A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

If JTR was a random killer who was not acquainted with his victims then how the hell would he know where Kelly lived?

Discreet surveillance most probably, of the type used by other serial killers who targetted strangers in their homes - Bundy, Rader, Napper etc. The equally plausible alternative is that the killer was mildly acquainted with Kelly, and in terms of prostitute serial killers, there would be nothing unusual about that. Arthur Shawcross was known casually by some of his victims as a regular client, and Stephen Wright was known to many of the local Ipswitch prostitutes in his hunting ground.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

I see no reason to believe that Mary's killer was a stranger to her, or to the street.

and I see no reason to believe he wasn't a stranger either. There is nothing either way one looks at it. I would say that the murderer most likely wasn't a former client. Either a stranger or someone who saw her about, but wasn't a real acquaintance. That's about it.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Observer,

I don't believe Lynn's question was a sincere one. I think it is connected to the concept that Kelly's murderer knew her. If i am incorrect Lynn will correct me I am sure.

Mike

Hi GM
Knowing Lynn, that would appear so.

That said, I doubt Mary solicited many strangers, more often than not these people all worked and drank in walking distance of where they lived. Occasionally Mary might hook up with someone passing through, or new to the area, but by and large I'm sure she had a clientele that she knew, and that knew her.

If Mary's 'patch' was outside the railway station, or down at the docks then she might solicit more strangers than locals, but Dorset St. is not normally associated with outsiders.

I see no reason to believe that Mary's killer was a stranger to her, or to the street.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

Observer,

I don't believe Lynn's question was a sincere one. I think it is connected to the concept that Kelly's murderer knew her. If i am incorrect Lynn will correct me I am sure.

Mike

[Observer]

Hello Michael.

"It also presented the killer with options he didn't have before."

Why did he not have them? Was "MJK's" place off limits before?

Cheers.
LC

If JTR was a random killer who was not acquainted with his victims then how the hell would he know where Kelly lived? And yes I do believe Kelly met her killer out on the street.

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael.

"It also presented the killer with options he didn't have before."

Why did he not have them? Was "MJK's" place off limits before?

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,

I don't want to go to a list of ifs. Suffice it to say that the other victims didn't have convenient little flats to take people to at the times of their deaths and Kelly did. Or was your question rhetorical? If (again with the ifs) the killer had known Kelly had her own flat temporarily devoid of Barnett, then he would have had another option. Nevertheless, my answer isn't important. I was actually pointing out the logic of a prostitute using her own place from time to time.

Mike

[lynn cates]

por que?

Hello Michael.

"It also presented the killer with options he didn't have before."

Why did he not have them? Was "MJK's" place off limits before?

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

"Prater made a general comment about the conduct in Millers Court:
"It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased."

I dont see Mary Kelly mentioned as one of them, and since we know several women in the courtyard likely solicited when the need came, her "general" observation has no direct bearing on Mary Kelly. The records do not show anyone claiming that Mary Kelly specifically ever brought a single client into the courtyard.

Just a small thing here: Because a name wasn't mentioned doesn't mean anything. To dispute the idea of Kelly bringing clients to her room now and then because there are no records is a disservice to logic. She was a prostitute to be sure, and not a halfhearted one. There can be no reasonable doubt that she brought men to her room at least on occasion. The people in the Court knew she was a prostitute and so did her boyfriend. It was no secret. Having a room presented her with options that the others didn't have. It also presented the killer with options he didn't have before.

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

Lets address some points you were making in your last post...

"We have a parting comment from Lizzie Albrook, when talking about Mary:
"...and wished she had enough money to go back to Ireland, where her people lived. I don't believe she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so in order to keep herself from starvation....Then, another observation.....Kelly informed her that she had no money, and it was then she said that if she could not get any she would never go out any more, but would do away with herself."

If your asking me to accept that Mary regretted her life I have no problems with that assumption, if youre asking me to use the above to conclude Mary would have "worked" to earn the money to get her alleged wish, you need only look at the underlined part for your answer.

"Prater made a general comment about the conduct in Millers Court:
"It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased."

I dont see Mary Kelly mentioned as one of them, and since we know several women in the courtyard likely solicited when the need came, her "general" observation has no direct bearing on Mary Kelly. The records do not show anyone claiming that Mary Kelly specifically ever brought a single client into the courtyard.

"Ah, So Prater was alluding to Mary being a prostitute?"

Im not sure why you mentioned that, the fact that Mary was the only Canonical who almost certainly gained any money she ever had from prostitution or generosity hasnt been disputed by me.

"Where do we learn how much Harvey gave her, and whether it was enough?
What assumptions are we being asked to accept here?"

This is simpler than you are making it Jon. Maria almost assuredly did not give Mary Kelly enough money to get fed and sauced, yet Mary was at a pub and got sauced and apparently later that night, got fed. Unless she is turning tricks in the alley between pints, or on the tables, it appears Blotchy or someone else was footing her bill....likely, as I stated, for the opportunity to be close to an attractive young woman. Or maybe based on some notion of later payment, which for Blotchy it seems was a serenade for more than 1 hour.

"Apparently, he only gave Mary money when he had it to give her, and he does not say how much. Any money he had may have been as little as 6d, or a shilling. Just because Barnett managed to give her something, when he had it, still does not mean she had enough to stay home."

You may have a point on how often Barnett gave her money, I do recall a quote from him stating that its was every day excluding that Thursday....didnt he have a gambling evening planned that night? As for how much and what it would buy...I dont know, but it wasnt enough to sustain her AND pay any back rent. The arrears is a Kelly pattern Jon, you need to factor in basic human nature when you assess these people. The woman has been kicked out for running tabs before, and here she is doing it again. Her fear of eviction is fantasy.

