Only 1 indoor murder?

[The Good Michael]

Added to which, the Ripper was standing directly in line with the back door, and - if the general layout of the houses was the same - a communal lavatory at the bottom of the yard.

Right. And that communal lavatory has me believing people were coming and "going" all the time with not a second thought directed at them. The tenants at both places would have been used to the sounds of footsteps at all hours of the night i should think, and not have thought about it at all.

Mike

[Cap'n Jack]

One has to take into account that some of the witnesses were lying about the movements of people in and out of the yard that night... if you look at the differences between the original statements made to the police, and then the statements made at inquest, you will see what I mean.
To accept that every man who entered Kelly's room that night was a 'client' is a very dodgy and unsound premise leading to a blinkered view of the actual circumstances of her murder. It is highly likely that the 'blotchy' faced man was providing Kelly with alcohol, and that she was the 'client' and not he.

[Observer]

Hi Cap'n

Regardless of the arrangement Mary Kelly had with Blotchy he was obvoiously a stranger to her, or at least a very casual acquaintance, otherwise (due to his distinctive features) the police would have picked him up.

I believe he was a punter, paying with beer instead of money.

Observer

[perrymason]

Time for a multi rebuttal post.... ....

Victor, the fact that Cadosche comes out for a nightly tinkle at around that time is something that the killer would likely have no idea about before entering that yard, and the yard was fenced in completely without a gate, so he had 3 fences he could jump including Cadosche's if trouble came down the passage inside #29.

For Vic and Sam....the point regarding the venues of Hanbury Street and Mitre Square, and George Yard, and Bucks Row, is that they were known to have street prostitutes take clients there to have outdoor sex in the dark. Its how Jack gets his victims in the first place,.....so with respect Sam, the situation in Millers Court has nothing in common with them, this was the residences of street whores, not a work zone.

Frank, ...Mary Ann was aware that the singing had stopped when she left again at around 1:15am, and that it was going on when she came into the court a little earlier, after returning from leaving the court after she saw Mary and Blotchy enter. The singing is noticed for some hour and a half off and on. We can assume that Blotchy came with Mary straight from the pub....he still has a tankard in his hand......and since she is hammered and had no money to get like that, she had a "sponsor" that night.....maybe one that walked her home too. I dont know what Blocthy felt might happen when he got to her room, but if he was paying her for sex, he got ripped off it seems. Aside from a single incident with Blotchy, there is no record of Mary ever having been seen taking a client into Millers Court, and in fact we have her lovers statement that he didnt like her working the streets. Since she is hammered and singing, I dont see why you would take this as the one time she brings a client in.

On your point about Millers Court, again, it was not a known spot for whores to deliver services to clients outdoors....Hanbury, Mitre and Bucks Row were.

On the point about sounds in the backyards alerting residents......consider that 20 Hanbury had 17 residents and at least one that got up that early regularly, ... Richardson. Since the Ripper seems to keep them quiet somehow, all he is to the residents is some boots outside...like they would normally hear when the whores brought men into the yard.

Observer,......What Blotchy may have thought could happen in that room cannot be known, but based on Marys track record at that location, and the witnesses that night, all she may have done is entertained him. He could have been a stranger before she had a million ales, but he became a close enough acquaintance to sing to in her own room....so maybe they were fast friends.

This thread by its wording wonders whether we have only 1 murder indoors, or why we have only 1 of 5 murders indoors....either way, as is clear by a Canonical Group, at least 80% of the murders were not indoors. With ample opportunities to have done a Millers Court type crime at any time that whole Fall, or to use an abandoned building.

At least one man wanted to cut women into smaller bits at that time....he knew that to do so would mean he would have to keep the remains somewhere so he could complete his grisly task.....and thats what he did apparently. His needs and requirements neccessitated indoors killings, or at least, indoor mutilations.

If Jack wanted so desperately to cut a woman to bits also, which the killer in room 13 seems to have on his mind primarily....then why did he wait 2 1/2 months and kill 4 women outdoors first? He had the exact same problem as Torso Man if that was the case....yet he lacked the brain power to figure out that he had to bring the bodies indoors so he could privately mutilate at his discretion?

So....Jack the cunning killer is really far less intelligent or capable than Torso Man? Well.....seems he couldnt quite get the hang of decapitation either.......so who knows?

