| Author |
Message |
    
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 7:09 pm: |       |
Hi Glenn /Jon
Having just checked that you're right!'
NOW THE 'CERTAIN INTIMACY' HAS A 'CERTAIN CHARM about it,,,but does anyone know where the said Mr Flemming resided during the brief but 'interesting' time that Mary shared that room with Barnett? From where and whence he came for his 'visits' may be handy to find out! (if near impossible!)...
Cheers Suzi
 |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 76
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Hi, Everyone--
I just want to throw something else in here. I've always wondered why McCarthy let Mary get so far behind in her rent. Was it out of the goodness of his heart? There's the possibility that he was "taking it out in trade".
In the thread "looked at it forever but WHAT IS THAT?" about the MJK picture, Richard Brian Nunweek speculates that Kelly was partially undressed (in the process of getting undressed) when she was attacked. If this was true then it substantially lowers the odds of Kelly being a Ripper victim in my opinion. On the one hand, Jack may have figured"Hey, why go to the bother of cutting her clothes off when she can do it for me?" on the other, seeing women naked wasn't really his thing. Of course, she may have been in the process of getting dressed again after an encounter, which open up even more cans of worms.
Sorry, Malcolm, but Jack having sex with her first just doesn't wash psychologically.
Mags |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hi Maria,
Mary Kelly was paronoid with fear, about encountering 'Jack' she would never have taken a man back to her room that appeared to be dodgy, she refused to go out unaccompanied towards the end, even took women in for sleep overs.
To put herself in a helpless condition alone with a man, who if he was the ripper, must have acted in an excitable manner, would be out of character with someone so paronoid, even if induced by a few gins.
Logicaly whoever killed Kelly was known to her, and was not considered by her to be a threat, and I truely believe that she was enticed back into bed in the morning [ daylight hours[ then atacked as soon as she was clothed for bed, regardless of one stocking on / one off, as it would be then as if kelly was killed during sleeping hours.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2145
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
For once I have to agree with Richard.
I think it is very likely that Mary Kelly's killer was someone she knew and the crime scene does suggest and support it.
If she was killed by the Ripper -- which I seriously doubt -- I can see him entering the room without her knowledge (like surprising her in her sleep) as the only credible solution. The Ripper was most certainly not a man who, as Maria also points out, did wait for his victims to undress. It doesne't fit the personality of the man who killed the other women.
Still, this doesen't solve other problems that I find worth considering.
The most reasonable suggestion is that she at least was killed by someone she knew and trusted. The only difference is, that Richard believes that this man also was the Ripper.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 5:39 pm: | |
Richard,I dont really think you can say Mary would NEVER have put herself in harms way during the ripper scare.Mary was seen taking a man back to her room that night [the one with the blotchy face and frightful moustache].She was said to have been barely able to say "goodnight"she was so awash with whatever it was she had been drinking.This condition alone would have greatly lessened any normal fears she may have had and greatly increased the likelihood of her taking good care of herself.And this appears to have been the case with all five canonical victims as well as Martha Tabram.
A man we as yet no nothing of[as well as at least two we do know of-Joseph Barnett and Mr Carroty Moustache]could have let themselves back in after leaving her because they would have known how to get in.So would anyone she had picked up on any previous night[s].Who is to say otherwise when she did this for her living and was in need of the money?
Best Wishes Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2146
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 7:53 pm: | |
Just for clarification:
I don't agree with Richard regarding Mary Kelly being afraid of putting herself in a helpless position as a prostitute. As Natalie states, she was seen with a customer that night (Mr Blotchy Face), which she took home, so I think she was just as desperate and careless as the other women in that respect.
The main reason for her inviting other women to live with her, was -- as I see it -- probably for economic reasons, at least partly.
But I'd still say it is very likely that she was murdered by someone she knew.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 58
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 10:41 pm: | |
"But I'd still say it is very likely that she was murdered by someone she knew. -Glenn, above
Glenn, how about a stranger that offered her a chunk of change that she normally would not recieve for her services? Maybe a non-threatening stranger, based on normal assumptions of "class" and the perception that someone with the veneer of sophistication that comes with "class",unlike the rank and file proles of Whitechapel, more likely than not did not possess ?
Haven't had a beer with you for a while....Skoal ! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2147
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 12:18 am: | |
Skål, Howard! 