"Landlords tend to accept the fact that when you evict the tenant you are kissing the debt goodbye. But so long as you keep them on the chance remains you will always recover something."

Quite true, and so it shows us that her former landlord who evicted her for rent arrears must have been pushed to his limit. If Mary cared one whit about her financial situation she could have hung a shingle and done factory-like brothel work when Barnett left, she could have been working her last night instead of drinking, she could have paid McCarthy something against her arrears with the money Joe gave her....and who knows who else was giving her money at that time, she was seeing 2 Joes. But she didnt. Those are the known facts.

I characterize Mary Kelly as someone who sees men as vehicles. Not very flattering of course, and as we know she stated she stayed with Barnett because he was "nice to her",...but it appears to me that she chose to use her beauty and perhaps some charms to get what she needed. Those years would have soon been behind her though...there is always a younger prettier Mary Kelly type right around the corner.

Best wishes Jon

[Bridewell]

It would be great if someone who supports the notion that Mary went out soliciting in the rain after Blotchy left would just admit that in fact she had no reason at all to do so on that night.

"Hutchinson, will you lend me sixpence?"

It would be great if someone who doesn't support said notion would provide the proof that Hutchinson was lying because, according to him, quite unequivocally, MJK was soliciting.

[Wickerman]

The statement above Jon is plainly wrong...Kelly had no impetus to solicit that night or on any night up until that night.

Hello Michael.

We have a parting comment from Lizzie Albrook, when talking about Mary:
"...and wished she had enough money to go back to Ireland, where her people lived. I don't believe she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so in order to keep herself from starvation.

Then, another observation..
"...Kelly informed her that she had no money, and it was then she said that if she could not get any she would never go out any more, but would do away with herself."

How did Mrs Prater describe Mary?
"She was a very pleasant girl," added Mrs. Prater, "and seemed to be on good terms with everybody. She dressed poorly, as she was, of course, badly off."

Prater made a general comment about the conduct in Millers Court:
"It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased."
.
.
Kelly was, she admitted, one of her own class, and she made no secret of her way of gaining a livelihood.

Ah, So Prater was alluding to Mary being a prostitute?


So, this theory that Mary was not in need of money, is based on what?

Her having food and drink?

She has eaten, she has drunk, and she has a room to sleep in. Without having any money other than Maria's coin. That was her status when she arrived home at 11:45pm.

Where do we learn how much Harvey gave her, and whether it was enough?
What assumptions are we being asked to accept here?

Barnett had given her money every day since he left exclduing that last evening.

I thought Barnett said he visited her every day, but only gave her money when he had some?

"....I used to call there nearly every day, and if I had any money I used to give her some...."

Elsewhere...

"...He called several other days and gave her money when he had it."

Apparently, he only gave Mary money when he had it to give her, and he does not say how much. Any money he had may have been as little as 6d, or a shilling. Just because Barnett managed to give her something, when he had it, still does not mean she had enough to stay home.

She was in arrears to the tune of 2 1/2 weeks and yet there is NO indication by anyone that she was on the verge of eviction. In fact McCarthy himself acknowledges that arrears are hard to get.

Landlords tend to accept the fact that when you evict the tenant you are kissing the debt goodbye. But so long as you keep them on the chance remains you will always recover something.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Kelly had every reason to be out earning coin, no-one was in a position to say that she stayed in all night, so if someone said she saw Kelly out, her claim is quite possible. That's the reality of the situation.

Regards, Jon S.

The statement above Jon is plainly wrong...Kelly had no impetus to solicit that night or on any night up until that night. Barnett had given her money every day since he left exclduing that last evening. But, on that night she obviously had food, and drink, and we know of only the coin Maria gave her to facilitate that. So,..she obviously could get food and drink without working. She was in arrears to the tune of 2 1/2 weeks and yet there is NO indication by anyone that she was on the verge of eviction. In fact McCarthy himself acknowledges that arrears are hard to get. Hence, no need to work in the rain to get some back rent money. Her bed that night was already secure.

And Mary has already established what kind of tenant she is, and how responsible she has been for paying her rent...she has been evicted before for doing the exact same thing.

She has eaten, she has drunk, and she has a room to sleep in. Without having any money other than Maria's coin. That was her status when she arrived home at 11:45pm.

It would be great if someone who supports the notion that Mary went out soliciting in the rain after Blotchy left would just admit that in fact she had no reason at all to do so on that night. If she did....it was just to get her hands on some money....but, to do what with at 3am?

You might say she wanted money for Mayors Day...but the day had free events and parades, so she would only need it to eat and drink later in a pub perhaps. And as we see Thursday night, she apparently solved those problems... without working or having any money.

Young and attractive women who are known for using their physical assets to make a living or to get by in life often get what they want without work. Because there is always some lonely bloke with a few bob that would be delighted to buy them a drink and merely bask in their presence, and possibly their flattery.

Mary told a friend that she stayed with Barnett because he was "nice to her".....doesnt that validate what Im saying about this woman?

Cheers Jon

[Wickerman]

Irrespective of Baxter's singular inclinations, I'm sure the Kelly inquest would have been broader in scope, with more witnesses and considerably more questions.
I'm not at all suggesting Baxter was 'better' than Macdonald, but I have this annoying feeling that Macdonald had already made his mind up about certain aspects of this case before the Inquest began.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Baxter was always good fun ...!

Fisherman

[lynn cates]

If you Wynne, you lose.

Hello Jon.

"Had Wynne Baxter presided over Kelly's inquest we might have fewer questions and a more complete picture."

Precisely. Not to mention an embarrassing item or two.

Cheers.
LC