Who Chose the Murder Sites?

[Fisherman]

Worth remembering for those that have forgotten, Barnetrt lived with Mary until the end of Oct, Maria lived withm and then with Mary until Tuesday of that last week. Blotchy entered the room with Mary on the Thursday evening. Ergo, the ONLY day Mary had that room all to herself prior to her murder was Wednesday night.

Yes. And nobody is suggesting that she would have snuck out and prostituted herself when Barnett and/or Maria Harvey stayed with Kelly. But the moment they were out, she was factually left to fend for herself. No money, no food, no roof over her head was a threatening reality, and she was already lagging behind severely on the rent. To me, that says she would have been out on the streets double quick.

[Harry D]

Had this idea also had over 125 years of specific analysis and still failed the authentication or validation test Id be concerned about the obvious missing evidence. But as it is only this serial killer premise has had that kind of scrutiny and still failed any provability.

Not sure what the implication is here, Michael: That because the murders were unsolved, the serial killer hypothesis is invalid?

[Michael W Richards]

Not sure what the implication is here, Michael: That because the murders were unsolved, the serial killer hypothesis is invalid?

Question for a question Harry...are you aware of any hard physical evidence that exists that places the killer of Polly with any other Canonical Victim? Is there hard evidence that someone, anyone, killed 5 women in the Fall of 1888? Is there any hard evidence at all that the Canonical victims were connected by a single killer?

The facts are that the ONLY thing linking these poor murdered women are the opinions that they suffered at the same hand. Contemporary, modern, it doesn't matter, opinions can be used to illuminate but not to blame even unknown people.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes. And nobody is suggesting that she would have snuck out and prostituted herself when Barnett and/or Maria Harvey stayed with Kelly. But the moment they were out, she was factually left to fend for herself. No money, no food, no roof over her head was a threatening reality, and she was already lagging behind severely on the rent. To me, that says she would have been out on the streets double quick.

I respect that you have differing opinions, just be sure that a prejudiced view of single unemployed women of that era isnt fueling that stance. Assuming Mary did anything "prostitutional" in that room isn't proof of anything.

[Fisherman]

I respect that you have differing opinions, just be sure that a prejudiced view of single unemployed women of that era isnt fueling that stance. Assuming Mary did anything "prostitutional" in that room isn't proof of anything.

"A prejudiced view of a single unemployed woman"?

Are you serious, Michael? The "single unemployed woman" we are talking about is Mary Kelly, who had a long story of prostitution behind her, as witnessed about by numerous sources. Do you consider it prejudiced to work from the assumption that she would again turn to prostitution in the kind of snag she had ended up in?

And when did I say that her prostituting herself in her room was proof of something? I am trying, as best as I can, to understand what happened to her, and I find that to that end, assuming that she had given up prostitution and was looking for some other work, while at the same time making sure that her room was not used for immoral purposes, makes for a less trustworthy scenario in my eyes than one where she returned to prostitution and where Blotchy was a punter.
I may be right and I may be wrong (just like you may), but that is how I read what I see.

[Michael W Richards]

"A prejudiced view of a single unemployed woman"?

Are you serious, Michael? The "single unemployed woman" we are talking about is Mary Kelly, who had a long story of prostitution behind her, as witnessed about by numerous sources. Do you consider it prejudiced to work from the assumption that she would again turn to prostitution in the kind of snag she had ended up in?

And when did I say that her prostituting herself in her room was proof of something? I am trying, as best as I can, to understand what happened to her, and I find that to that end, assuming that she had given up prostitution and was looking for some other work, while at the same time making sure that her room was n ot used for immoral purposes, makes for a less trustworthy scenario on my eyes than one where she returned to prostitution and that Blotchy was a punter.
I may be right and I may be wrong (just like you may), but that is how I read what I see.

Mary had run arrears in 2 consecutive rentals, she was apparently living off handouts from Barnett, and she was a woman who used to work in a brothel in nice dresses, not on the streets. I don't see her being motivated to do anything while living off the proceeds of someone else. Her fall from grace might be a story worth knowing, but without it, I cant see Mary willingly working the streets for unwashed punters, or becoming diligent about her bills.

[Michael W Richards]

Absolutely, and some would just even sing for a penny (see Singing Lizzie), and it`s not too hard to imagine that for some, just sitting in a chair in front of a fire, would be worth a penny or two.

Since Mary had a room in her name, is it Blotchy who is paying for the fireside song?

[Harry D]

Question for a question Harry...are you aware of any hard physical evidence that exists that places the killer of Polly with any other Canonical Victim? Is there hard evidence that someone, anyone, killed 5 women in the Fall of 1888? Is there any hard evidence at all that the Canonical victims were connected by a single killer?