Naah, nothing can be ruled out, of course, but I can only repeat Mr Smyth's words: "I think the deathbed evidence suggests a certain intimacy between Kelly and her killer which is not reflected elsewhere in the previous Ripper murders."
I agree with this; I as I see it her murderer may possibly not have been a stranger to her -- I am not just referring to the dangerous position she and others were in, but the fact that the crime itself bears some marks of emotional connection to the victim. Can't put my finger on anything specific; it's just a hunch based on what the crime scene tells me.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 3:16 am: | |
Hi,
It was reported at the time that Mary Kelly never took strangers back to her room at least once it became obvious there was a maniac on the loose, her regular clients before the scare were sailors.
It would also appear that the reason she took women back to her room to stay with her was fear.
Lotties version of kellys nightmare would have been a obvious reason.
Whoever Mr Blotchy face was , he clearly was not her killer, proberly some pal from her late night drinking establisments.
what intriques me is Hutchinsons man, who was dressed in such suspiscious attire, and yet the nervous and paronoid Kelly had no fear in allowing herself to be accosted by him , and even invited him back to her secluded room.
Whoever this man was he was not at all menacing to either Kelly or the nosey Hutchinson[ as he stated].
Clearly Mary either knew of these people, and trusted them, mayby she had serviced them several times during the murders, and had the attitude, if they were the killer i would have been done by now.
Which logically speaking would have been the case.
It has always been stressed that Kelly was in dire straights financially , yet she had been on a bender for several days, and found enough money to service that routine.
Taking everything into consideration, and the mutalations, i would feel confident that her killer was known to her, and she was taken completely by surprise. in my opinion the missing heart is a huge clue to the state of mind of the killer, it shows emmotional turmoil.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 8:31 am: | |
Hi all
Maria- I agree the prospect of 'Jack' having sex with Mary prior to the 'horror' is highly unlikely!
Nats-
I agree with you!(too!) Mary despite all her 'read to me Joe' stuff wasn't above toddling out and about and 'entertaining...musically or not!..a couple of shall we say 'male visitors' that night
Glenn -
Exactly! Im almost (for what its worth that Mary 'knew' her assailant..the giggling and the hanky and the 'Come with me and you'll be comfortable' stuff all smacks of a past history..she was obviously easy and relaxed in this man's company
Richard-
OK I agree(!) that Mary probably knew(!) her killer
As to the 'dire straits' thing....so were Kate and probably Pol ,Annie,Martha etc etc too! where did THEY get the wherewithal to do the fire engine impressions etc etc ?? Hmmmmmmmmmm
As to the missing heart...that's another question!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 4:58 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,Yes,I agree if Mary kelly did meet this well-to-do-looking chap with his gold chain and red handkerchief at the ready [remembering a former "liaison" with her when she had needed a handkerchief?]then she certainly seemed very happy to have met him that night and not at all threatened and perhaps he had met with her a few times before even.
To me its always seemed she wanted to get shot of Joe Barnett so she could be free to get back to her beat and earn some money especially given that JB had lost his job and was bringing her money less frequently.
Whatever the real story of her relationship with GH he claimed it went back three years and consisted of him helping her out from time to time.He didnt live far from Millers Court and it seems to me he could easily have been an eastender,down on his luck who drank in the same pub and knew her as a neighbour and occasional drinking partner.That was the kind of relationship the eastenders had with one another very often by all accounts.This sense of community
was what all the great fuss was about when the old houses started to be demolished,the reason being they were unfit to live in any longer,and local people dreaded the break up of their community..There seems to be plenty of historical evidence therefore that people did "look out for" each other and what GH described to Abberline may well have conformed to a pattern of behaviour that Abberline was familiar with and could believe.
Although I can understand others who may ask why he disappeared for three days,I have again thought that he might well have been scared stiff,knowing he had been outside her house that night and he probably thought nobody would believe him or that hed get arrested by the police on suspicion of murder or possibly attacked by the ripper himself.People living round there must have feared he was around them somewhere wielding a knife and crazy enough to kill them too if he thought they kew who he was .
Cheers Nats |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
Hi Richard ,I think myself that the scenario you suggest is probably the one I can see as the most likely.However you never seem to consider that she could just as easily have been asleep when someone who knew the door/broken window routine let themselves into her room and stabbed at her through the sheet that was found.
