Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Does It Mean to "Know" Someone?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Well it's an opinion, and Michael Richards is entitled to it, although my own opinion is that none of the murder evidence necessarily points to victim and killer knowing one another well, if at all.

    What percentage of Kelly's customers, for instance, would have been tried and tested; what percentage total strangers; and what percentage somewhere in between, from recognising one vaguely by sight, to knowing another by name, and chatting with him down the pub?

    I suppose it depends on how many punters came into Whitechapel from outside, for its cheap and easy pickings, and how many were local men and regular users.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    You summed it up nicely, Caz. "Know" is quite a tricky word and open to a variety of interpretations.

    c.d.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      Only in the Kelly case actually Caz. From what I see. Perhaps Kate was meeting someone she knew, but thats less clear an example.

      When saying "all the women were actively soliciting", or " none seemed to know the victim", its best to stop using 5 examples that havent yet been proven to be linked at all by anything other than more than more than a century old conjecture and guesswork. Because by the evidence, we only know 2 of the Five that stated they were "working" on that fateful night(s), and 1 other that the evidence suggests victim and killer knew each other.
      If you are going to use speech marks, Michael, when addressing a response to me, could you make it clear that I never claimed that "all the women were actively soliciting", or "none seemed to know the victim" [whatever that means?].

      I repeat, it's merely my personal opinion that the evidence doesn't rule out any of the victims - not just the 5 - being killed by a man they had not encountered before, who attacked and murdered them when they were alone together. The evidence simply doesn't tell us who may have seen their killer before, or known him to some degree, and who didn't. It gets us nowhere, regardless of how many killers you or I think were out there that year, bumping off women who had found themselves pretty much down and out in Spitalfields.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by caz View Post

        If you are going to use speech marks, Michael, when addressing a response to me, could you make it clear that I never claimed that "all the women were actively soliciting", or "none seemed to know the victim" [whatever that means?].

        I repeat, it's merely my personal opinion that the evidence doesn't rule out any of the victims - not just the 5 - being killed by a man they had not encountered before, who attacked and murdered them when they were alone together. The evidence simply doesn't tell us who may have seen their killer before, or known him to some degree, and who didn't. It gets us nowhere, regardless of how many killers you or I think were out there that year, bumping off women who had found themselves pretty much down and out in Spitalfields.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Choosing not to take a position on a matter where there is substantive evidence to take such a position isnt seeking any truth, is it? The circumstances in the Kelly murder, the venue, the disposition of the victim, the fact no noise or scuffle is heard by anyone inside the house...despite the ability to hear such things when they occur, suggests strongly that the murderer did not break in, nor force the victim to let him in. The totality of the evidence makes the victim and killer known to each other. No such evidence exists for the first 2 Canonicals, which establishes a killer profile due to the almost identical behavior exhibited and actions taken, one which suggests that killer sought strangers alone at night on the streets. And he also sought to mutilate after he kills, ...making 2, at least, of the future Canonicals without such clear profile evidence present.

        And correct me if Im wrong but over the years here havent you repeatedly argued with me about the issue of actively soliciting? When there is clearly proof of that in ONLY the first 2 cases?
        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 10-22-2020, 12:44 PM.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • #19
          Who said anything about Kelly's killer having to 'break in', or force her to let him in?

          Michael, why could the killer not have done exactly the same this time, seeking a stranger 'alone at night on the streets' and encountering Kelly? The difference was that the previous victims gave him no choice but to murder and mutilate them outdoors, while Kelly had a room of her own to take him to, sheltered from the elements. It's not hard to grasp, if he merely went along with each victim's choice of location, assessing the risks on arrival, and this time struck gold when he found himself in Kelly's indoor operating theatre. Like the others, she wasn't expecting the man to turn violent, so the kill was swift and efficient when it came. Even if she managed to cry "murder", nobody heard anything that alerted them to what was happening in that room.

          It's only one opinion, but I can't see where it conflicts with the evidence.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by caz View Post
            Who said anything about Kelly's killer having to 'break in', or force her to let him in?

            Michael, why could the killer not have done exactly the same this time, seeking a stranger 'alone at night on the streets' and encountering Kelly? The difference was that the previous victims gave him no choice but to murder and mutilate them outdoors, while Kelly had a room of her own to take him to, sheltered from the elements. It's not hard to grasp, if he merely went along with each victim's choice of location, assessing the risks on arrival, and this time struck gold when he found himself in Kelly's indoor operating theatre. Like the others, she wasn't expecting the man to turn violent, so the kill was swift and efficient when it came. Even if she managed to cry "murder", nobody heard anything that alerted them to what was happening in that room.

