Originally posted by MayBea
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Chapman and Kelly's Left Arms
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Hunter View PostMary Kelly's uterus was removed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bridewell View PostMary Ann Cox says she saw Kelly enter the room with Blotchy. George Hutchinson says he saw her enter the room with Astrakhan Man. How much weight you choose to place on that evidence is a matter of individual judgement but this is evidence that she did take clients to her room.
There is, then, evidence (in the form of eye-witness testimony) that Kelly did take clients to her room.
To clarify, I'm not arguing that every client was taken to her room, simply countering the assertion that none of them were.
Cheers
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostIts evidence that a witness claimed to see Mary take someone into her room that was assumed to be a client.....
...since Georges statement isnt a sound foundation to stand upon, thats hardly a confirmation.
...There is no witness from the court that stated Mary brought clients into her own room, and there is no evidence that Mary needed money for anything after 2am that morning.
Can you think of a reason why the Coroner never asked Cox, "what do you think the man wanted?"
Anything come to mind?Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
From whence the argument that MJK wouldn't have taken clients to her room,
Lizzie Albrook says "About the last thing she said to me was 'Whatever you do don't you do wrong and turn out as I did.' She had often spoken to me in this way and warned me against going on the street as she had done. She told me, too, that she was heartily sick of the life she was leading and wished she had money enough to go back to Ireland where her people lived. I do not believe she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so to keep herself from starvation."
And she herself said that she worked in a brothel, so why any doubt that she would do such a thing, as take a client to her room.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostIts evidence that a witness claimed to see Mary take someone into her room that was assumed to be a client.....since Georges statement isnt a sound foundation to stand upon, thats hardly a confirmation. There is no witness from the court that stated Mary brought clients into her own room, and there is no evidence that Mary needed money for anything after 2am that morning.
Cheers
What's more, if I had a good old English quid for every unfounded assumption that you have made here in this Forum I'd be a very wealthy man indeed
Regards
Observer
Observer
Comment
-
Originally posted by GUT View PostAnd she herself said that she worked in a brothel, so why any doubt that she would do such a thing, as take a client to her room.
Not necessarily that she never would or never has taken a client to her room, but we don't know if her killer, Blotchy or A-man were customers.
Cheers
DRoy
Comment
-
Originally posted by DRoy View PostGUT,
Not necessarily that she never would or never has taken a client to her room, but we don't know if her killer, Blotchy or A-man were customers.
Cheers
DRoy
What have you to say regarding the fact that Blotchy Man was never traced.
Regards
Observer
Comment
-
-
Mary might have not been overly worried about coming up with her rent money but unless she was not planning on living past the day she was killed I would expect her to be in need of money for food and drink.
I am not sure that it is a valid argument to say that Mary never would have brought a client to her room since there is no evidence that she had ever done so in the past. Would it be equally valid to say that she had never engaged in prostitution right up until the time that she did engage in it?
We also have to consider that the reason that she never brought a client to her room was because she was living with Barnett who apparently disapproved of her profession. Once he is removed from the scene I would think that all bets are off.
c.d.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HunterMary Kelly's uterus was removedOriginally posted by Michael W Richards View PostAnd left behind under her head, with a breast.Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________
When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Comment
Comment