Natalie |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1249
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
Hi NATS!!!!
Right..IF.. IF .. Mary did meet up with our GH's posh 'Herbert' well who ever he was ,as you say she seemed (according to GH! hmmmmmmmm) to be happy with him.... BUT as this is the only record we have of this i.e. from GH himself! must be a tad spurious or at least worrying...hmmm! I think that GH and Mary had more than a tad of 'history' and when he realised that 'someone' was dead in that room..assumed it was Mary and so made up 'The Story' then.......three days later thought he'd better justify it! and came shall we say ...'clean!' about it!
The thing about Kate 'knowing who it was' still worries me though......
Cheers!
Suzix
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 10:06 pm: | |
Hi Guy's n Gals.
In suggesting that Mary knew her killer, which Glenn and others appear to be in agreement with, though I can't speak for Glenn, I would point out that certainly I did not mean to imply Hutchinson's "toff" was her killer, or that they knew each other.
I just wished to clarify that, the two points are quite separate issues for me at least.
Best Regards, Jon |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2149
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 10:28 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
No way did I for once believe that you referred to Hutchinson's "toff" (and neither do I). As far as I am concerned, I am doubtful if he ever existed anyway, but that's another thread...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1252
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Hi Glenn
I too ,rather sadly believe that our 'toff' was a product of Georges rather fevered and slightly panicky imagination!
Still cant get over the fact that Mary 'knew' her killer in some way or another tho
Cheers
Suzi |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 78
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
I don't believe Hutchinson at all. I think that if he did see someone, it certainly wasn't the person he described. He either made it up to keep suspicion off himself or he made it up because he recognized that man and gave a fake description so the killer wouldn't think that he, Hutch, was any threat.
Mags |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1256
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Mags
EXACTLY!!
Right....we have Hutch's statement 'I met the murdered woman.. 6d ..red handkerchief etc . Its undoubted charm,..Romford etc etc is intensely detailed....continuing of course into the description of 'The Man!'
The Lewis statement that she saw a man looking up the Ct as if waiting etc was obviously enough to provoke GH into elaborating his description... and don't we all love that 'description ' of Mary being a 'bit spreeish!!'. The description given by GH probably had the same effect on the police as that made to the police as to the 'voice' and 'description' of the Yorkshire Ripper and probably caused as much tragic confusion!
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
Hi Maria,
If Hutchinson was concerned about any Ripper reprisals, why volunteer any imformation to the police.
If he was a witness that could identify
kellys killer, and it concerned him , surely the best policy was to not come forward and give his name to a police statement.
George hutchinson was just doing his duty, after a bit of sway from the people he boarded with.
that is the crunch of the matter.
Richard/. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1259
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
Hi Richard-
I will never ever believe that George mistook Mary when ,and if,he met her coming by Thrawl St etc etc.. The only evidence we have for the man tapping Mary on the shoulder,the laughing and the 'you'll be alright' conversations come from George!
..Closely followed by the red handkerchief and the 'Comfortable' comment Then George 'lurks' for 3/4 of an hour and disappears with his story into what has become 'history' until he walked into Commercial St Police Station at six o clock and 'tells us all'!!!!(???)..
As to George's 'boarders' who were they???? no statements from them tho!!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 79
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
Well, Richard, if I were GH and I saw a man I knew with Mary it wouldn't be enough for me just to keep quiet.
After all, this is a knife wielding murderer! I would lie to the police and make it damned public so he would know that I was going to keep his secret.
And even then I'd watch my back.
Mags |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1262
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 5:44 pm: | |
Mags-
I think that George 'may' have seen someone with Mary..maybe even someone he knew but am SO sure that Mr Astrakan wasn't him!
George has a fantastic way of 'disappearing' tho!
Cheers
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2152
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 6:05 pm: | |
Suzi,
"I think that George 'may' have seen someone with Mary..maybe even someone he knew but am SO sure that Mr Astrakan wasn't him!"
I totally agree.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 6:07 pm: | |
I know its getting fashionable now to rubbish Abberline in particular but I still have quite a regard for someone who was familiar with that community and had earned himself quite a degree of kudos amongst his colleagues and many of the people of the East end including some of its villains!
