Who Chose the Murder Sites?

[Fisherman]

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.

I am not saying that being shabbily dressed makes you a punter.
I am not saying that drinking makes you a punter.
I am saying that entering a prostitutes room at 11.45 PM, sporting a pail of beer in one of your hands and being accompanied by said prostitute, makes you a very probable punter.

And I could add that denying that this is so makes you slightly naïve.

[Michael W Richards]

I am not saying that being shabbily dressed makes you a punter.
I am not saying that drinking makes you a punter.
I am saying that entering a prostitutes room at 11.45 PM, sporting a pail of beer in one of your hands and being accompanied by said prostitute, makes you a very probable punter.

And I could add that denying that this is so makes you slightly naïve.

I believe that you are accurate when you say Mary was a prostitute, I don't see anything in her past that would dispute that claim. She lived that life for most of her short adult life. At times, more hygienic and glamorous, but the life nonetheless. What I do dispute is that her entering her room with someone at 11:45 and then singing for over an hour doesn't validate an assumption of "paid" anything.

This man seemed to hustle her into the room, and yet when they get inside, she sings. To me that suggests the man was acting in a protective manner, maybe he steered her home because she was so drunk. Maybe he was supposed to get her home and sleepy. Its a theory I have anyway.

[Wickerman]

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

Women of that class would tend to only undress to entertain, they slept in their clothes.

[harry]

What is naïve is to assume that every male in Kelly's company was a punter for sex,and every encounter of Kelly's w ith a male was an act of prostitution.
Nothing is known of Blotchy.At about midnight, his accompanying her might have been that of an acquaintance fearful for her safety.It is not known how long he stayed after reaching her room.It could have been a matter of minutes only.It could have been a number of things.It is naïve,without information,to suggest,on hearsay,it must be connected with prostitution.

[Fisherman]

harry: What is naïve is to assume that every male in Kelly's company was a punter for sex,and every encounter of Kelly's w ith a male was an act of prostitution.

Indeed! And since I do not wish to be naïve, I am not suggesting that this was so. But the fact remains that inebriated prostitutes prostitutes who are found around midnight in the company of merry men with pails of ale in their hands, and who are bringing such men into their rooms, in a court where rooms are used by prostitutes for sex, are seemingly conducting business. Plying their trade, as it were.

Blotchy MAY have been an editor who discussed a book contract with Kelly, he may have been an interior decorator measuring up her home and he may have been lecturing on the tribes of southern Sudan to an audience of one person only - all of these possibilities remain.
But to a simple minded person like me, it sure seems much, much more likely that he was a punter than anything else.

Nothing is known of Blotchy.

No? Then how can we tell that he carried a pail of ale in his hand, that he was shabbily dressed and that he escorted a known prostitute into her room at 11.45 PM on the night of said prostitutes murder? How can we say that he was in his mid thirties, that he was around 5 ft 5, that he had small whixkers and a carroty moustache, if we know nothing about him?
You see, it is what we DO know about him and the circumstances in which he pops up in the Ripper saga that enables us to suggest that he was probably a punter.
If he had instead been seen with Kelly at 9 AM on the morning before the murder night, selling a newspaper to her, we would have had quite a different picture of him, would we not?

At about midnight, his accompanying her might have been that of an acquaintance fearful for her safety.

Might.

It is not known how long he stayed after reaching her room.It could have been a matter of minutes only.

Could.

It could have been a number of things.

Could.

It is naïve,without information,to suggest,on hearsay,it must be connected with prostitution.

No, it is not naïve at all. It´s quite realistic and the best and safest proposition that can be made. It may or may not be true, but no alternative suggestion is as good.

[Ginger]

This man seemed to hustle her into the room, and yet when they get inside, she sings. To me that suggests the man was acting in a protective manner, maybe he steered her home because she was so drunk. Maybe he was supposed to get her home and sleepy. Its a theory I have anyway.

I'd never have thought of that, but it makes a great deal of sense. Had he come as a customer, perhaps she might have sang him a song or two as part of the entertainment, but an hour's worth seems frankly excessive. The can/pail/jug of beer that's mentioned might have been intended to keep her inside drinking, until she safely passed out.

