What Does It Mean to "Know" Someone?

[DJA]

We know she had a sixpence and went to two hotels .....

[c.d.]

What exactly is the question regarding Stride's coins? Do we know for a fact that she had them? And are you asking for known facts or just seeking speculation?

c.d.

[c.d.]

A pretty good list, Michael.
And why bother getting snooty? - if you can ask questions of a fundamental nature that no one can give a good answer to (or even attempt to), you've won the argument by default. May as well smile at that point.

What happened to Stride's coins? No answer.

Of course these questions can all be answered. But because of the lack of evidence in this case some of the answers will involve speculation or what simply appears to be more probable. And unfortunately sometimes the answer will be I don't know because only the killer knows the answer. But why even attempt to provide answers when those answers will simply be dismissed

But here is an even bigger and more important question -- when did these boards become a contest to be won by default or otherwise?

c.d.

[DJA]

Meh.

I've actually worked with a Criminologist.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I have never claimed that someone here was intellectually inferior Caz, nor have I claimed that Im seeking to be the de facto source about anything. Ive said that people who choose to believe something without any evidence to back them up have essentially wishful perspective. Serial killers change Michael, so that explains Liz Stride...serial killers evolve, so that explains Marys indoor party...just because Israel isnt recorded as having any evidence of his statement entered as Inquest evidence doesnt mean it wasnt,....its not unbelievable that someone who claimed to be a friend of Mary Kellys would wait 4 days to come forward, nor that his description would be so very remarkable considering his distance and the fact it was in the middle of the night...its unlikely that multiple killers using knives were active in London 1888 other than Jack...

None of these positions above have any kind of support within the known evidence from the Canonical Group murder investigations.

I dont know about you, but I studied these cases for many years to be able to knowledgeably discuss the issues with people who have done the same, so having opinion and choice of perspective as counter arguments to known facts is quite a let down.

So, on the above...

1. Cite 1 specific evidence supported detail about the Stride murder that demonstrates a connection with Polly and Annies murder.
2. Cite specific evidence that shows why a Killer that has obviously chosen to kill women he doesnt know out on the streets while they are soliciting would then seek out women alone in their own rooms, half undressed in their own beds, in a small courtyard off the beaten path.
3. Provide evidence that the statement Israel Schwartz made to the police was in any way entered for formal review at the Inquest into the manner of her death.
4. Show evidence that proves Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly, was there that night as he claimed, and saw someone out with Mary Kelly after 11:45pm Thursday, the last time of a sighting of her by someone who actually did know her.
5. Show, using evidence, why Jack the Ripper crimes were unique by virtue of the fact they were committed using knives.

Ill help...

1. There is no supporting evidence.
2. There is no supporting evidence.
3. There is no supporting evidence
4. There is no supporting evidence
5. Abdominal mutilations were unique, knife crimes were not.

These are the same kinds of useless rebuttals I get time and again for statements that I make while using supporting evidence. And you wonder why I get snooty...

A pretty good list, Michael.
And why bother getting snooty? - if you can ask questions of a fundamental nature that no one can give a good answer to (or even attempt to), you've won the argument by default. May as well smile at that point.

What happened to Stride's coins? No answer.

[Michael W Richards]

Our opinions differ, Michael. Simple as. If that makes me, and all those who think like me on this case, intellectually inferior to you, or mad, then my opinion is that we're done here.

Enjoy being the only one in step.

Love,

Caz
X

I have never claimed that someone here was intellectually inferior Caz, nor have I claimed that Im seeking to be the de facto source about anything. Ive said that people who choose to believe something without any evidence to back them up have essentially wishful perspective. Serial killers change Michael, so that explains Liz Stride...serial killers evolve, so that explains Marys indoor party...just because Israel isnt recorded as having any evidence of his statement entered as Inquest evidence doesnt mean it wasnt,....its not unbelievable that someone who claimed to be a friend of Mary Kellys would wait 4 days to come forward, nor that his description would be so very remarkable considering his distance and the fact it was in the middle of the night...its unlikely that multiple killers using knives were active in London 1888 other than Jack...

