What Does It Mean to "Know" Someone?

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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."

[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?

[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?

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.