To quote Paul Begg again from his new book" ..a claim by Nigel Morland1905-86 to have met Abberline and been told by him,"you would have to look for him not at the bottom of London Society but a long way up[[he adds that what Abberline actually told Morland remains to be seen,as does whether he ever met Abberline].
Nevertheless Machnaghten seems to have thought it was some chap who was invited to Lord Wimborne"s Ball at which PAV was an invitee.These,together with citings of VIP"s seen visiting Murder sites
and numbers of men arriving by coach to circle St Bottolphs Church which was a well known hunting ground for prostitutes according to Donald Rumbelow makes me think it was not that unusual for such "toffs" or whatever you want to call them
to visit Whitechapel in search of a "good time".
Again according to DR it was almost a joke-especially the astonishing tricks of evasion the women got up to around the church in order not to be arrested for soliciting.
|
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 80
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 6:43 pm: | |
Going to St. Boltolphs in a carriage with your driver and buddies for a bit of slumming is one thing, but a lone man walking around in the wee small hours in Dorset St.--one of the worst streets in the whole city-- flashing jewelry is just too much. Especially since none of the other witness descriptions come anywhere near this one.
Mags |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 3:47 am: | |
I dont accept this.For a start ANYONE having had either a skinful of booze or a puff of opium or a line ofcoke ,the drugs of choice in Victorian London wouldnt have given a damn for his or her personal safety in Dorset Street which from the accounts we do have was deserted at this time.Some pub crawlers and ravers in London today are just as heedless after enjoying themselves at weekends-thats why there has been such a crackdown on drink-driving-a danger to more than just the reckless raver in the driving seat.I think you are assuming this "gent" to be as rational and sensible at 2.30 am in Whitechapel as he would be during his gambles on the stock market on a weekday.
Natalie |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 81
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
Well, Natalie, you do make a good point about people who are high not having the best judgement, I'll give you that.
But I still think that Hutch's description was too detailed to ring true.
Mags |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
I am getting frustrated at not being any nearer the solution Maria,thats why I am now trying to look over all the evidence in a new light.The character he describes to Abberline sounds as though he was high on something.It could have been just his obsession with murder and mutilation
I suppose the ripper himself could have taken a drug which drove him on to indulge his perversions.The grandiosity of the red handkerchief waving that Hutchinson reported and the febrile laughter that he spoke of[from both MjK and the man strikes me that both were a bit "high" on something.
Natalie |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 83
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
I completely know what you mean about the frustration, Natalie.
If Mary was a Ripper victim-and I still think she was even though Glenn has made me have some doubts-- then the Toff in GH's description just doesn't jibe with the kind of person I think JTR had to be.
If she wasn't then she was killed by either another crazed murderer or someone she knew well. A casual John wouldn't have performed that vivisection.
If she was killed by another crazed murderer--where are his other victims? If it was someone she knew well, it would have to be Barnett,or the mysterious Mr. Fleming . (I don't believe for a minute that Barnett was the Ripper and killed all those women to keep Mary off the streets).
So, it doesn't seem that we ever move very much, does it? Since I'm not dogmatic about very much in this case, I like to spin out various scenarios, but I guess we have to reign ourselves in from time to time from being too dramatic and fictional.
Mags |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 3:33 pm: | |
Hi Maria,currently I feel as though I know less about who he was than I did when I started to try to solve this mystery.
I think I know one or two things about him viz that his prey were women who were street-walkers,usually middle aged and with alcohol problems.By sticking to this formula over the August to October period he was able to kill in the open air and put his prey on display-another factor which I have begun to think gave him his kicks.However suddenly we learn about Ms Kelly
and she is only in her twenties and she is found to have been grotesquely attacked in her room and in what appears to be her night attire.But whoever killed her made sure she too was put on display in exactly the same pose as three others.
So it has seemed to me that it was him alright.
Did he know Mary Kelly?As Glenn has said as well as others it would appear he had had some dealings with her previously,either as a customer or as a friend or lover.The clue to this being the total erasion of her face and features.Also the neat way he came and went which in my opinion showed a possible fore-knowledge of the door sequence.
