What Does It Mean to "Know" Someone?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

[Bridewell]

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.

[Bridewell]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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 W Richards]

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?

[caz]

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

[Michael W Richards]

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?

[caz]

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

[c.d.]

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.

[c.d.]

Sorry, is that too harsh? The evidence in an overwhelming fashion suggests that Mary Kellys killer was there with her permission, which almost ensures that she and him were known to each other.

Hello Michael,

No, that was not meant to be a criticism. Only pointing out that that phrase gets used quite often.

And for the record, I agree that she "knew" her killer although I think we disagree in what capacity.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

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

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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

There is no record anywhere that suggests Mary Kelly ever had anyone in that outside her own close personal circle, other than Blotchy Man that night. Which is why he is likely her killer. And maybe the only time she brings a "client" in, if he was more than a friend. However men expected more than just singing from a whore they are paying for/paid.

[caz]

this murder evidence almost screams that victim and killer knew each other.

This is a quote from Michael Richards on the killer scoping out sites thread.

See how often that phrase gets used?

c.d.

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

[Michael W Richards]

this murder evidence almost screams that victim and killer knew each other.

This is a quote from Michael Richards on the killer scoping out sites thread.

See how often that phrase gets used?

c.d.

Sorry, is that too harsh? The evidence in an overwhelming fashion suggests that Mary Kellys killer was there with her permission, which almost ensures that she and him were known to each other.

[Michael W Richards]

By way of example, we have a new person working the front desk in my apartment building. I introduced myself and learned her first name but other than that I know nothing else about her. I don't know where she lives, whether she is married and has children or where she worked before. Can I say I know her?

c.d.

if you are in her private residence in the middle of the night, and she is undressed, in her bed, and its with her permission...you know her.