A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Wickerman]

She certainly did to a reporter, Jon.

Ben, what I'm saying is, the report does not "quote" Mrs Kennedy as using the name "Kelly". The report is given to us in the third person, ie; "she saw" and "she noticed".
That being the case we cannot say Mrs Kennedy specified Kelly by name.

The couple who lived opposite Kelly were the Keylers, not the Gallaghers (and please no silly suggestions from anyone that the names sound the same - they effing well don't!) as established in Lewis' police report and inquest evidence.

You apparently remember being told, in no uncertain terms by three different posters, besides myself, that you are once again.....totally wrong!
Sam Flynn - http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=253
Good Michael - http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=223
Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy - http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=224

Gallagher and Kellegher/Kelleher are not only easily mistaken for each other in English pronunciation, but also a Kelleher mispronounced in English as Keyler is beyond dispute.
Why do you keep this up Ben, I mean, really, its just like you refuse to learn anything.
Its not as if mishearing or mispronunciation is unique in this case, we have several examples of misheard or mispronounced personal names and words.

The time at which Lewis returned home was 2:30am according to the church clock, unlike Kennedy's 3.00am, and Lewis did not identify the Britannia woman as Kelly, unlike Kennedy who did.

Hold it Ben, Lewis did not see a second woman.
Lewis saw one man & one woman, Kennedy saw one man and two women, the second woman suggested to be Kelly.

Lewis passed the Britannia at 2:30 and saw a man and a woman, then "about" 3:00, Kennedy passed the Britannia and saw the same couple arguing, but also a second woman had appeared - Kelly.

That is a simple and straight forward interpretation, without the need to call anyone a liar.

We also have a report to the effect that an account was being parroted by other women.

Who else noticed this?
Have you found any other mention in the press about 'parroting'?
Did anyone else cover this story?

Why do you suppose The Star would make such a claim?, first they declare that several women are spreading the same story about the cry of murder. Then, they claim "they" (The Star) have investigated this and found that these claims were all "a fabrication".
No-one else, no other newspaper even noticed this, do you suppose The Star made this up? - perhaps to give their readers the impression that they practiced their own investigative skills?

In reality, the 'parroting' was just rumors that two other women had heard screams, the two witnesses who cannot speak to the press (Lewis & Prater), but The Star wrongly determined these rumors to be copying Mrs Kennedy when in actual fact they were all genuine witnesses.

The Star did talk to Mrs Prater, but Prater did not tell them that she was one of the women who heard the cry.
You also know that Sarah Lewis never gave an interview to the press, so The Star, had no other source, both the two ladies who were interviewed by the police and subsequently gave evidence at the inquest, did not speak to the press. Likely at the request of the police.

So, why would The Star claim these stories were a fabrication?
The only single source available to The Star was Mrs Kennedy, and they gave her version out in full. The rest of the sources, according to The Star, were a fabrication.

Just shows us how much they knew, doesn't it.

Was wideawake man standing in the "doorway of the deceased's house"?

Don't think so, somehow.

We have it from the horse's mouth...

"...I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise...."
Hutchinson.

He is not going to see any light or hear a noise from out in the street, is he. So here we have him admitting he walked up the court and stood outside her room - just as Lewis described.

Let's not. Where's the evidence that she was "captured within Miller's Court"? She may have claimed as much, but it's a near certainty ....

Whats this "near certainty"?, based on what?

Because Kennedy was in the court visiting her parents, and was still there at 11:00 am, she was also sealed in with the rest of the tenants.
The police interviewed all the tenants before they were allowed to go.

Mrs Kennedy - ".....until the morning, when she found the police in possession of the place, preventing all egress to the occupants of the small houses in this court."

We hear of Lewis for the first time at the inquest, which tells us that honoured her agreement with the police not to discuss her experience with the press, which speaks immeasurably for her credibility. Unfortunately, she appears to have discussed her experiences with other women, and at least one of them - Mrs. Kennedy - went straight to the press with her story.

No Ben, here I think you trapped yourself, if you claim Lewis honoured her agreement by not talking to anyone, then how could she tell Mrs Kennedy?
So, you have to make a concession, you choose to argue that Lewis was only asked not to talk to the press, but you are open to tell everyone else if you choose?

It doesn't work like that Ben, the police tell the witness not to discuss it with anyone!

I do apologise if the forgoing sounded stroppy, but I seem to go through this business time and time again.

Not necessary Ben, we all debate the same old issues over and over again. Views change, ideas change, new members contribute. There's always something new to pick up on.