So for arguements sake ,if this well dressed man was her last customer then it appears he already knew her-had been a customer before perhaps or had met her from time to time in Leman Street or the Brittania.He was someone that she trusted perhaps.And so the story told by Hutchinson could be true and the description of the appeal by Ms Kelly for a handkerchief and him providing her with a red one together with a grand flourish and bursts of laughter could be genuine.So could her telling him he"d be alright/comfortable -for staying the night?
The question is was he the ripper?He could have up and left after some slap and tickle I suppose but then why did he never come forward?And if someone else who knew the door routine crept in after him and attacked her in her sleep could that really have been Hutchinson?Would he really be such an idiot as to offer himself up to a police interrogation and possible arrest?I should have thought he would have fled Whitechapel for a start and laid low for as long as possible if he was the ripper and thought he had been seen by Mrs Cox.
Just some thoughts
Cheers Natalie |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1263
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Hi Nats!
Gosh this has kicked off here!(Where's VAL!)...despite that..
Glad for that tho!
OK...I can never be persuaded away from the fact that George and Mary 'knew' eachother..how good that relationship was we can only surmise..
As to Mary on the bed etc etc
I still cant believe that that was a 'chemise' its a bloody sheet!!!!wrapped up around the body
Dr Bond believed that!... who are we to disagree?
I think whoever did for 'Mary' (or whoever!!!!) it was someone she felt comfortable with(!) ...come with me ..etc..etc...but who????
Mr Flemming comes to mind of course again but ..God Nats..
The window latch opening though does smack of a confidante tho...Hmmmmm And there of course was the mention of the footsteps leaving the court at around 5.00 am!!!
Curiouser and Curiouser!..
I do like .rather oddly perhaps..that Mary 'knew' in some way as I said.. and had a good night with the man who maybe.. just maybe ..killed her! but there again....(aaaaaaaaaaagh not a nice thought but..!)
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
You will not hear of Val again, she or he was simply after attention, walter dew was a respectable police officer, with considerable knowledge of policing during his long service.
He relayed his thoughts in his book, mayby a hazy recollection, but as accurate as his memory served.
Where do we assume that George and mary knew each other intimately, he may simply have known her , and gave her what he could afford out of pity when he had the money.
Lets not accuse the man without more evidence.
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 5:24 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,yes maybe she did "know"-maybe she didnt care that night,I sometimes wonder if Kate Eddowes saw the man she thought she could identify as the ripper too.But we"ll never know that.Nor will we know if the thought had crossed Mary Kelly"s mind that night.And apart from what I"ve written above there seems evidence of her sharing her bed that night with somebody and feeling"comfortable" with him.So much so she undressed for bed and it seems took herself over to the far side of the bed next to the partitian.
On the other hand it could have been that she always slept on that side of the bed.But the doctor who examined her body,Dr Bond thought she was attacked in her sleep because the sheet was pulled up round her face when he found her.
One last point:His overcoat!This was another point made by Dr Bond-he thought such a man would have worn a long overcoat or cloak to hide blood stains and this too matches Hutchinsons descrition of a man with a long overcoat and kid gloves.
Its at least worth reconsidering Hutchinson"s evidence without prejudgement.Who knows maybe we will discover that a red handkerchief was also found at the crime scene-now that would be helpful!
Nats |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
Richard,GH claimed he had known MjK for about three years and he had sometimes given her a few shillings and in whose company he had been a number of times.[the Times 14 November 1888]-by which Hutchinson presumably meant that he had been a client of MjK"s,which would explain his interest in the couple.[this last on page 489 of Paul Begg"s Book JtR-the Facts. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1272
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
Hi Nats!!
Good points here!!!!
Sorry am sooooooo excited about my ebay purchase today!!!! see Gen Disc under Goulston St! hehehe
Good eh have you seen that before?? I havent!...will get back to the 'above' later! just wanted to catch you!
Cheers
suzi |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 84
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
About the "garter":
I've just re-read Dr. Bond's inquest testimony and I find it interesting that he doesn't mention a cut on the right leg. He does mention a small one inch gash on the thumb, so it seems that a cut that goes all around the right leg would certainly warrant a few words.
Of course, we can never be SURE of anything, but I think this lends some weight to Richard's theory.
Mags |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 3:57 am: | |
Hi Maria,
Good point about Dr Bonds report, a cut that obvious on her right leg, which would imply at some attempt of removal. would be recorded.
