Who Chose the Murder Sites?

[harry]

I agree with Michael in some respect.To suppose that Kelly,in her waking moments,either drunk or sober,on the streets or in her room, was solely engaged in finding or servicing a client,is a deal over the norm. Blotchy is,in my opinion,a person similar to what Barnett had been.A person who might have been looking for regular female company, chanced upon Kelly ,entertained her at some venue, and accompannied her home.A first meeting,nothing else.

[Fisherman]

I agree with Michael in some respect.To suppose that Kelly,in her waking moments,either drunk or sober,on the streets or in her room, was solely engaged in finding or servicing a client,is a deal over the norm. Blotchy is,in my opinion,a person similar to what Barnett had been.A person who might have been looking for regular female company, chanced upon Kelly ,entertained her at some venue, and accompannied her home.A first meeting,nothing else.

Of course she would not have been engaged in finding or servicing clients in every waking minute - it was a means to enable her to live, quite simply. Depending on her luck, some days will have been better days than other days. But overall, we know that she did not live in a palace and eat lobster for breakfast - she lived in a dismal little room with a broken window. Even the better days were bad days, economically speaking. So when we find her at 11.45 PM, inebriated at her doorstep with a shabbily dressed man sporting a pail of beer in his hand, there is little reason to believe that he is anything but a punter. Neither of the parties seem to have been fit to arrange for a longish relationship based on platonic values.

[Pierre]

Vulnerable, impoverished women, mainly forced into prostitution.

So, vulnerable, impoverished and forced into prostitution.

Allright.

What were those victimological characteristics consequences of?

[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.

So if the victimology is clearly shown in the case of Nichols and Chapman, do you think that theses two made some specific impression on the killer?

[caz]

Hi Caz,

What did the victims have in common?

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

They were female, they were unfortunate (in more senses than one), they were dirt poor, they went out alone at night, and they weren't - as far as anyone knows - mixed up in politics, terrorism or blackmail.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi Michael,

Not so surprising really, since we should not expect any 'provability' if this was indeed a cold case involving a serial killer preying on random unfortunate females. Conversely, if several killers had been involved, who each had some kind of connection to their victim, it would be very odd indeed that not one of the murders was solved at the time, or has come close to a solution since.

Don't take the position that those who believe the serial killer theories are correct and those who don't are not Caz, clearly that is unproven too.

Oh I don't, Michael. I take the position that those who believe the serial killer theories have far more support for that belief than anyone with the luxury of picking alternative theories out of thin air on the grounds that nobody was ever brought to justice for a single Whitechapel murder.

There's a difference.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

So on only the second occasion she has the room all to herself she invites Blotchy back to it, probably knowing someone will be round in the morning for some rent money. And this is not a parlour with a piano and easy chairs. The first thing Blotchy will clap his mince pies on is the bed.

But oh no, there is no suggestion that she just might have been hoping for sixpence or more from her nocturnal guest's trousers, is there Michael?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Is there hard evidence that someone, anyone, killed 5 women in the Fall of 1888?

Short of them all committing suicide or being men in drag, yes. More than 5 women were unlawfully killed by someone.

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.

But aren't you trying your best to blame several unknown people for these poor murdered women, as opposed to just the one or two?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Any actual evidence for the parts I have emphasised, Michael?

She was working the streets for unwashed punters when she met Barnett, and they immediately began living together. She was now in a hovel with no obvious means of support, and the rent man wasn't coming round in the morning for a chat and a cuppa, now was he? If there was zero chance of her trying to earn a bit to put towards her arrears, McCarthy seemed blissfully ignorant of the fact. But I guess he didn't know Mary like you know Mary, eh?

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Any actual evidence for the parts I have emphasised, Michael?

She was working the streets for unwashed punters when she met Barnett, and they immediately began living together. She was now in a hovel with no obvious means of support, and the rent man wasn't coming round in the morning for a chat and a cuppa, now was he? If there was zero chance of her trying to earn a bit to put towards her arrears, McCarthy seemed blissfully ignorant of the fact. But I guess he didn't know Mary like you know Mary, eh?

Love,

Caz
X

You take umbrage at so much of what I post that I haven't the time to address each concern, but on the above;

"She is stated to have been an excellent scholar and an artist. It would appear that on her arrival in London she made the acquaintance of a French lady residing in the neighborhood of Knightsbridge, who, she informed her friends, led her into the degraded life which has brought about her untimely end.....made several journeys to the French capital, and in fact led the life of a lady. By some means, however, at present not exactly clear, she suddenly drifted into the East-end.

Her first experiences of the East-end appear to have commenced with Mrs. Buki, who resided in one of the thoroughfares off Ratcliff-highway, now known as St. George's-street. Both women went to the French lady's residence, and demanded Kelly's box, which contained numerous costly dresses."

Its from the Star on Nov 12th, as you know. It seems to establish a lifestyle for Mary that was provided for her by a French woman in town and involved Mary travelling to Paris most probably escorting someone, or to be with someone there. It is referred to as a "degraded" lifestyle. The collection of fancy dresses should complete the picture for you....the French woman is likely a madam running an upscale brothel.

[Michael W Richards]

So if the victimology is clearly shown in the case of Nichols and Chapman, do you think that theses two made some specific impression on the killer?

I would think that the compromised state of being in both cases left him feeling empowered.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

I believe cd that Barnett was probably the best she could do at that point in her life, and the "other" Joe was apparently not flush enough to take care of her basic needs, or away from Barnett. Ill tell you why its hard to accept a premise that has Mary concerned enough about money that she would work while drunk and while raining. Because she could have done so long before going 2 1/2 weeks in arrears, and because she had done the same thing before, and because she feared the streets that Fall based on all that press.

Lets put it in modern context....say a high class hooker either through age or rejecting of the lifestyle loses a "sponsor"..like a pimp, or Madam. Do they then automatically adapt to servicing lesser people, with lesser means and personal habits because they have no money? Do most people do what they should, or are a vast majority of people too lazy and uninspired to do anything about their circumstances? I submit Mary was uninspired, unafraid of consequences of her inaction with respect to unpaid bills, and reliant on the generosity of others. Im sure she would accept a drink from anyone, no matter how rundown and filthy they might be, even if accepting that drink might convince the benefactor she has real feelings for him.

She like Joe Barnett because he treated her nice, is that the basis of a relationship or is it just dependency?

[Michael W Richards]

I agree with Michael in some respect.To suppose that Kelly,in her waking moments,either drunk or sober,on the streets or in her room, was solely engaged in finding or servicing a client,is a deal over the norm. Blotchy is,in my opinion,a person similar to what Barnett had been.A person who might have been looking for regular female company, chanced upon Kelly ,entertained her at some venue, and accompannied her home.A first meeting,nothing else.

Thanks Harry, although I believe in this case Blotchy might have been "assigned" to watch Mary.

[Pierre]

I would think that the compromised state of being in both cases left him feeling empowered.

That is right. The victims could not be too strong, it would have been problematic. And of course, Kelly was asleep when she was killed.

Regards, Pierre

[harry]

Fisherman,
There were thousands of shabbily dressed men,and couples in London in 1888.
thousands lived in bedsitters.Most drank,but they lived without becoming punters,or women who serviced men for money.Without knowing more about Blotchy,I think it unwise to claim he was anything more than an aquaintance who spent some time with her that evening,and accompanied her home.