What astounds me is how you profess to be so certain about issues that are simply not certain at all. You offer your opinions as facts, and there is certainly nothing factual about 'our interpretation' of news stories which are to a greater and lesser degree often edited.
Its almost as if you have decided how you want this story to be read, and you refuse to tolerate opinions which challenge your view.
Pretty much everything about the Kelly case is debatable, and always will be.

All the best, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi all,

Forgive me for attempting to steer this back toward the thread crux..

Your efforts do not go unnoticed...

One thing that I do believe is important here is that Sarah Lewis did not say she saw Mary Kelly, and anyone that did say they specifically saw Mary Kelly out of her room after 11:45pm Thursday night were either absent from the Inquest or warned about their statements, as Bonds findings clearly indicate that he believed she was dead long before 8am.

One of the issues has been that only those who appeared at the inquest are to be believed, yet it is well demonstrated that inaccurate statements were given at inquests, so this premiss is proven flawed.

Witness statements given to the press are no less accurate just because they were published in the press.
Any statement by any witness no matter where given must be judged on its own merits, and that is the overriding issue here.

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.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Good points in your last post, and I appreciate your efforts to steer the thread back on track. I'll just respond to Jon's latest, and then with any luck the ship will be back on course. I can't rule out the possibility of other people persisting with the "Mrs. Kennedy" stuff in an attempt to win a last-man-standing war of repetition, but fingers crossed that won't happen.

Hi Jon,

Ben, what I'm saying is, the report does not "quote" Mrs Kennedy as using the name "Kelly". The report is given to us in the third person, ie; "she saw" and "she noticed".That being the case we cannot say Mrs Kennedy specified Kelly by name.

I realise that, but it makes very little difference. She still claimed to have seen the victim at around 3.00am on the morning of her death, which means that if she wasn't just some thieving magpie who passed of Lewis' account on her own before being flushed out and discredited, she'd have appeared at the inquest as potentially the most crucial witness, but unfortunately for you, she was. I didn't mention this earlier, but it's nonsense to suggest that Kennedy would not have been called owing to the extreme similarity with Lewis. On the contrary, had there been any opportunity to present mutually corroborative evidence, police and coroner would have seized at the chance.

Gallagher and Kellegher/Kelleher are not only easily mistaken for each other in English pronunciation, but also a Kelleher mispronounced in English as Keyler is beyond dispute.

What the...?

Where the hell does "Kelleher" come from?

The Evening News gave the name Gallagher (no-one else did, significantly), whereas Lewis' police report and virtually all other press inquest reports give Keyler, and I think we reasonably expect that the police made enquiries and ascertained that this was the correct name. It is after all, an actual surname. "Kelleher" doesn't appear anywhere, and is a name you seem to have just plucked from the ether.

So the similarity between Keyler and Gallagher is...what, exactly?

"er."

Huge similarity there!

Gallagh..

Keyl..

Gal-ag...

Keel...

Or perhaps Kayl

Nope, try as I might, it requires some bizarre wishful thinking to get those two names to sound similar.

The irony is that even if they did sound similar, it would only illustrate that Kennedy passed on the name she had misheard from Lewis.

Why do you keep this up Ben

Well, all being well, I won't have to. With any luck, we've finished with this distracting off-topic nonsense now.

Hold it Ben, Lewis did not see a second woman.

Yes she DID, Jon.

Everyone knows she did. She saw one woman standing in Commercial Street outside the Britannia with your favourite black bag man, and then a second woman "in drink" who was with a young man further on down Dorset Street from Miller's Court.

Two completely different couples in completely different locations, with none of them having anything to do with the Court.

Who else noticed this? Have you found any other mention in the press about 'parroting'?

There doesn't need to be. Who else apart from the Star got the scoop on Israel Schwartz? No other newspaper. Are you now going to suggest that the Star "made up" Israel Schwartz too? No. So instead it needs to be realised that the Star made investigations independent from other newspapers, and uncovered information that we now know to be true. Or is it just an amazing coincidence that the Star's findings perfectly explain the suspicious, unrealistic degree of similarity between the Lewis and Kennedy accounts? You may not like the Star, but they demonstrated perfectly - not just in the Schwartz case - that they "practiced their own investigative skills".

