the Rent arrears

[ianincleveland]

Marys income of course would always be related to the income base of her clientele, so per event... not a lot of money, but a woman like her who wanted extra money could have made it by staying out at night and taking men that might have settled for Mary Ann, if they were out looking too long.

Im sure someone has the "trick" prices handy, calculate 1 per hour, over a 10-12 hour night, 7 days a week....then take away her rent money. Is she broke? Can she still buy food, maybe even a drink or two? You might say "those are some aggressive numbers pal", well I didnt even include income that she might have made renting her room during the day, as has been suggested.

Best regards all.

If she was that addicted to drink,ie a chronic alcoholic then after each payment for her services shed have bought more drink and maybe a bit of food until that money ran out then go and look for a punter,as many drug addict prostitutes do these days.We also have Mary ann nicholls whod spent her doss money 3 times the day she was killed almost certainly the vast majority on gin.

[Chava]

I don't know anywhere that comments on Cox's success rate that night. Why do we think she wasn't getting any business? She said she went in and out a few times, and it doesn't sound like she brought any men home. But it doesn't sound like she wanted to bring any tricks home. I always assumed she made some money. Is there anything in any of her statements to say she didn't?

And I always heard that the going rate for a prostitute of the lowest order was 3d. Which was, coincidentally I'm sure, the price of a tot of gin. Kelly might have commanded more as she was younger and a bit healthier and may have had all her teeth. 6d is what Kudzu said she asked him for. And that would be the only part of his statement that I find believable. She paid 4/6 a week, If I remember rightly. So 9 encounters with clients would pay her weekly rent, and she should have been able to achieve that very easily in the course of a weekend.

Actually, the more I think about this as I write the post, the more I think it's unlikely she was street-walking. I'm sure she could charge more than 3d an encounter, and let's remember we are now talking about old currency rather than decimal currency. So the coins are: 1/4d, 1/2d, 1d, 3d, 6d and so on. I'd bet that no tart charged less than a threepenny bit. Kelly, I'm certain would charge a sixpenny piece. They could charge in increments of a penny but I bet they didn't. They would probably charge on the increments of coinage. The same way a modern hooker might ask for 20 quid or 30 quid but I'm pretty sure she wouldn't ask for 27 pounds. That having been said, however, there might be haggling involved based on how much cash the punter had in his pocket.

Still, a woman who still had some looks should have been able to support herself and pay her rent. And at the rate Kelly charged, I don't see her being able to drink all of it away, even supposing she was an out-and-out alcoholic.

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

She probably encountered and serviced her clients on the streets, either because she didn't like grotty clients sharing her bed with her, or because she reasoned - quite logically - that she'd get through more clients quicker that way and so increase her earnings.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Ian, I agree that we have evidence that at least one Canonical earned and just spent her money drinking...thats why I added the point on a potential alcohol addiction for Mary.

On Mary Ann Cox's success rate that night Chava, no-one knows. There is no suggestion she brought men into the court with her, nor that she earned any money attempting to solicit business in the pouring rain. All that is clear is that she was making multiple attempts to earn. There is no such clarity regarding any efforts that Mary may or may not have made,... although there are indications.

Im still waiting for anyone to post a quote, reference, suggestion, fictional scenario that demonstrates that Mary worked the streets regularly....(we know she didnt when Barnett lived there, he discouraged it),...that she showed any concern for her current debts, or that she most likely went out again to work the streets, but no-one in the court saw or heard her leave or return. For example, if she worked and earned money after 1:30am, where was it when they entered the room at 1:30pm? Jack now robs his victims as well as dissecting them? Was Annies pocket change unsuitable for taking?

I suspect it will be a "wait" of an infinite length of time.

Another year is about to lapse with many still trying to fit square pegs into round holes,....but there is always hope for the future.

Happy New Years all....

[perrymason]

Hi Chava,

She probably encountered and serviced her clients on the streets, either because she didn't like grotty clients sharing her bed with her, or because she reasoned - quite logically - that she'd get through more clients quicker that way and so increase her earnings.

And why wouldnt the same logic apply to woman half her age Ben? It would....and yet we dont see the activity Mary Ann displays mirrored by Mary.

Cheers Ben....hope you have a great time tonight.

[Sam Flynn]

And why wouldnt the same logic apply to woman half her age Ben? It would....and yet we dont see the activity Mary Ann displays mirrored by Mary.

We don't HEAR ABOUT the activity Cox displays mirrored by Mary, Mike, because we only have less than a handful of witnesses, who only noticed things when they were in a position to do so. For all we know, Kelly could have paraded back and forth along Dorset Street, stripped to the waist with the words "Fourpence a go" written in soot on her belly, for all the time Prater and Cox weren't around to see her. In the interim, Cox might have been indoors striking "artistic" poses for the benefit of a man who paid to peep through her keyhole while she did it.