I really do feel that that on kellys right foot and halfway up her calf is a sock or stocking which appears elasticated.
I wish a inventory of kellys clothing was available.
The is it a stocking or is it not is a vital point as it would give a indication to how she was attacked.
Richard. |
marlies geurs
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 1:17 pm: | |
hi everyone,
i'm a belgian student who is looking for information about the ripper case?
Is there anyone that can send me useful information about it?
Thanks a lot
Marlies |
Amanda
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 1:23 pm: | |
Wow........your theories are all argued precisely, but I must make a suggestion. Although I know that this is highly unlikely due to poor evidence provided about it, I believe that possibly there may be a connection that involves teh Royal Conspiracy Theory. I mean, did it not state that Eddowes was a mistake, and that she sometimes paraded around town using the name Mary Kelly? Using this bit of information, and the arguements presented earlier about the possibility that Kelly was murder by someone else, it may be possible that there was more than one Jack the Ripper. After Eddowes was killed (supposedly as a mistake) perhaps they sent a new person who knew what Kelly looked like so taht there would be no more cases of mistaken identity. I don't know, I highly doubt that this is correct, as the Conspiracy has very little evidence supporting it, but it may be a possibility. |
Amanda
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 8:29 pm: | |
Glenn,
I have a question. You have teh Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion, right? Well, I was just wondering if you're copy was messed up in any way, because my copy has teh exact same set of pictures between pages 340-341 and 564-565. I was just wondering if my copy was the only one that was like that. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 6:31 am: | |
Hi all,
I think that Kelly was a ripper victim. When debating this I have know choice but to agree with what the detectives who worked the case believed. They believed that Kelly was a ripper victim and most believed her to be the last victim.
Hi Pfarm,
I believe that the ripper had to resort to a faster method of murder with Kelly. His other victims were women that were much older,worst for drink and weak. They were easy prey for the ripper. Dealing with Kelly was much different. She was young and strong. She was a big woman. The ripper probably found her very difficult to subdue. I do believe she was able to let out a cry of murder. Jack probably went to the knife because he wanted to end the struggle with her quickly. Patricia Cornwell has suggested that Kelly's throat was cut in a different direction then the others. She claims Kelly's throat was cut from right to left. She bases her argument on the fact that the cut is deeper on the right side of Kelly's throat and tappers off as the cut moves twards the left. Patricia Cornwell does have a certain knowledge of such matters and it makes sence. If you take a pencill and make a mark by moveing the pencil quick across the paper you will see that the mark is darker were you start and it starts to fade as well as tapper of were the mark ends. Assumeing that Kelly was attacked from the front this may indicate that the ripper cut the other victims from behind. This may also indicate that the ripper was indeed right handed. The bruises on the left side of both Nicholes and Chapman may also indicate a right handed killer. If Jack did strike from behind and he was right handed then he would of grabed the head with his left hand to pull the head back so he could cut the throat with his right hand. If you pull someones head back with your left hand from behind you would clearly have your thumb on the left jaw and cheek of the victim causeing the bruising.
Hi Malcolm,
The odd thing to me about Mary's murder is that the ripper let her get comfortable. He let her fold her cloths. and most likely let her lay down before he struck. I dont believe he would have been interested in haveing sex with Kelly. In my oppinion the ripper was motivated out of a hatred of women and he probably was afraid of them. I believe he was impotent either because of some medical reason or his impotence was due to sexuall confusion. It was frustration that fueled his anger and hatred of women and his inability to interact intimatley with them made him afraid. It is just possible that the ripper was a homosexuall and he was haveing a hard time comeing to terms with his sexuality.
Hi Suzi,
I go back and forth on if the ripper was invited in or broke in to kill Kelly. I tend to think that he was invited in by Kelly. However the possibility is out there that he broke in and killed her.
Your friend,CB |
marlies geurs
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 1:17 pm: | |
hi everyone,
i'm a belgian student who is looking for information about the ripper case?
Is there anyone that can send me useful information about it?
Thanks a lot
Marlies |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1277
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Richard!!!!!
You and your stockings!!!! have a look at 'Looked at!!!!!'!!!!! be afraid very afraid!!!!
Marlies!!!
Hi sorry no ones replied as yet if you go onto Pub Talk and say you want info someone will get back to you...failing that email me and will try to help you out,...for whatr thats worth but can give you book lists etc ...failing that just go onto the Main Board here you'll have the info you'll ever want!!!!.....and the rest!