Did they incorrectly identify Kennedy as the originator? Maybe, but the issue was soon clarified when it was revealed that Lewis stayed in Miller's Court, Lewis honoured her police agreement not to blab to the press, Lewis gave a police report, and that Lewis gave her evidence at the inquest. This cemented beyond question her identity as the woman whose account was being parroted, and it inescapably follows that the parroters must have been those women whose accounts were suspiciously similar to Lewis', but whose name appeared only in the press. Mrs. Kennedy, in other words. The inference is inescapable, to my mind.

He is not going to see any light or hear a noise from out in the street, is he. So here we have him admitting he walked up the court and stood outside her room - just as Lewis described.

No.

When Lewis saw the wideawake man, who I agree was Hutchinson, he was standing opposite the court entrance by Crossingham's lodging house. This is made clear in every single source, including her police statement, apart from the Daily News. There is no earthly justification for you to champion the Daily News' erroneous report as accurate whilst discarding all the other accounts which flatly contradict it. None at all.

Because Kennedy was in the court visiting her parents, and was still there at 11:00 am, she was also sealed in with the rest of the tenants.

She might have said she was, but it's far more likely that she heard from Lewis that she was "sealed in". It's just another detail that Kennedy stole from Lewis' account.

No Ben, here I think you trapped yourself, if you claim Lewis honoured her agreement by not talking to anyone, then how could she tell Mrs Kennedy?

I said she honoured her agreement with the police not to speak to the press. I never said she didn't speak to other women. Indeed, I think it's very clear that she did, and that Kennedy was one of those women.

It doesn't work like that Ben, the police tell the witness not to discuss it with anyone!

Says who? You?

Not necessary Ben, we all debate the same old issues over and over again. Views change, ideas change

But yours don't, that's the problem, and you make it worse by arguing things that can't possibly be true. If I come across as intolerant, I'm afraid it stems from that. And we're not just debating the "same old issues". We're regurgitating entire debates practically verbatim. I think out of respect for the other posters here, let's put all this Kennedy silliness on hold for now.

Kelly had every reason to be out earning coin

But the reliable, non-discredited, taken-seriously evidence paints a somewhat different picture - that of an intoxicated woman with ample time for extended sing-song indoors.

Any statement by any witness no matter where given must be judged on its own merits, and that is the overriding issue here.

But one of the most crucial criteria for such judgments is the manner in which that evidence is presented, and as such, police and inquest statements are bound to be treated as more reliable than press tattle. That's just obvious.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I realise that, but it makes very little difference. She still claimed to have seen the victim at around 3.00am on the morning of her death, which means that if she wasn't just some thieving magpie who passed of Lewis' account on her own before being flushed out and discredited, she'd have appeared at the inquest as potentially the most crucial witness, but unfortunately for you, she was.

Hello again, Ben.
We are in no position to second guess why Macdonald only called a dozen witnesses in such an important case as this. Compare Macdonald's short list and single sitting with Wynne Baxter's long list of witnesses and over several days.

Had Wynne Baxter presided over Kelly's inquest we might have fewer questions and a more complete picture.
One consideration why Mrs Kennedy was not called may be that she told her complete story to the press after, I'm sure, being requested by the police to say nothing to anyone. Lewis, Cox, Prater, etc. complied, Kennedy did not.

I didn't mention this earlier, but it's nonsense to suggest that Kennedy would not have been called owing to the extreme similarity with Lewis. On the contrary, had there been any opportunity to present mutually corroborative evidence, police and coroner would have seized at the chance.

Well once again my friend I can demonstrate the errors of your thinking. If this presumption of yours was correct then Maurice Lewis would have been called in support of Mrs Maxwell, but as we all know, he was not.
Neither was the man who sold her the milk... (read on).

"On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room. Another young woman, whose name is known, has also informed the police that she is positive she saw Kelly between half-past 8 and a quarter to 9 on Friday morning."

Where are these "very important supportive witnesses" (known to the police), Ben?
Your assumption is unfounded. It should be clear to you that gathering supportive witnesses is not deemed a requirement by the Coroner.
A Coroner does not play "My gang is bigger than your gang" type games, one good witness is all he needs.
Need I go on...?

Sarah Lewis saw the loiterer standing watching a couple pass up the court, this was important because of the time, 2:30 am.
Mrs Kennedy only saw "Kelly"? outside the Britannia "about 3:00 am", with no-one. Yes there was a couple nearby, but she does not say they were so close as to be regarded as "together". Kelly was apparently alone.
The evidence of Sarah Lewis has more potential because of her seeing the loiterer in the vicinity of the murder scene.

The irony is that even if they did sound similar, it would only illustrate that Kennedy passed on the name she had misheard from Lewis.