            It's only one opinion, but I can't see where it conflicts with the evidence.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            The answer to your first question is dependent on Mary having gone out again after 11:45pm on Thursday isnt it? So we have a few witnesses in the morning that say they knew Marty Kelly by sight and saw her alive after 8am, which is ruled out by Bonds analysis and estimated TOD, we have a soon to be discredited story from an alleged friend of Marys given after the Inquest 4 days later, ...no so much in the way of empirical evidence is it?

            I believe the records show that Mary entered the room with Blotchy at the aforementioned time, that she sang to him for over an hour all told, and that her room was dark and quiet by 1:30. Having no compelling reason to go back out, and being very inebriated when she arrived home, it seems Blotchy stays, or was let out around the dark and silent time. the call at almost 4am is probably Mary being woken. By someone she then lets in. Thats not someone Mary knows?
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • #21
              In this investigation its clear we have a few people claiming to have known the woman identified as Mary Kelly, yet we have no way to verify any of their supposed knowledge. Mrs Maxwell, George Hutchison,.. 2 key statements from people claiming not only to have known the woman on friendly terms, but in one case claimed Mary had use her given name in a conversation that same morning. When Dr Bond suggests she had been dead for hours by that time. Her other friend

              Julia, Maria, Joe, Mary Ann, Elizabeth...we know she knew them. She lived with 3 of them.

              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                In this investigation its clear we have a few people claiming to have known the woman identified as Mary Kelly, yet we have no way to verify any of their supposed knowledge. Mrs Maxwell, George Hutchison,.. 2 key statements from people claiming not only to have known the woman on friendly terms, but in one case claimed Mary had use her given name in a conversation that same morning. When Dr Bond suggests she had been dead for hours by that time. Her other friend

                Julia, Maria, Joe, Mary Ann, Elizabeth...we know she knew them. She lived with 3 of them.
                And of course there was more than one Mary Kelly.
                "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by caz View Post

                  I know what you meant, c.d, but we don't know how much 'choice' any of the victims believed they had in the matter. If their choice was limited to which men they would be prepared to spend any time alone with, for the price of their next meal, drink or bed, they might well have favoured someone they had seen around, over a total stranger, but anyone who acted friendly and bought them a drink at some point would probably have been considered worth taking a risk with.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  Hi, Caz.

                  Steven Gerald Wright, the Suffolk Strangler (wrongly described in the press as The Ipswich Ripper) was able to kill as many women as he did because he was known to many of them (in some cases probably as a client) and for that reason - because they 'knew' him - was someone who they believed (fatally and mistakenly) that they could trust. Kelly was in her own home (such as it was) and surrounded, within a few yards, by friends and neighbours. Perhaps her mistake was to think that, in those circumstances, she was safe even with a stranger.
                  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                    Hi, Caz.

                    Steven Gerald Wright, the Suffolk Strangler (wrongly described in the press as The Ipswich Ripper) was able to kill as many women as he did because he was known to many of them (in some cases probably as a client) and for that reason - because they 'knew' him - was someone who they believed (fatally and mistakenly) that they could trust. Kelly was in her own home (such as it was) and surrounded, within a few yards, by friends and neighbours. Perhaps her mistake was to think that, in those circumstances, she was safe even with a stranger.
                    Hi Bridewell,

                    I'd say that's pretty much spot on. Why wouldn't she feel safe? After all, it's often touted as fact that the ripper only killed outdoors.

                    In your own experience, how many people don't believe anything bad could happen to them, until it does? Mary's no exception, sadly. Even if she didn't "know" her killer in any context, she likely felt at much less risk, in a safe place.

                    If her killer was known to her, we don't need to seek any great explanation for bringing him home. But as a stranger, in those fearful times, why wouldn't she feel safe at Miller's Court? Probably no greater explanation needed for that fateful decision.
                    Thems the Vagaries.....

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                      If her killer was known to her, we don't need to seek any great explanation for bringing him home. But as a stranger, in those fearful times, why wouldn't she feel safe at Miller's Court? Probably no greater explanation needed for that fateful decision.
                      Six weeks behind on rent. Don't think she was in a position to weigh-up income against safety.
                      She may have felt safe in her room, or she may not have - the question is moot.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                        And of course there was more than one Mary Kelly.
                        Not sure if your being tongue-in-cheek or not Bridewell, but Ive no knowledge that the story she gave to Barnett, her supposed background, given name, has ever been proven by historical records...so, yeah, maybe there was a woman who called herself by a name with a background though she was born into another.

                        Even Barnetts ID, the man who arguably knew her better than anyone at that time, was based on just 2 physical characteristics.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                          Hi, Caz.

                          Steven Gerald Wright, the Suffolk Strangler (wrongly described in the press as The Ipswich Ripper) was able to kill as many women as he did because he was known to many of them (in some cases probably as a client) and for that reason - because they 'knew' him - was someone who they believed (fatally and mistakenly) that they could trust. Kelly was in her own home (such as it was) and surrounded, within a few yards, by friends and neighbours. Perhaps her mistake was to think that, in those circumstances, she was safe even with a stranger.
                          You make a good point, Bridewell.