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

For Vic and Sam....the point regarding the venues of Hanbury Street and Mitre Square, and George Yard, and Bucks Row, is that they were known to have street prostitutes take clients there to have outdoor sex in the dark.

Actually, it's not known for certain, Mike - in either case. It should be apparent to anyone who has studied this case for a reasonable length of time that "classical" Ripper literature has its fair share of assumptions, not all of them based on fact. This strikes me as another instance of the same.

so with respect Sam, the situation in Millers Court has nothing in common with them, this was the residences of street whores, not a work zone.

Even if it were true that Buck's Row, 29 Hanbury Street and Mitre Square were "known" as popular prostitute destinations - which, as I say, isn't a certainty - wouldn't it be the case that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were using those venues in the same way that Kelly chose to use her own room?

On your point about Millers Court, again, it was not a known spot for whores to deliver services to clients outdoors....Hanbury, Mitre and Bucks Row were.

Again, we must be wary of making such assertions - and I've seen little that would lead me to believe that Hanbury/Mitre/Bucks were "known spots for whores" at all. It strikes me that any dark, secluded spot (which 29 Hanbury wasn't!) could have been used by a prostitute and her client at any given time - as, indeed, could places like Miller's Court. In fact, there appears to be rather more evidence that Miller's Court - and places like it - was used as a prostitutes' destination (as well as a residence) than there is that Hanbury/Mitre/Bucks ever were.

[perrymason]

Sam, I'm sure I can find quotes that suggests the sites I mentioned were known to have prostitutes perform sex there outdoors......and I cant say that I have seen one that exists that suggests the same for Millers Court.

The stone tunnel entrance should really be considered here.....this wasnt a thoroughfare, or a known whore tricks zone.

I think its odd that people assume that whores would live their entire existence preoccupied with whoring....in their own room, even when its pouring outside, even when they had no need for money that night....when we know that many Unfortunates despised that life....alledgedly the one in Millers Court too.

All the best.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, I'm sure I can find quotes that suggests the sites I mentioned were known to have prostitutes perform sex there outdoors

I'd be delighted if you could enlighten me, Mike, but please note that opinions in various books don't count. It's primary sources we need - and that goes for Miller's Court as much as Buck's Row, Hanbury Street and Mitre Square. I wouldn't be surprised to find that, to your average unfortunate, any suitable spot would have passed muster, whether indoors or outdoors, depending on circumstance, and that there was nothing "special" about any of the aforementioned locations in that regard.

and I cant say that I have seen one that exists that suggests the same for Millers Court.

How about the very night of Kelly's death? For instance, Kelly's bringing Mr Blotchy back to her room, to say nothing of other documented instances of punters accompanying prostitutes into similar Courts in Late Victorian Spitalfields.

I think its odd that people assume that whores would live their entire existence preoccupied with whoring....in their own room

It's even odder to assume that a known prostitute, living in a room of her own, would not have used it for "professional" purposes.

[Victor]

Me too Sam. I believe that 13 Miller's Court has an equal chance of being a prostitute's "work area" as Hanbury or Mitre.

KR,
Vic.

[perrymason]

If Mary worked for anyone that night in her room, it is far more reasonable to assume it was as a singer and not a whore. To my knowledge sex was performed without a floor show for the most part....and for street whores, not often by candlelight indoors.

Cheers gents

[Victor]

Hi Mike,

Unless Mary was performing oral sex, then she doesn't necessarily have to miss a note.

Just a thought...

KR,
Vic.

[FrankO]

......and I cant say that I have seen one that exists that suggests the same for Millers Court.

"It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased. ... Kelly was, she admitted, one of her own class, and she made no secret of her way of gaining a livelihood."
Elizabeth Prater in the Daily Telegraph of 10 November 1888

[FrankO]

Unless Mary was performing oral sex, then she doesn't necessarily have to miss a note.

Good point, Vic.

Best,
Frank

[perrymason]

"It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased. ... Kelly was, she admitted, one of her own class, and she made no secret of her way of gaining a livelihood."
Elizabeth Prater in the Daily Telegraph of 10 November 1888

Seems to me the above is hearsay about Mary Janes occupation, its not a declaration that Mary specifically was ever seen bringing a "client" home. She had only been alone in the room for less than a week and suddenly she transforms the place into a mini-brothel?

Its far from certain that Blotchy was anything more than a companion she entertained with song....while so drunk she had trouble even saying goodnight to Mary Ann.