And, as skeptical as I am about Mrs. Maxwell's story, it kind of fits in a way. Suppose Blotchy was a friend who bought her the beer to keep her off the street that night. The next morning, when she awoke, she took the container back to the Ringers' for the deposit. The bartender talked the rather inexperienced girl into spending the penny or ha'penny on some "hair of the dog", which she threw up before even making it home.

[harry]

The information given by Cox has been,and is,considered unreliable by many.A relative further adds information that casts doubt about Cox's story.We have nothing that identifies the person,or his resons for being with Kelly. We do not know she was prostituting herself that night,or any other night.It is only hearsay that she did.At eight o'clock she was sober,in her room.That she was later considered to be in a drunken state,speaks more that she was drinking the night away,not on the streets soliciting.
No evidence whatsoever she used her room for prostitution purposes.That she entertained prostitutes in her room,and associated with them,might be accepted,but association means little.It would be unusual,in those days,not to be associated with unfortunates.Unusual if Kelly was not associated with scores of males too,given her life style.A life style that need not have included prostitution.
Might be,could be.Pity blotchy didn't find her body the next day,poor sod.Ima gine the accusations against him then.

[Fisherman]

harry: The information given by Cox has been,and is,considered unreliable by many.A relative further adds information that casts doubt about Cox's story.We have nothing that identifies the person,or his resons for being with Kelly. We do not know she was prostituting herself that night,or any other night.It is only hearsay that she did.At eight o'clock she was sober,in her room.That she was later considered to be in a drunken state,speaks more that she was drinking the night away,not on the streets soliciting.

No, Harry. Drinking and prostituting yourself are not something that does not work together. Nichols had been drinking heavily as she sought for customers. Tabram and Pearly Poll were pubcrawling with the soldiers they met - and sold sex to.
I agree that the Cox information cannot be taken as gospel, but that does not change the impression given if her story was true, does it?

No evidence whatsoever she used her room for prostitution purposes.

Yes, there is - we know that this was customary for the prostitutes of Millers Court and we have absolutely no reason to think Kelly differed in that respect.

That she entertained prostitutes in her room,and associated with them,might be accepted,but association means little. It would be unusual,in those days,not to be associated with unfortunates. Unusual if Kelly was not associated with scores of males too,given her life style. A life style that need not have included prostitution.

It was a lifestyle that was financed through prostitution. As I say, not all men she met would have been clients, but the circumstances surrounding Blotchy very clearly imply that he was.

Might be,could be.Pity blotchy didn't find her body the next day, poor sod.Ima gine the accusations against him then.

Oh dear, Harry. Is that how you are going to argue your case? How pathetic.

[Michael W Richards]

I'd never have thought of that, but it makes a great deal of sense. Had he come as a customer, perhaps she might have sang him a song or two as part of the entertainment, but an hour's worth seems frankly excessive. The can/pail/jug of beer that's mentioned might have been intended to keep her inside drinking, until she safely passed out.

And, as skeptical as I am about Mrs. Maxwell's story, it kind of fits in a way. Suppose Blotchy was a friend who bought her the beer to keep her off the street that night. The next morning, when she awoke, she took the container back to the Ringers' for the deposit. The bartender talked the rather inexperienced girl into spending the penny or ha'penny on some "hair of the dog", which she threw up before even making it home.

When you explain it the way you did above Ginger, it almost makes me rethink Maxwell...Im a staunch non-supporter traditionally. What prevents me from walking too far down that path is that I cannot imagine that someone would do that in daylight hours with residents within the court passing by the alcove with the windows. There is nothing to prevent anyone from slipping into the alcove and doing exactly what Bowyer says he did later, around 11:15am. Plus, we know that boots were heard around 5:30-6am by Mary Ann, and no-one... including beat cops which she thought it might be,.. came forward to claim those footsteps. I believe that was the killer leaving.