                          If Kelly did know her killer, then yes, it could have been as a previous customer. Since Barnett moved out, she had been free to invite in anyone she felt safe with, whether he was already known to her, or they had only just met and he was able to put her at her ease. Either could have applied to Blotchy, who could also have been the killer, although Mrs Cox doesn't seem to have recognised him, so he probably wasn't a familiar presence in or around Miller's Court.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            Six weeks behind on rent. Don't think she was in a position to weigh-up income against safety.
                            She may have felt safe in her room, or she may not have - the question is moot.
                            Being the worse for drink and singing for her supper, Kelly was arguably not the best judge of how safe she was to be alone with any man, indoors or out. I doubt it registered with her that she was about as far from safe as it was possible to be. She had no money to speak of, and no guaranteed means of making any by the morning, so if she wanted to eat the next day, or keep the roof over her head a while longer, she had little choice but to trust anyone who might provide for her.

                            The sad thing is, even if Kelly had decided against inviting her killer into that room, I suspect the outcome for her would have been no different, and we'd have another unsolved outdoor murder. And everyone would now be arguing over whether the age difference between her and the previous victims was enough to indicate a different killer with a different motive.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X



                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by caz View Post

                              Being the worse for drink and singing for her supper, Kelly was arguably not the best judge of how safe she was to be alone with any man, indoors or out. I doubt it registered with her that she was about as far from safe as it was possible to be. She had no money to speak of, and no guaranteed means of making any by the morning, so if she wanted to eat the next day, or keep the roof over her head a while longer, she had little choice but to trust anyone who might provide for her.
                              Perhaps her judgement was badly impaired on the night, but she weren't drunk 24/7, and must have dwelt on the risks when sober, at times.
                              How could that not have been the case, when we know Kelly expressed her fears to Barnett...

                              She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders she seemed afraid of someone, she did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly.

                              This seems to me like Barnett is admitting who Kelly was really afraid of - him

                              The sad thing is, even if Kelly had decided against inviting her killer into that room, I suspect the outcome for her would have been no different, and we'd have another unsolved outdoor murder. And everyone would now be arguing over whether the age difference between her and the previous victims was enough to indicate a different killer with a different motive.
                              I didn't know Kelly had outdoor clients.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by caz View Post

                                You make a good point, Bridewell.

                                If Kelly did know her killer, then yes, it could have been as a previous customer. Since Barnett moved out, she had been free to invite in anyone she felt safe with, whether he was already known to her, or they had only just met and he was able to put her at her ease. Either could have applied to Blotchy, who could also have been the killer, although Mrs Cox doesn't seem to have recognised him, so he probably wasn't a familiar presence in or around Miller's Court.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Lets not forget that Barnett left at the end of the previous month, and this was the 8th of the next, nor that Maria Harvey stayed there until Tuesday of that week. The known facts are that aside from Blocthy there is no witness statement that suggests she ever brought strange men into that courtyard.

                                Using witnes sattements this scenario works..

                                A soft tap on Marys door or window at around 3:45am, Diddles stirs in the room above, Mary answers the door with an exclamation, feeling her hangover and half asleep, and she lets the man in. Nothing happens right away, nothing is heard from a woman awake on the floor above. After a time the attack occurs, likely a stealthy attack,... little struggle, no noise due to the first cut being the surprise throat cut. While Mary lay on her side, oriented to the right side of the bed, facing the partition wall. Bootsteps are heard in the courtyard around 5:30.

                                You have to deal with the time of night, Marys state of dress, the fact that forced entry isnt in the evidence, that the voice at 3:45 was heard by 2 separate independent witnesses as sounding from that courtyard, that Marys room was dark and quiet after 1:30, that the man seen loitering is an hour earlier than the call of "oh-murder", which I suspect was "OH-murder", like someone of that period might say casually about a nuisance. Its almost a certainty that when Marys room is said to be dark and quiet that Mary is still in it..had she left before then Elizabeth would surely have seen her from where she was. We dont know if Blotchy is still there. I wonder what would compel someone who is already in a dark and quiet room, perhaps with company,..to restart the fire, get up, get dressed and go out to try and earn a couple of p. When she is already in arrears for weeks of rent. Without being evicted. Doesnt it seem likely she would have stayed in the dark and quiet, being very drunk at around midnight, and been annoyed when woken in the middle of the night by a man who expected and was given access to the room at almost 4am. She even made room on the bed for him,... her orientation on the bed, before being flipped back onto her back, is very telling. And this scenario accounts for the blood evidence on the wall.


                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X