Chapman and Kelly's Left Arms

[Bridewell]

Because of the requirement to explain the differences in the M.O. as explained by Michael:
-Overkill and non-removal of the uterus.

You could also call it a "Barnett" scenario where he wanted her off the streets, which explains the overkill and M.O. of someone who knew the victim. But I like the idea that there was no attempt to take the uterus because she is, or represents, someone who birthed his offspring, so I call it the Maybrick scenario.
Either way, if you want Mary to be a Ripper victim, there's lots to explain with a requisite scenario.

Thanks for the reply but I still don't understand the argument that a difference in M.O. necessitates 'accepting a Maybrick scenario' by anyone who believes Kelly was a Ripper victim.

[Bridewell]

What Evidence

What evidence? Who is Blotchy and who is A-man? Since we don't know who they are, we can't confidently say they were clients can we?

Cheers
DRoy

Okay. Evidence amounting to the standard of proof required by a criminal court is lacking but we're looking at historical evidence. On the balance of probabilities, it is difficult to argue that they were anything other than clients, but I'm open to suggestions. What do you propose by way of a credible alternative?

[DRoy]

On the balance of probabilities, it is difficult to argue that they were anything other than clients, but I'm open to suggestions. What do you propose by way of a credible alternative?

Hi Bridewell,

You previously stated "There is, then, evidence (in the form of eye-witness testimony) that Kelly did take clients to her room."

My point was there is no such evidence nor eye witnesse testimony of that happening. They didn't even suggest it. What we do have is eye witness testimony saying she was with a man and they entered her room. Can we infer they were clients? Sure.

If you believe A-Man is real then yes it seems more probable she was with clients. However, if you believe he was a fabrication then there is only Blotchy going to her room. Was Blotchy just a friend? Neighbor? Casual acquaintance? Relative? Singing coach? New lover? Etc.

Cheers
DRoy

[Scott Nelson]

Posture coach. He was showing her how to properly position her arms.

[Michael W Richards]

All witnesses make claims, that is why they are called to the Inquest. And, this is an Inquest, not a trial.

I referred to the witness who gave his statement after the Inquest had closed Wick.

Can you think of anyone today who's opinion matters more than that of Abberline?

With respect to the killings or a witnesses veracity? I can say that there was no-one more vested in solving the cases than Abberline due to his relationship with the East End.

It is true that Cox never said Blotchy had 'client' tattooed across his forehead, so I'll give you that.


How about "giving" me the fact that it would be very unusual for a street prostitute to take a client into her room and then just sing for him for over an hour? And the fact that not one witness stated that Mary brought clients into the room...not even Maria, who lived with her for a time.

Cheers Jon

[Wickerman]

All witnesses make claims, that is why they are called to the Inquest. And, this is an Inquest, not a trial.

I referred to the witness who gave his statement after the Inquest had closed Wick.

Yes you did Michael, but you appeared to be suggesting it was only a claim, not an established fact.
I was pointing out that Hutchinson was no different than any other witness, they all made claims. Cox also made claims that were never verified by police, does that make her no better than Hutchinson?

Can you think of anyone today who's opinion matters more than that of Abberline?

With respect to the killings or a witnesses veracity? I can say that there was no-one more vested in solving the cases than Abberline due to his relationship with the East End.

I was referring to the expressed opinion given by Abberline on the veracity of Hutchinson. There is no modern opinion that I am aware of that comes close to being as important as the opinions of Abberline. Yet, some today are led more by modern and subsequently less informed opinion than anything else.

It is true that Cox never said Blotchy had 'client' tattooed across his forehead, so I'll give you that.


How about "giving" me the fact that it would be very unusual for a street prostitute to take a client into her room and then just sing for him for over an hour?

I can't go that far because I don't think it unusual at all.
If a client pays for an hour of her time then she entertains him for an hour. The sex act doesn't take an hour, so why might a bit of singing (and dancing?) appear strange?
As we don't know what the agreement was how can we pass judgement?