I believe whomever killed Mary planned to come in the middle of the night, I think the person watching the courtyard seen by Sarah was a lookout, and I think Blotchy probably had an assignment with Mary. It was accomplished before 1:30, and he slipped out between Mary Ann Cox's ins and outs, and before Elizabeth entered the archway.

I think one clue to what this was all about was thought to be in the fireplace ashes, Abberline, Reid and others on his task force re-sieved the ashes Saturday morning. They were sieved Friday afternoon as well.

Therefore, as per the thread question, I believe the killer chose this victim and this spot before he headed out that night.

Why Mary was killed I believe had something to do with someone dangerous that she knew. She became a liability, as I believe Kate became a threat. Loose lips. There were a few men in that area at that time who had secrets, lucrative ones when kept secret. Alternate identities, dual loyalties, ...people who could be linked to the Parnell Commission going on that Fall.

[Harry D]

You should write fiction, Michael. Away from this forum, I mean.

[Michael W Richards]

You should write fiction, Michael. Away from this forum, I mean.

You know Harry Ive been around here since 2005 I believe, and in all that time Ive discovered that the overarching premise of the study was and is really still unproven. Assuming a number of murders then correlating suspects based on their availability for said murders is a cart before the horse approach to investigation in my opinion, following what the evidence, however sparse, seems to make more sense to me. And Ive concluded that if there were no Ripper legend that I would still never group these Five women as probable by a single crazed killer. I see motive possibilities in a few of them, and undeniable similarities in others. Assuming flexible skills, motives and methods may satisfy those who find serial killers in general fascinating...personally I don't,...but again, for me personally, I don't see any tangible, problematic differences with Polly and Annie as victims of one man, but a ton of them from Annie to Mary.

Contemporary opinion from men whose occupations including deceptive statements and actions don't persuade me satisfactorily in the face of those challenges.

So I turn stones over, to see whether possible legitimate storylines may lie there, and with Kate and Mary in particular, I see some possibilities based on a mutual exposure to the Irish anarchist factions through Kates marriage, and Marys heritage and past experiences, perhaps in Paris.

Its not fiction, its just another unproven idea.

[Harry D]

You know Harry Ive been around here since 2005 I believe, and in all that time Ive discovered that the overarching premise of the study was and is really still unproven. Assuming a number of murders then correlating suspects based on their availability for said murders is a cart before the horse approach to investigation in my opinion, following what the evidence, however sparse, seems to make more sense to me. And Ive concluded that if there were no Ripper legend that I would still never group these Five women as probable by a single crazed killer. I see motive possibilities in a few of them, and undeniable similarities in others. Assuming flexible skills, motives and methods may satisfy those who find serial killers in general fascinating...personally I don't,...but again, for me personally, I don't see any tangible, problematic differences with Polly and Annie as victims of one man, but a ton of them from Annie to Mary.

Contemporary opinion from men whose occupations including deceptive statements and actions don't persuade me satisfactorily in the face of those challenges.

So I turn stones over, to see whether possible legitimate storylines may lie there, and with Kate and Mary in particular, I see some possibilities based on a mutual exposure to the Irish anarchist factions through Kates marriage, and Marys heritage and past experiences, perhaps in Paris.

Its not fiction, its just another unproven idea.

Each murder must be investigated individually, but there was never a solid motive or suspect found in any of the canonical victims. Before they knew it, the police had sequential random, unsolved murders on their plate. With the same victim selection and the same method of killing (i.e. throat-cutting and mutilation/organ removal), a basic pattern emerges in each act. This presents an underlying motivation behind the murders, attributable to a serial killer.

[spyglass]

When you explain it the way you did above Ginger, it almost makes me rethink Maxwell...Im a staunch non-supporter traditionally. What prevents me from walking too far down that path is that I cannot imagine that someone would do that in daylight hours with residents within the court passing by the alcove with the windows. There is nothing to prevent anyone from slipping into the alcove and doing exactly what Bowyer says he did later, around 11:15am. Plus, we know that boots were heard around 5:30-6am by Mary Ann, and no-one... including beat cops which she thought it might be,.. came forward to claim those footsteps. I believe that was the killer leaving.