None of these positions above have any kind of support within the known evidence from the Canonical Group murder investigations.

I dont know about you, but I studied these cases for many years to be able to knowledgeably discuss the issues with people who have done the same, so having opinion and choice of perspective as counter arguments to known facts is quite a let down.

So, on the above...

1. Cite 1 specific evidence supported detail about the Stride murder that demonstrates a connection with Polly and Annies murder.
2. Cite specific evidence that shows why a Killer that has obviously chosen to kill women he doesnt know out on the streets while they are soliciting would then seek out women alone in their own rooms, half undressed in their own beds, in a small courtyard off the beaten path.
3. Provide evidence that the statement Israel Schwartz made to the police was in any way entered for formal review at the Inquest into the manner of her death.
4. Show evidence that proves Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly, was there that night as he claimed, and saw someone out with Mary Kelly after 11:45pm Thursday, the last time of a sighting of her by someone who actually did know her.
5. Show, using evidence, why Jack the Ripper crimes were unique by virtue of the fact they were committed using knives.

Ill help...

1. There is no supporting evidence.
2. There is no supporting evidence.
3. There is no supporting evidence
4. There is no supporting evidence
5. Abdominal mutilations were unique, knife crimes were not.

These are the same kinds of useless rebuttals I get time and again for statements that I make while using supporting evidence. And you wonder why I get snooty...

[caz]

Unlike our good friend Michael here I imagine I would greatly enjoy having a pint or two with the very smart and witty Ms. Caz. I reckon we would have ourselves a good ole time with lots of jolly. Hope it can become a reality someday.

c.d.

Thank you kindly, c.d.

I would love to have a pint or two with you, and I could teach you more British expressions like "big girl's blouse".

Love,

Very smart and witty Ms. Caz
X

[caz]

Sometimes I am not sure whether I am the only sober poster here. Your suggesting that Mary had to know the person she lets in was capable of, and interested in killing her...right? Not content with what was written, that she knew him intimately, you have to infer that should mean she knew he wanted to kill her too....just how far are you willing to go to make people believe your imaginative arguments? What defenses are you prepared to use....are there any standards you follow with regards to reason, rationality? Or is this really about suggesting anything.... no matter how ludicrous rather than admitting this position of yours is all simply your opinion?

In the other thread you say that the first 2 Canonical were "similar" cases, where its abundantly clear they were in every pertinent way, almost identical murders. Rather than just losing an argument youd rather appear obtuse?

I dont dislike you Caz, despite all the flimsy rebuttal Ive seen from you over the years here and the mocking tone and imaginative counter arguments when dealing with an argument you cant win. Cant say Id like to have a pint together, but no real bias here. So Im appealing to the intellect that I perceive through the madness...dont counter argue with a rebuttal that is solely your own opinion. Back it up using something for god sakes...when I say Strides Murder is unlike ANY other Canonical Murder and therefore is most probably not by the same man, I have access to oodles of information already on page and easily accessible that supports that. Telling me what Mr Banana in Oklahoma did to his 25 victims of all ages and genders isnt a counter argument..its just a revelation that you dont actually have a viable counter.

Our opinions differ, Michael. Simple as. If that makes me, and all those who think like me on this case, intellectually inferior to you, or mad, then my opinion is that we're done here.

Enjoy being the only one in step.

Love,

Caz
X

[DJA]

Amazing resemblance to the family members as remembered by Barnett. John two would have been the son.

"Paddy"s research.

No death or marriage records for her.

Baptised at St Leonards,Shoreditch where Sutton became Health Officer.

[DJA]

Not really tongue-in-cheek and not a reference to her background as relayed via Barnett. I was alluding to the Mary Kelly who appears in the area on the 1881 census. If memory serves she was in a lodging house and her occupation was listed as 'prostitute'. Too old to be MJK as I recall but that was what the 'more than one Mary Kelly' was about. Sorry to have been so irritatingly vague.

Quite sure that Mary Ann Kelly is the one we seek.

Wasn't a lodging house. Think she was being treated for VD.

Possibly still C of E,not Catholic.

29 when murdered.

[c.d.]