The facts are that the ONLY thing linking these poor murdered women are the opinions that they suffered at the same hand. Contemporary, modern, it doesn't matter, opinions can be used to illuminate but not to blame even unknown people.

That's why serial killers are so elusive, because the victims are generally unrelated and have no relationship to the killer. There's nothing linking them except for the victim profile, geographic profile and the methodology, which can often be a grey area.

[Pierre]

That's why serial killers are so elusive, because the victims are generally unrelated and have no relationship to the killer. There's nothing linking them except for the victim profile, geographic profile and the methodology, which can often be a grey area.

Harry,

if you would define a general victimology for the C5, what would it be?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Mary had run arrears in 2 consecutive rentals, she was apparently living off handouts from Barnett, and she was a woman who used to work in a brothel in nice dresses, not on the streets. I don't see her being motivated to do anything while living off the proceeds of someone else. Her fall from grace might be a story worth knowing, but without it, I cant see Mary willingly working the streets for unwashed punters, or becoming diligent about her bills.

I am not sure that any of the prostitutes was "willingly working the streets for unwashed punters", Michael. I think it was not about willingness at all, but instead about necessity.
Walter Dew:
"I knew Marie quite well by sight. Often I had seen her parading along Commercial Street, between Flower-and-Dean Street and Aldgate, or along Whitechapel Road. She was usually in the company of two or three of her kind, fairly neatly dressed and invariably wearing a clean white apron, but no hat."

So Kelly was working the streets, apparently, willing or not.

[Michael W Richards]

I am not sure that any of the prostitutes was "willingly working the streets for unwashed punters", Michael. I think it was not about willingness at all, but instead about necessity.
Walter Dew:
"I knew Marie quite well by sight. Often I had seen her parading along Commercial Street, between Flower-and-Dean Street and Aldgate, or along Whitechapel Road. She was usually in the company of two or three of her kind, fairly neatly dressed and invariably wearing a clean white apron, but no hat."

So Kelly was working the streets, apparently, willing or not.

I would think time of day would be a factor in that quote above Fisherman, and neatly dressed in a clean white apron isn't the standard "working girl" attire. All that quote says is someone saw her with what they assumed were "working girls", there is no indication that that Mary, or any Unfortunate looking for booze money or bed money group solicited.

[Michael W Richards]

Harry,

if you would define a general victimology for the C5, what would it be?

Regards, Pierre

Although you would disagree Pierre, I would think that the killer upon who every unsolved murder of the period is heaped upon showed his Victimology clearly in the first 2 Canonical murders...perhaps the only 2 killed by this Jack fellow....was middle aged Unfortunates actively working the streets, preferably in diminished capacity. Like Polly and Annie were.

[Harry D]

Harry,

if you would define a general victimology for the C5, what would it be?

Regards, Pierre

Vulnerable, impoverished women, mainly forced into prostitution.

[Fisherman]

I would think time of day would be a factor in that quote above Fisherman, and neatly dressed in a clean white apron isn't the standard "working girl" attire. All that quote says is someone saw her with what they assumed were "working girls", there is no indication that that Mary, or any Unfortunate looking for booze money or bed money group solicited.

That "someone" was Walter Dew, an experienced detective constable, who would be quite able to tell prostitutes from non-prostitutes. And if he says that Kelly and her friends "of her kind" wore aprons, thatīs because he was quite aware that prostitutes wore aprons as they worked.
The apron was a very, very common attire. All and sundry wore them.

Tabram and Pearly Poll definitely "group solicited", by the way.

If you want to believe that Kelly et al were only parading the named streets for exercise, be my guest. But I honestly think that it is you, not I, who are dreaming away...

[c.d.]

Mary had run arrears in 2 consecutive rentals, she was apparently living off handouts from Barnett, and she was a woman who used to work in a brothel in nice dresses, not on the streets. I don't see her being motivated to do anything while living off the proceeds of someone else. Her fall from grace might be a story worth knowing, but without it, I cant see Mary willingly working the streets for unwashed punters, or becoming diligent about her bills.

Hello Michael,

But Barnett was a fishmonger was he not? He hardly fits the mold of a sugar daddy. I would guess that between the two of them they didn't have a pot to pee in. And Mary was said to have a fondness for alcohol. Do the math. Maybe at one time she enjoyed nice dresses but one look at her apartment should tell us that money was hard to come by in her current circumstances. Why is her resorting to prostitution in those conditions so hard to accept?

c.d.