BEST
Suzi |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
CB wrote:
" ....but to agree with what the detectives who worked the case believed."
Yes well, they also thought the Ripper was a nutcase among other things. I don't believe there really was a defined consensus offered by the police, they were as much in the dark as we are today. And, they were still hinting at Ripper victims long after Mary Kelly's murder.
In short, they simply didn't 'know'.
Marlies.
Twice you have asked the same question, if you need to find some details please ask a specific question, otherwise, this site is at your disposal.
Suzi.
Dr's Bond, Phillips etc, saw a chemise, felt a chemise, removed a chemise.....it was a chemise.
Maria:
"If she was killed by another crazed murderer--where are his other victims?"
One of the common misconceptions is that no-one else could have carved women up like that.
The statement is often made, "of course she was a Ripper victim, how many 'butchers' do you think were loose in the streets in those days"
..reasonable?
Well, the question is not "was there two butchers?", but was there three?
Everyone forgets about the Torso murders.
- Torso (4? victims).
- Ripper (3-4? victims)
- Tabram.
- Stride, Coles, McKenzie.
This was a very dangerous place.
Regards, Jon
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1279
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 5:25 pm: | |
Jon!
The quote From Dr Thomas Bond was....Position of body
'The body was lying NAKED in the middle of the bed,the shoulders flat....... etc etc etc ' AND I cannot believe that that was ever a chemise!!!!!! SHEET wrapped around body or what remains is hoew I'll always see it!!
This is a direct quote from Sugden and A-Z!!!!! allegedly from Dr Bond!!!
Correct me if they're wrong!
Marlies!!!
Keep trying and do what I said earlier!!
Suzi
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:25 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
Thanks for takeing the time to respond to my post. I said that most the detectives working the case thought kelly to be the last victim. Mcnaughton was positive there were only five victims but there were others that thought that a few of the murders after the Kelly murder were the work of the ripper. your point is well taken. I do not believe Abberline thought that the ripper was locked up in an asylum. Swanson and anderson believed he was locked up and Mcnaughton most likely believed he had committed suicide. Obviously the ripper was a nut case. I am not an expert in the field but anyone who committes such murders must be crazy. I have never read that any of the detectives who worked the case believed Kelly was not a ripper victim. You make a very good point about there being another killer out there. Assuming that the other woman such as Tabrum and Coles were not ripper victims then there were other men or women out there capable of commiting such murders. I have my doubts about Tabrum not being a ripper victim. The day she was killed fits the rippers pattern and it is possible that she was the rippers first victim and I have my doubts that stride was a ripper victim. I think we can safely say that three were killed by the same hand. Nicholes,Chapman and Eddowes. I have read that a few detectives believed that some of the murders before Nicholes were ripper killings and some detectives have suggested that some of the murders after the Kelly murder were ripper murders but I have never read any comments by the detectives who worked the case that doubted that Nicholes,Chapmen,Stride,Eddowes and Kelly were ripper victims. As I have posted before I do not post to inform I post to learn. If you have any knowledge that any of the detectives who worked the case believed that any one of the five women mentioned were not ripper victims please share.
Your friend,CB |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 166
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 3:01 am: | |
Mornin' all,
Just a couple of things. Natalie, I could be wrong and will re-read later just to check but I did not think that Dr Bond ever stated that the sheet was around her face when he found her. Rather he stated that the sheet had a cut or cuts in it (can't remember if there was more than one) which indicated in his opinion that the sheet was probably over Mary's face when she was initially attacked. What you stated above implies that the sheet was removed from her face after the body was found which I don't think was the case.