So now shes a staggering drunk singing street whore who makes her living indoors......

All the best

[FrankO]

I dont know what Blocthy felt might happen when he got to her room, but if he was paying her for sex, he got ripped off it seems.

Again Michael, there’s was every opportunity to service Mr. BF. Just because she was singing and we don’t know what went on in that room besides the singing, doesn’t mean she couldn’t have serviced him or that it’s for some reason unlikely. Maybe he paid her for having sex with her while she sang. Rent was due in the morning, she was in arrears as it was, so there would be reason enough for her to get some money, out in the streets or in her own room.

... and in fact we have her lovers statement that he didnt like her working the streets.

Firstly, I don’t think we do have that statement. What Barnett deposed at the inquest is that he left her because MJK allowed a prostitutes to sleep in their room. In his police statement he said he left her in consequence of “her resorting to prostitution”. Secondly, I think ‘working the streets’ was just a general phrase used for saying that a woman prostituted herself, without it necessarily meaning that it always took place on the streets. Or, the finding of punters may have taken place in the streets, but not necessarily the servicing.

Since she is hammered and singing, I dont see why you would take this as the one time she brings a client in.

Fact remains that she does bring in a unknown guy back to her room. Cox doesn’t seem to have found it strange at all. Furthermore, regardless of the extent you which you wish to downplay it, Prater did say in a newspaper that it was common for the women in Miller’s Court to take men home with them. I don't see why MJK should be excluded from this.

And even if Hutchinson’s story was purely made up, the part of MJK bringing back an apparent unknown trick to her room didn’t raise any eyebrows at all. It seems to have been completely accepted as normal and believable. If his story was true, at least on that point, than there’s another good reason to believe she took back unknown men to her room. If untrue and MJK never took back any men to her room, then it might be regarded as odd that Hutchinson’s story was never questioned on that point at least.

On your point about Millers Court, again, it was not a known spot for whores to deliver services to clients outdoors....Hanbury, Mitre and Bucks Row were.

It would be a bit odd for women who lived in Miller’s Court to service clients outside in the court. Furthermore, although I think the backyard in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square probably were frequently used by prostitutes and their tricks, I don’t believe I ever actually read it anywhere.

And again, there's Prater's quote in the Daily Telegraph of 10 November 1888.

He could have been a stranger before she had a million ales, but he became a close enough acquaintance to sing to in her own room....so maybe they were fast friends.

You seem to be trying to turn him from stranger into friend, so that it fits your view. Not a persuasive approach.

With ample opportunities to have done a Millers Court type crime at any time that whole Fall, or to use an abandoned building.

I would be interested what ample opportunities you speak of here. Furthermore, as to the abandoned buildings, I think that people who couldn’t afford a bed were using those. Another point to ponder is that, if he wanted to use those abandoned buildings, he had to convince his victims to go there with him. Seeing that they were prostitutes, who were used to lead their clients to a spot instead of the other way around, trying to get them to an abandoned building might have made them suspicious of him, might have scared them off.

He had the exact same problem as Torso Man if that was the case....yet he lacked the brain power to figure out that he had to bring the bodies indoors so he could privately mutilate at his discretion?

Maybe Torso man had easy access to some private place where he could do as he pleased, whereas maybe the Ripper didn’t have that luxury. Maybe the Ripper was in such a mental state that his need was far more important to him than this problem? Maybe the Ripper had thought about getting women in such a private indoors place, but just wasn’t charming or socially skilled enough to lure his victims to that place. Things don't have to be as black-and-white as you seem to be thinking.

The best Michael,
Frank

[FrankO]

Seems to me the above is hearsay about Mary Janes occupation, ...

Why would that be hearsay? Prater was in a perfect position to know firsthand.

She had only been alone in the room for less than a week and suddenly she transforms the place into a mini-brothel?

Not a mini-brothel - nobody has been claiming she transformed her place into a mini-brothel. Are you saying here that it's impossible or improbable for her to have brought back punters to her room because she had only been alone in the room for less than a week?

Its far from certain that Blotchy was anything more than a companion she entertained with song....while so drunk she had trouble even saying goodnight to Mary Ann.

I agree it's not certain, but that doesn't change the fact that she did take a strange man back to her room. I think the Ripper didn't care much, if at all, about what she'd offer him as long as he knew he'd get her alone in her room.

The best,
Frank