[perrymason]

We don't HEAR ABOUT the activity Cox displays mirrored by Mary, Mike, because we only have less than a handful of witnesses, who only noticed things when they were in a position to do so. For all we know, Kelly could have paraded back and forth along Dorset Street, stripped to the waist with the words "Fourpence a go" written in soot on her belly, for all the time Prater and Cox weren't around to see her. In the interim, Cox might have been indoors striking "artistic" poses for the benefit of a man who paid to peep through her keyhole while she did it.

And those are precisely the kinds of things that come from entertaining every possibility under the sun and discarding the only known data about anyones activities in that court that night....by what we are told by court witnesses.

I would think that since the only data that we have are those statements about that night, and statements about Mary historically by her friends, they should be the only data that is relevant here. And in the absence of anything remotely like you suggested above, or any variation on that theme, from anyone of the 3 courtyard/26 Dorset witnesses, and in the presence of evidence that denotes a time when the room goes dark and quiet for the remainder of the time that we have courtyard witnesses to have seen anything,.. without any activity being reported as seen or heard,... the earliest that Mary might have left would likely have been after Mary Ann was in for the evening...near 3am. That does'nt even work for Hutchinson's story, let alone the more probable versions of events.

Now go and celebrate and leave this alone for the night willya, I promise not to post any radical ideas in your absence.

Happy New Years Gareth.

[Supe]

Well, I'm snowbound today so I had a chance to look at how the thread has progressed--rolling eyes skyward.

I would think that since the only data that we have are those statements about that night, and statements about Mary historically by her friends, they should be the only data that is relevant here.

True, but given that the data mentioned is so scanty (accounting for what, two or three minutes out of eight hours?) and the testimony, sworn or not, gives us little scope for testing its validity, does anyone truly think--and this not just addressed to Michael--that he or she can make any worthwhile assumptions about the occupants of Miller's Court and their activities that night, far less over the course of time?

If the answer is yes I pray that none of you are engaged in any serious scientific research.

Happy New Year all!

Don.

[perrymason]

Well, I'm snowbound today so I had a chance to look at how the thread has progressed--rolling eyes skyward.

I would think that since the only data that we have are those statements about that night, and statements about Mary historically by her friends, they should be the only data that is relevant here.

True, but given that the data mentioned is so scanty (accounting for what, two or three minutes out of eight hours?) and the testimony, sworn or not, gives us little scope for testing its validity, does anyone truly think--and this not just addressed to Michael--that he or she can make any worthwhile assumptions about the occupants of Miller's Court and their activities that night, far less over the course of time?

If the answer is yes I pray that none of you are engaged in any serious scientific research.

Happy New Year all!

Don.

Hi Don,

I guess I can see better why you and Sam are adamant about this, because of your statement that we only have a mere few minutes of coverage for the courts activities. Thats simply not the case.

We have the minute or two when Mary Ann sees and speaks with Mary and Blotchy, then we have the brief pass by her room by Mary Ann leaving, then we have the few minutes Elizabeth is speaking with McCarthy before coming in the archway entrance, then there is the brief pass when Mary Ann returns, then there is another when she leaves, and another when she comes in for the evening, and we cant forget Sarah, who is also in the courtyard, also during that time, ....this illustrates that we have multiple statements and minutes covered for the period covering 11:45pm on November 8th until approx 3:00am, when the last witness from that courtyard was indoors for the night.

Hence my last post about what time logically, based on those accounts, Mary could even have left unseen by anyone. The three witnesses come and go through the same archway that Mary would have had to leave by if one supposes she left when her room first became dark and silent....by 1:30am.

This is not a case of a few minutes of observation opportunity at all...its a case of multiple opportunities by multiple sources over a period of time just over 3 hours in length. Culminating with a story regarding Marys room that has it continuously dark and silent after 1:30am.

I know you dont agree with my conclusions Don, or perhaps my methodologies in general, but referring to the above as being "poor research" isnt fair or accurate...in fact its one of the only versions of events that meets the witness statements head on, and doesnt require phantom occurances like you and Sam espouse.

Thats not going to stop me from wishing you all the best for the New Year though.....Happy New Years Don.

[Sam Flynn]

I guess I can see better why you and Sam are adamant about this, because of your statement that we only have a mere few minutes of coverage for the courts activities. Thats simply not the case.

Mike - we demonstrably have far, far fewer glimpses of life in Miller's Court than we'd need to even paint a satisfactory picture of the events of a single night, yet some (including yourself) seem to believe that we can use this threadbare evidence to make definitive assertions about Mary Kelly's behaviour. With respect, it is just not possible to do so, unless one applies an unwarranted amount of wishful thinking.

we have multiple statements and minutes covered for the period covering 11:45pm on November 8th until approx 3:00am

We don't. From 1AM onwards (the period prior to that being covered by the "concert" for Mr Blotchy), we have precisely two residents and one visitor flitting in and out of the Court. One resident - Prater - goes off to beddy-byes pretty sharpish, and crashes out for the night; she's not much use to us after that. Ditto Sarah Lewis, who flits in around 2:30 and is in the Court for - what? - a minute or so, before she too disappears into the Keylers' for the night. The third, Cox, pops in and out twice - again, taking up perhaps a minute to pass down and back each time; so there's another 5 or so minutes, maximum, accounted for.