Re: Hutchinson's statement. I see no reason for us to ignore Hutchinson's statement, no reason that is which is based in fact. I freely admit that his statement is somewhat flowery, but so what. That is not a fact that means he did not make a truthful statement. He hung around for some time after watching MJK enter the court, so what. It is (in our opinion here in 2004) unlikely that a well to do man would be seen alone in Whitechapel in the dead of night with jewellery on show, so what. That does not mean that such men did not frequent such areas at such time of night. So GH was being a nosey parker and observing prostitutes and who they entertained, so what. We have reports of other people doing all sorts of undercover amateur detective work during the JtR scare. I put it to all that if you wish to dismiss GH's statement so readily then you must also dismiss the statement of Schwartz at the Stride scene. You have as much factual basis for dismissing each equally. I am not saying I fully believe GH's statement or any other statement in this case for that matter, we should not forget the mistaken identifcation of Liz Stride's body by a woman who claimed she was her sister. But if you ask do I believe some of the Law & Order style reasons for GH having given his statement to the police as have been stated on this thread, I would say you needed to have a good look in the mirror. The statement should be accepted as mostly factual until we can prove that it could not be so. Note I said PROVE, nothing short of proof is good enough.
As you all may have already guessed I think George Hutchinson's statement is a true indicator to the idea that MJK was killed by JTR and that GH saw them together. Let me put it this way. Let's say Jack has picked MJK as his next victim and has been watching her movements for some time before striking. He knows if he charms her right he will get to go with her alone to her room, a place where he will finally have the complete seclusion to perform his mutilations fully. In staking out Dorset street he has noticed GH loitering. After picking Kelly up he knows he has been keenly observed by GH who virtually stepped in front of him to look at his face. Because of this he does not strike Kelly immediately but waits for some time to pass before killing her. By this time, drunk she has dozed off, but also GH has left.
Scotty. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 293
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:24 am: | |
Hi Scott,
You wrote:
"The statement should be accepted as mostly factual until we can prove that it could not be so. Note I said PROVE, nothing short of proof is good enough."
I actually don't think this is a good approach to take. If you follow that then you will end up accepting all sorts of bogus information as real unless you find proof to the contrary. Expecting people to prove a negative is a very bad way to go about deciding what's real and not.
In my opinion, nothing should be taken as factual until it has been proven. Certain things can be weighed as more or less likely to be factual, based upon what we know of other reports, knowledge of reliability of eyewitness testimony, and so forth, but that's all. And when certain things about a story don't add up, then there's a very sensible reason to weigh it as less likely than others.
And that goes for not just the facts of this case but for anything, really. Scientists form theories, come up with results, and then have it verified over and over by other people looking for holes. That's the only way anything can be shown to be factual. In cases where we can't do that, we can only be tentative and examine things with what we do know.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 7:55 am: | |
G'day Scotty,
I know you said you'll check it out but I beat you to it:
Dr. Bond wrote: 'The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square.'
The photograph of Mary Kelly's body on the bed and this report, if you look at it while reading, correspond perfectly i.e,('The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed...')
Looking at the photo, the matress underneath the body was completely saturated in blood on the right side, so she was most likely laying on the right side of the bed when the knife bit.
Dr. BOND: 'The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was market by blood which had struck it in a number of seperate slashes.'
Looking at a clear photograph reveals that none of these slashes hit the wall high up. It seems to me as though the victim was either asleep or very relaxed with her killer before he struck, (with her head down). She may also have had something over her head, directing the blood flow downward onto the matress. The slashes on the wall could have flicked off the knife after each swing.
RE HUTCHINSON'S STATEMENT: It is a FACT that he waited 3 days before going to the police. If he was such an honest and upright citizen, why did he wait until he knew he'd been seen and an explanation for his presence may have been desired?
If Kelly's killer was Hutchinson's suspect, and he knew he'd been closely observed by the man, why didn't he just abort this murder and wait for another night? Unless he was disguised in 2nd hand clothing that he'd acquired from Petticoat Lane?
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 5:50 am: | |
Scot,
What is it you do not believe about Hutchinson's statement.Do you believe all elements of the description to be factual for instance,and do you think you could duplicate them.
I would certainly like to be persuaded that he saw what he said he saw,but the believers always have reservations about him being entirely honest,and are hesitant in pointing out the untruths.
I have yet to see in any memoirs from officers on the case,any real attempt to explain what they believed to be the truth about Hutchinson.AS they all believed Kelly to be a Ripper victim,here was the ideal canditate for the role ,and the best witness.Here was a Jewish suspect,but unfortunately for Anderson,for instance,not a Jewish witness.
No one posting really sets out to prove anything.It would be hard to do so,but one can raise points that lead to a belief.I believe Hutchinson lied about seeing either Kelly or a companion,and I have in previous posts itemised the observations that led to this belief.
|
