett!

Hi Sally,

I think it would be very,very difficult for Barnett (if he had not killed before) to have inflicted that horrendous catalogue of injuries on MJK. He would surely have had - at the very least - a previous history of violence. Therefore, for me, either Barnett had killed before or he didn't kill MJK.

and almost certainly he himself lived in close proximity.

or had a place of refuge nearby where he could clean himself up before re-emerging.

[Sally]

Hi Colin

I think it would be very,very difficult for Barnett (if he had not killed before) to have inflicted that horrendous catalogue of injuries on MJK. He would surely have had - at the very least - a previous history of violence. Therefore, for me, either Barnett had killed before or he didn't kill MJK.

Well indeed - that's one of the problems I have with viewing him as a suspect - and the other thing of course is that he apparently lived a stable and ordinary life until he died - entirely sans violent murder. No, it's just that I suddenly caught a glimpse of why people sometimes do suspect him.

or had a place of refuge nearby where he could clean himself up before re-emerging

Yes, that was what I meant by 'proximity' really. I'm envisioning a man local to those streets nearby - which doesn't really narrow it down much!

[Garry Wroe]

If, as I have long suspected, the Kelly murder was premeditated (and not committed by Blotchy), the killer wouldn't simply have bumbled into the room trusting that Kelly was alone and asleep. He would have first listened at and then looked through the window to ensure that the coast was clear. From there it would have been a simple matter to disengage the bolt and let himself into the room. Assuming that this was what happened, it would appear likely that the killer had a history of burglary and similar such offences.