What Does It Mean to "Know" Someone?

[Michael W Richards]

By 'enough is enough', I meant McCarthy likely decided that something had to be done about the situation, not that he was necessarily about to evict.



Do you have evidence of the rental agreement being in Mary's name only?



Lifestyle?

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I believe Barnett had had irregular income since he lost his steady job, as his testimony in the Telegraph indicates;

"Joseph Barnett deposed : I was a fish-porter, and I work as a labourer and fruit-porter."

Barnett's police statement begins...

I am a porter on Billingsgate Market, but have been out of employment for the past 3 or 4 months.

He may well have had irregular income, though.
The point is that Joe had nearly 3 or 4 months to 'disapprove of Mary's lifestyle', and leave her because of it. What changed on October 30?
Can we really believe that Barnett left Kelly, based on 'moral concerns', but nonetheless remained friendly?
If they remained friendly, what did he gain by leaving her? Was he trying to teach her a lesson about the right and wrong ways to make ends meet? Tut-tut, Mary.
The man is a joke, and don't forget that Mary may well have been a 'good catch' (pardon the pun). Was Joe?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

McCarthy himself declared that arrears were collected "as best they could", and Bowyer was instructed to go by to see if any arrears could be collected. there is no indication at all, despite the arrears, that Mary was on the verge of being tossed out.

By 'enough is enough', I meant McCarthy likely decided that something had to be done about the situation, not that he was necessarily about to evict.

the rental agree men was in Marys name, not Joes, McCarthy likely didnt like people not on the lease are regular residents when arrears were on the books.

Do you have evidence of the rental agreement being in Mary's name only?

Barnett said he disapproved of Marys lifestyle and moved out. It may have more to do with Maria staying there too.

Lifestyle?

[Joshua Rogan]

I believe Barnett had had irregular income since he lost his steady job, as his testimony in the Telegraph indicates;

"Joseph Barnett deposed : I was a fish-porter, and I work as a labourer and fruit-porter."

[Michael W Richards]

McCarthy himself declared that arrears were collected "as best they could", and Bowyer was instructed to go by to see if any arrears could be collected. there is no indication at all, despite the arrears, that Mary was on the verge of being tossed out. the rental agree men was in Marys name, not Joes, McCarthy likely didnt like people not on the lease are regular residents when arrears were on the books. Barnett said he disapproved of Marys lifestyle and moved out. It may have more to do with Maria staying there too.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't know either, but I suspect she probably did on occasion [hence: 'I suspect the outcome...'], at least all the while Barnett was still sleeping there every night. She hadn't had the bed to herself for long when her killer struck, and if she also let female friends use the room, it was not available for her 24/7.

To be fair, I don't actually know if Kelly had regular indoor clients either, or if she only ever took them indoors, regardless of what they asked for.

I'm not even sure it mattered whether she saw her killer as a client or not. If he had approached her on the street and she hadn't liked the look of him, it wouldn't have saved her life if he was determined to do her harm, indoors or out. In fact, I suspect [that word again] this may have been what happened in Dutfield's Yard.

Love,

Caz
X

The crucial issue is Barnett's claim to have left Kelly...

I am a porter on Billingsgate Market, but have been out of employment for the past 3 or 4 months. I have been living with Marie Jeanette Kelly who occupied No.13 Room Millers Court. I have lived with her altogether about 18 months, for the last eight months in Millers Court, until last Tuesday week (30 ulto) when in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution, I resolved on leaving her, but I was friendly with her and called to see her between seven and eight pm Thursday (8th) and told her I was very sorry I had no work and that I could not give her any money. I left her about 8 oclock same evening and that was the last time I saw her alive. There was a woman in the room when I called.

He is claiming to have left her, because he had no money, and she was prostituting - that is, he supposedly left her, based on a principle.
This is complete utter garbage.

We have already agreed that Kelly had no choice - if she wanted to stay alive she had to do it - and Barnett had no apparent income.
This had been the situation for months. What suddenly changed?

What suddenly changed is that McCarthy decided enough was enough.
Pressure would have been placed on Barnett to leave - diplomatically in the case of McCarthy himself - and somewhat more robustly in the case of Boyer.
Kelly was in no place to kick Joe out of her own accord - the rental agreement was probably in his name.

For obvious reasons, Barnett was never going to admit at the inquest that he'd been booted - he would then be seen to have motive.

Barnett's last throw of the dice was on the Thursday evening - it didn't work. As far as he was concerned, that was the last straw.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

How would this show that Kelly must have known her killer and that he wasn't there in the guise of a customer, but as a trusted friend? If she was known locally as a prostitute with her own room, and she was in dire need of money, would she have turned away prospective customers who came knocking on her door? If she took up with prospective customers she met in the street, what would the difference be? Or do you think she only went with men she knew, either by sight or name, and preferably regulars? How about anyone who didn't have two heads, but did have the pennies Hutch claimed he couldn't lend her?

Is your suggestion that she was simply doing a male friend a favour, by letting him stay the night - no sex on offer? Someone she understood to be homeless, presumably, or why would he want or need to doss down in that shabby little room? Someone who gave her no cause for alarm, yet had some pressing urge to destroy this particular woman?

Love,

Caz
X

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.

[caz]

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.

Hi Michael,

How would this show that Kelly must have known her killer and that he wasn't there in the guise of a customer, but as a trusted friend? If she was known locally as a prostitute with her own room, and she was in dire need of money, would she have turned away prospective customers who came knocking on her door? If she took up with prospective customers she met in the street, what would the difference be? Or do you think she only went with men she knew, either by sight or name, and preferably regulars? How about anyone who didn't have two heads, but did have the pennies Hutch claimed he couldn't lend her?

Is your suggestion that she was simply doing a male friend a favour, by letting him stay the night - no sex on offer? Someone she understood to be homeless, presumably, or why would he want or need to doss down in that shabby little room? Someone who gave her no cause for alarm, yet had some pressing urge to destroy this particular woman?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I didn't know Kelly had outdoor clients.

I don't know either, but I suspect she probably did on occasion [hence: 'I suspect the outcome...'], at least all the while Barnett was still sleeping there every night. She hadn't had the bed to herself for long when her killer struck, and if she also let female friends use the room, it was not available for her 24/7.

To be fair, I don't actually know if Kelly had regular indoor clients either, or if she only ever took them indoors, regardless of what they asked for.

I'm not even sure it mattered whether she saw her killer as a client or not. If he had approached her on the street and she hadn't liked the look of him, it wouldn't have saved her life if he was determined to do her harm, indoors or out. In fact, I suspect [that word again] this may have been what happened in Dutfield's Yard.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[caz]

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

[caz]

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

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.