I dont dislike you Caz, despite all the flimsy rebuttal Ive seen from you over the years here and the mocking tone and imaginative counter arguments when dealing with an argument you cant win. Cant say Id like to have a pint together, but no real bias here.

Unlike our good friend Michael here I imagine I would greatly enjoy having a pint or two with the very smart and witty Ms. Caz. I reckon we would have ourselves a good ole time with lots of jolly. Hope it can become a reality someday.

c.d.

[Bridewell]

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.

Not really tongue-in-cheek and not a reference to her background as relayed via Barnett. I was alluding to the Mary Kelly who appears in the area on the 1881 census. If memory serves she was in a lodging house and her occupation was listed as 'prostitute'. Too old to be MJK as I recall but that was what the 'more than one Mary Kelly' was about. Sorry to have been so irritatingly vague.

[Michael W Richards]

So Kelly's killer knew her 'intimately', while she knew so little about him - and herself apparently - that she let him into her room in the middle of the night, with absolutely no awareness that she had done anything to make him so enraged that he set about doing a ripper impression on her.

Must have been her singing then.

Love,

Caz
X

Sometimes I am not sure whether I am the only sober poster here. Your suggesting that Mary had to know the person she lets in was capable of, and interested in killing her...right? Not content with what was written, that she knew him intimately, you have to infer that should mean she knew he wanted to kill her too....just how far are you willing to go to make people believe your imaginative arguments? What defenses are you prepared to use....are there any standards you follow with regards to reason, rationality? Or is this really about suggesting anything.... no matter how ludicrous rather than admitting this position of yours is all simply your opinion?

In the other thread you say that the first 2 Canonical were "similar" cases, where its abundantly clear they were in every pertinent way, almost identical murders. Rather than just losing an argument youd rather appear obtuse?

I dont dislike you Caz, despite all the flimsy rebuttal Ive seen from you over the years here and the mocking tone and imaginative counter arguments when dealing with an argument you cant win. Cant say Id like to have a pint together, but no real bias here. So Im appealing to the intellect that I perceive through the madness...dont counter argue with a rebuttal that is solely your own opinion. Back it up using something for god sakes...when I say Strides Murder is unlike ANY other Canonical Murder and therefore is most probably not by the same man, I have access to oodles of information already on page and easily accessible that supports that. Telling me what Mr Banana in Oklahoma did to his 25 victims of all ages and genders isnt a counter argument..its just a revelation that you dont actually have a viable counter.

[caz]

The presumption of her ever having clients in her room is just something theoretical and without any known precedent. This was a private room, in her name, in a private courtyard, not a doss house as such, nor do we have evidence that the one man we know did enter that room with Mary after Joe left was entertained with anything other than song rather than sex.

My suggestion is that someone came to that courtyard and Marys room specifically because he knew her intimately. And apparently wanted to kill her, specifically, with great rage or emotion... very violently. And...she let him in to do it.

That would be contrary to everything learned about the killer of Polly and Annie.

So Kelly's killer knew her 'intimately', while she knew so little about him - and herself apparently - that she let him into her room in the middle of the night, with absolutely no awareness that she had done anything to make him so enraged that he set about doing a ripper impression on her.

Must have been her singing then.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You have taken some time to actually read about this case...and the others, right? Im not fond of being asked to identify a resource at the very location where its available for anyone to find themselves. Use the Press Reports text search function. The room was in Marys name.

This is from McCarthy's police statement:

I sent my man Thomas Bowyer to No 13 room Millers Court Dorset Street owned by me for the rent. Bowyer came back and called me, telling me what he had seen. I went with him back and looked through the broken window, where I saw the mutilated remains of the deceased whom I have knew as Mary Jane Kelly. I then despatched Bowyer to the Police Station Commercial Street (following myself) to acquaint the Police. The Inspector on duty returned with us to the scene at Millers Court. I let the room about ten months ago to the deceased and a man named Joe, who I believed to be her husband. It was a furnished room, at 4s/6 per week. I sent for the rent because for some time past they had not kept their payments regularly. I have since heard, the man Joe was not her husband and that he had recently left her.