Not at all.
This extract is not from Mrs Kennedy, the reporter appears to have spoken directly with Mr Gallagher..
"... Immediately opposite the house in which Mary Jane Kelly was murdered is a tenement occupied by an Irishman, named Gallagher, and his family. On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour..."

Well, all being well, I won't have to. With any luck, we've finished with this distracting off-topic nonsense now.

If I recall you are the one who jumped in to make a long drawn out repetitive issue about it, you are the one dragging it out, like you have before. Not that I'm complaining, just to remind you that if this debate does not suit you... just let it go.

Everyone knows she did. She saw one woman standing in Commercial Street outside the Britannia with your favourite black bag man, and then a second woman "in drink" who was with a young man further on down Dorset Street from Miller's Court.

Lewis did not see the second woman outside the Britannia, that was Kennedy.
And, just to remind you, the couple you mention above seen by Lewis, those being watched by this loiterer, are not specified to be in Dorset St. in any press article, that is your invention.

They were located as walking up the passage/court.

There doesn't need to be. Who else apart from the Star got the scoop on Israel Schwartz? No other newspaper. Are you now going to suggest that the Star "made up" Israel Schwartz too?

I didn't make that suggestion, but others have. A more serious concern about that story is "who put the knife in Pipeman's hand?" - where have you been?
Trusting The Star has always been ill advised, even at the time.

So instead it needs to be realised that the Star made investigations independent from other newspapers, and uncovered information that we now know to be true.

This explains why your arguments are in so much trouble, your source is no better than the Keystone Cops. It is because the police will not talk to The Star that, "they make it up as they go" (their words, not mine).

You may not like the Star, but they demonstrated perfectly - not just in the Schwartz case - that they "practiced their own investigative skills".

You should add that line to your signature

When Lewis saw the wideawake man, who I agree was Hutchinson, he was standing opposite the court entrance by Crossingham's lodging house. This is made clear in every single source, including her police statement, apart from the Daily News. There is no earthly justification for you to champion the Daily News' erroneous report as accurate whilst discarding all the other accounts which flatly contradict it. None at all.

The justification is Hutchinson's own words to the police... for goodness sakes.
"...They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away."

Then the same to the press...
"...and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away."

She might have said she was, but it's far more likely that she heard from Lewis that she was "sealed in". It's just another detail that Kennedy stole from Lewis' account.

Every witness that disagrees with you, you brand a liar!

And now, you go so far as to add Sarah Lewis to your "liars club". You do agree she honoured a request by the police to say nothing?, yet you now make her a liar by suggesting she told Mrs Kennedy, why?, its your way of trying to uphold your crumbling theory.

I said she honoured her agreement with the police not to speak to the press. I never said she didn't speak to other women. Indeed, I think it's very clear that she did, and that Kennedy was one of those women.

Ok, I see, "you cannot say anything to the press Mrs Lewis, but by all means tell anyone you choose, friends, neighbours, relatives...", uncle Tom Cobley and all!

Sure Ben, that's the common police method to limit the spread of critical evidence, dammit, how come I missed that (good grief!).

We're regurgitating entire debates practically verbatim. I think out of respect for the other posters here, let's put all this Kennedy silliness on hold for now.

Like I pointed out above, you choose to make an issue of it, ...just let it go.

But the reliable, non-discredited, taken-seriously evidence paints a somewhat different picture - that of an intoxicated woman with ample time for extended sing-song indoors.

So you don't believe Prater afterall? - All was quiet after 1:00 am, no singing, no movement, no light (Prater), not even a fire?

Quite consistent with Kelly being out, back on the streets.
Yes, she could have fallen asleep, but there's no "reliable, non-discredited, taken-seriously evidence" (your words), to be sure either way. And, falling asleep in a cold room with no fire (no light?) - not likely.
Also, two people, albeit two members of your ever expanding "liars club", say they saw her out, whether you choose to believe them or not.

But one of the most crucial criteria for such judgments is the manner in which that evidence is presented, and as such, police and inquest statements are bound to be treated as more reliable than press tattle. That's just obvious.

The authorities were not comparing inquest testimony to statements made in the press, thats what we are doing.
And, my question has always been, on what basis do we reject the story given by a press witness especially when it does not contradict a story given at the inquest?

My point being, press witnesses are only rejected by modern theorists because what they say conflicts with modern ill thought out theories.

All the best, Jon S.

[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

[Fisherman]

Baxter was always good fun ...!

Fisherman

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.