I believe whomever killed Mary planned to come in the middle of the night, I think the person watching the courtyard seen by Sarah was a lookout, and I think Blotchy probably had an assignment with Mary. It was accomplished before 1:30, and he slipped out between Mary Ann Cox's ins and outs, and before Elizabeth entered the archway.

I think one clue to what this was all about was thought to be in the fireplace ashes, Abberline, Reid and others on his task force re-sieved the ashes Saturday morning. They were sieved Friday afternoon as well.

Therefore, as per the thread question, I believe the killer chose this victim and this spot before he headed out that night.

Why Mary was killed I believe had something to do with someone dangerous that she knew. She became a liability, as I believe Kate became a threat. Loose lips. There were a few men in that area at that time who had secrets, lucrative ones when kept secret. Alternate identities, dual loyalties, ...people who could be linked to the Parnell Commission going on that Fall.

Hi,
Can't remember if I posted my idea /theory on here or another thread, but II don't think MJK was murdered.
This then splits into two differing reasons why.
But one thing remains the same for me and that is Maxwell's statement should be taken very seriously.
what is compelling is the fact that she gave her statement to the police on the very same day, and so would be fresh in her mind.
She stuck to it rigidly even when practically told she was a liar at the inquest.
Now in the official file on MJK, there is one news paper cutting that is a very incorrect description of the crime scene at Millers Court, I questioned why the police would save an incorrect newspaper report, but one very striking thing stands out in it to me, and that being the report mentions a "purple velvet bodice" found in the room, the same item that Maxwell's statement mentions.
We know by latter reports that it wasn't found in the room.
The reporter could only have got these facts from the police ( again on the 9th ) and so I suggest the police knew Kelly was alive, knew she had been seen and had to try and discredit Maxwell with every opportunity they could.

tegards

[Michael W Richards]

Each murder must be investigated individually, but there was never a solid motive or suspect found in any of the canonical victims. Before they knew it, the police had sequential random, unsolved murders on their plate. With the same victim selection and the same method of killing (i.e. throat-cutting and mutilation/organ removal), a basic pattern emerges in each act. This presents an underlying motivation behind the murders, attributable to a serial killer.

The method of killing is part of the problem Harry, not a way to reconcile these as serial in nature. Liz Strides killer did not attempt in any form to alter her fallen position, let alone prepare or attempt organ removal. And in Marys case, I think it would be difficult to make a legitimate case that her killer was interested in what organs he could take based on the crime scene. Most of what happened in that room had little or nothing to do with taking life, or organs. Mary was essentially destroyed by knife, the fact he took her heart is almost incidental. Many crimes of the period involved knives, most stabbings Ill concede, but I read about a few throat cuts during that Fall that had nothing to do with serial killers. The weapon was accessible to most, the choice to cut the throat twice was rather unique. I consider those victims as probables.

There is little evidence in the case of Polly, or Annie, that superfluous cutting was on his mind. He intended to kill, then mutilate the abdomen with the goal of obtaining abdominal organs.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi,
Can't remember if I posted my idea /theory on here or another thread, but II don't think MJK was murdered.
This then splits into two differing reasons why.
But one thing remains the same for me and that is Maxwell's statement should be taken very seriously.
what is compelling is the fact that she gave her statement to the police on the very same day, and so would be fresh in her mind.
She stuck to it rigidly even when practically told she was a liar at the inquest.
Now in the official file on MJK, there is one news paper cutting that is a very incorrect description of the crime scene at Millers Court, I questioned why the police would save an incorrect newspaper report, but one very striking thing stands out in it to me, and that being the report mentions a "purple velvet bodice" found in the room, the same item that Maxwell's statement mentions.
We know by latter reports that it wasn't found in the room.
The reporter could only have got these facts from the police ( again on the 9th ) and so I suggest the police knew Kelly was alive, knew she had been seen and had to try and discredit Maxwell with every opportunity they could.

tegards

Perhaps that's one reason why so many choose to include her account as viable data. However, since "Corrie" says she saw Mary from time to time, she may well have seen that garment on Mary at some point in time. If in fact your theory is correct.