None of these witnesses are peeking into Kelly's windows, or cupping their ears to her door - they're just breezing through in various states of worry, agitation or drunkenness, with other things on their mind. One might have thought that Prater's path would have crossed with Lewis, and Cox's incursions and excursions might have coincided with either Prater's or Lewis's entrance - but that's not the case. What chance had any of these of happening to bump into Kelly during those final hours, therefore? It's hardly surprising that neither witness saw one another, and one cannot read too much into their not noticing Kelly during that time, for the same reason.

To return to my analogy, our "strobe light" only illuminates a maximum of 10 minutes out of the three(ish) hours Kelly had left to live after 1AM; none of our observers were paying much attention to the bingo-balls that appeared at the perspex hole; the remaining 170(ish) minutes are in complete darkness - literally and metaphorically so. Kelly could have nipped down to one of Whitechapel's famous "All-night Music Halls" and watched a whole performance of La Traviata in that time, including intervals. She might even have persuaded Tarquin Farquharson-Smyth to buy her a fish supper during one of them.

Again, I apologise for straying off-thread, but I can't really allow such claims to pass by without comment, lest anyone else gets misled by such palpably hubristic reasoning. Sincerely no disrespect, Mike - you're a grand lad. (Edit: a "three grand lad", actually - I see that you brought up my 3,000th post )

[c.d.]

Yeah, 3000 posts sounds impressive but when you consider that half of them were probably bad puns....

Way to go there, Sam.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Yeah, 3000 posts sounds impressive but when you consider that half of them were probably bad puns....

I'm offended, CD. I aim for a yearly average of 75% wherever possible

[perrymason]

That is quite a landmark Sam, about halfway to the number you had before the big crash of 08 if I recall.

I do see yours and Dons point, that you dont see mine but still think me a "3 grand lad" is something I can live with.

Best regards as always.

[Chava]

Happy New 2009, all!

Gareth, we have no idea as to whether or not Kelly went out that night after Blotchy. But we do know she was still singing--probably to herself--at 1.00 am. So that's 1 hour 15 minutes after she was definitely seen by Cox entering her room. I'm assuming Cox tells the time by some chiming clock nearby, possible Spitalfields Church clock.

We don't know whether Kelly went in or out during that period, but she managed to annoy the female half of a couple in the court with her noise, so I'm guessing she stayed in and sang. OK, she was drunk. So Kelly goes in with her trick/new best friend. And there she stays for an hour or so. I will bet serious money that Blotchy Face was long gone by the time she shut up. No suggestion or evidence that she went out, came back and then started singing again.

Now it's between 1.00 and 1.30 am. Prater is outside the court for twenty minutes or so between 1.00 am and 1.20 am. Doesn't see Kelly go in or out. Cox hears her at 1.00 am.

Lewis goes into the court at 2.30 am. Doesn't see or hear Kelly.

So let's look at the times when Kelly could have gone out. Cox hears her around 1.00 am as she enters her room, and still singing a 'few minutes later' as she leaves. Say 5 or 6 minutes. The time it might take to warm up and have a pee.

Kelly, therefore, we know, did not leave the court until after 1.20 am. If she had, Lizzie Prater would have seen her. If she left before, Mary Ann Cox wouldn't have heard her.

Kelly is now out of sight and sound. But we know because of the above evidence that she entered her room at 11.45 pm and did not leave it until after 1.20 am. That is more than an hour and a half spent in her room entertaining the neighbours. And it's probably peak business time for streetwalkers.

If she stays in snug in her room during those high-traffic hours, when she would almost certainly be able to find a couple of customers to at least pay a shilling or so towards her upkeep, why on earth would we suppose that she would gather herself together and bop on out at 1.25 am or so on the fag end of a cold and rainy evening to try and get some money for food and the rent? If she is an experienced streetwalker, she'd know her chances would be better a little earlier in the evening when there would be more people about. And she's not like the other unfortunate victims who had lost their looks and health and any grip on their situation. Kelly wasn't a woman who would have to take other hookers' leavings. By all accounts she was pretty enough and young enough to attract a likely punter or two even at the height of business hours on the stroll.

No, we don't know what happened. Nor would I suggest that the above is a proven fact. But I find it very difficult to believe that Kelly stayed indoors for roughly an hour and a half on a nasty night and then managed to pull herself together and go out. I don't think she cared about the rent or anything else. I believe she stayed in beside her lovely warm fire and went to bed.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, we have no idea as to whether or not Kelly went out that night after Blotchy. But we do know she was still singing--probably to herself--at 1.00 am.

My timeline started at 1AM, Chava. There were a whole 3 hours (give or take) to account for between that and the cry of "Murder!", during which time we only have two people flitting into the Court. Only two witnesses, who had a cat in Hell's chance of noticing anything, during that whole time-span.

This discussion is for another thread, however.