And the fact that not one witness stated that Mary brought clients into the room...not even Maria, who lived with her for a time.

Was anyone asked?

[caz]

Imagine for a moment that Blotchy went on to kill Kelly, after the two had been seen entering her room by Cox. It would have made sense in that event for Blotchy to have encouraged Kelly to sing for him, so that Cox, and anyone else listening nearby, would be given the distinct impression that Kelly was safe and happy to be in his company.

There is no evidence for Blotchy being anything more to Kelly than, at most, a casual acquaintance - but more probably someone she met and picked up earlier who stood her a few drinks and a fish supper. She felt comfortable with him, so they got more beer to take away - back to her place. I don't suppose sex would have been out of the question for Kelly, although Blotchy may well have had something more dangerous in mind.

The trouble with Mike Richards is that he looks outside the box for solutions but only ever finds what he wanted to see there - and it's always in stark black and white. No clients in Kelly's room; no 'very unusual' singing for her supper.

But what happened to her was 'very unusual', and the man who did it was also 'very unusual', whether he had done anything like it before or this was his first and last foray into murder and mutilation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I think when trying to determine whether or not a victim was actively prostituing or not one way may be to try and see how desperate they were. If they are very desperate as in immediate need-then the chance is higher they werre actively prostituting, if not as desperate then perhaps they ase out looking for a new man or sugar daddy and/or just some fun.

chapman and nichols-desperate immediate need for money for lodging-Desperate Condition 5-actively protituting.
Eddowes-desperate she may get an ass kicking if she does not show up with some quid-Des Con 4-probably actively prostituting.
stride-seems to have some money/work -Des Con 3-Maybe. or Maybe out looking for new BF.
Mary Kelly-has lodgings, food in Belly,beer in hand and genuinely enjoyng (not worrying about her situation), but needs money eventually. Des Con 2 probably not actively prostituting. Out looking for new BF or just a good time.

[GUT]

G'Day Abby

But Mary Jane may well have been on the brink of eviction.

[GUT]

No evidence except how far behind in her rent she was.

Would McCarthy have told the authorities or press if his threat of eviction had sent her to the streets that night and thus, indirectly, led to her murder?

[Abby Normal]

G'Day Abby

But Mary Jane may well have been on the brink of eviction.

She may well have been, but we don't really know that. Who knows what kind of arrangement she had with McCarthy. Anyway, her situation that night was not nearly as dire as chapmans or eddowes.

[GUT]

G'Day Abby

her situation that night was not nearly as dire as chapmans or eddowes.

That I accept. She had a bed for the night.

But isn't desperation a bit like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

Her fear of eviction, for all we know, may have been as great or even greater, than their fear of not having a bed for the night.

[caz]

I would call them all desperate, given they didn't have a penny piece between them when found murdered.

Unless we allow for their killer robbing them, these women had no money for their next meal or drink (and there was no safe drinking water) and we know the rent man called on Kelly to collect something she didn't have - that was how her body was discovered! Few if any of the victims were at the time in stable relationships with men who could have provided for their immediate needs. Had they been, they might have been more careful about the male company they kept while the ripper was about.

Really, the clues are there.

Love,

Caz
X

[GUT]

G'Day Caz

Agree totally, not a penny between them = desperation.

[Bridewell]

And the fact that not one witness stated that Mary brought clients into the room.

Correct. The fact is that it was two witnesses, not one. Cox and Hutchinson. No other witness makes any comment as to where she took her clients, so the only witnesses who do pass comment on the matter say that she did take clients to her room. Sorry, Michael. It's one thing to discount the evidence of witnesses because you think they are mistaken or lying, but another thing entirely to pretend that they and their evidence don't exist.

Kelly was (forgive the expression) a cut above. She was young. She had a room. If she took clients to her room (as the evidence suggests that she did) she could (and surely did?) charge them more for the privilege.