the Rent arrears

[Sam Flynn]

If she wasn't killed by a copycat--and given the injuries etc, it doesn't seem that way--then she was killed by the Ripper but hers is a more personal attack.

Why does it have to be more "personal", though? Can't it just be more "extreme"?

[Chava]

Gareth, it's only my opinion, but the removal of the heart rather than the generative organs suggests to me a more personal relationship. Unless, of course, he was trying to assemble a woman from spare parts!

It can certainly be a more extreme attack. And he did have the privacy to do whatever he wanted. Although if I were him, unless I'd been stalking Kelly, I would be concerned that someone might walk in the door. Of course that argument pays into the 'she picked up a punter' theory. Because he could have asked her if she lived alone and she could have told him she did. But I'm leery of thinking she went out on the stroll after Blotchy Face, because she doesn't seem to have done that earlier in the evening. McCarthy saw her drinking in a pub, I believe. And so did other people.

[perrymason]

Hi Gareth,

Merry Christmas Chum....hope it was a great one for you.

The evidence such as it is is consistent with an attack by someone known by Mary,...whether thats what occurred is still unknown, but it does fit with the "knowns". Part of that evidence is the heart theft, part is the facial wounds, and part is the facts that seem to point to a killer who may have targetted a room and a victim that night....rather than the chance encounter... which seem to be a facet of the previous Canonicals killers MO.

The financial needs that drove the other victims to his arms were not present with Mary Kelly, she being the only one with a room in her name, and her base needs seem to have been met that night as well, without any known soliciting....she apparently ate, and got drunk...

I really think that the arrears, if supposed to be a representation of a motivating factor for Mary to have gone out to work in the rain, is a non-starter....arrears and eviction were known to Mary before Millers Court, and I think caused her little concern.

All the best Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

...arrears and eviction were known to Mary before Millers Court, and I think caused her little concern.

I'd imagine that the same could easily be conjectured about Mrs Cox as well, Mike - yet she was in and out until 3AM.

That aside, one thing to note about Kelly's predicament was that Joe Barnett had specifically called in to apologise that he had no money for her, on the eve of her death. Doesn't that tell us something?

I had/am having a great Christmas, Mike - thanks for asking, and hope the same applies to you.

[perrymason]

I'd imagine that the same could easily be conjectured about Mrs Cox as well, Mike - yet she was in and out until 3AM.

That aside, one thing to note about Kelly's predicament was that Joe Barnett had specifically called in to apologise that he had no money for her, on the eve of her death. Doesn't that tell us something?

I had/am having a great Christmas, Mike - thanks for asking, and hope the same applies to you.

Im not sure that we know enough of Mary Ann Cox to know she was as familiar with arrears and evictions Sam, but we sure can easily see a different work ethic...whether due to her looks which were not "positively" described, her age, or her running short of funds on collection day for the residents that paid weekly, who can say.

We only know that Mary should have been working to pay off her debts, we dont see the evidence that she in fact did.

On Joes visit the night before Bowyer is sent to collect, you may well be right, in that he thinks that all the money he gives her is going towards the debt accrued when he lived there, and to help her support herself since his leaving. So when he cant provide any for her, he is apologetic. There is no record that exists that suggests she paid anything against the arrears since Joe left...and yet we do know he gave her money towards that almost every day. I think that reveals a bit of "character" missing myself, and when faced with easier alternatives, I see Mary as adapting quite well to a state of constant debt.

If she wont work in the rain, or doesnt, and Mary Ann does, I believe that just speaks to her earning potential per client in relation to Marys, and the frequency of new clientele she might expect on a given night, vs an attractive woman in her twenties.

Glad to hear youre having fun Gareth, ....just pace yourself in anticipation of New Years Eve.

Best regards my friend.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Im not sure that we know enough of Mary Ann Cox to know she was as familiar with arrears and evictions Sam

... about as much as we know about Kelly.

but we sure can easily see a different work ethic.

Where from? By which I mean, how can we conclude as much?

[Chava]

I think Michael and I are inferring a better work ethic from the evidence that Cox gives of her own movements that night. She comes in and goes out a number of times and admits that she gets her living 'on the streets'. It's true that she is never asked if she comes and goes alone, however her testimony suggests that she works outside and then comes back indoors by herself for a bit of a warm-up and possibly a private pee. All we know of Kelly's movements that night are that she was drinking. She came home accompanied by a man who had also clearly been drinking--and whom she doesn't treat as a customer. Instead of getting down to business, she sings parlour songs at him. She is still in situ belting out her songs at 1.00 am. So either she's dealt with Blotchy Face and sent him on his way. Or BF is still sitting entranced listening to the woman of his dreams serenade him. Or BF realized his Big Mistake within 5 minutes of entering 13 Millers Court and has tiptoed quietly out. Now BF could be the Ripper. And I would dearly love him to be. But I just don't see him sitting still for a couple of hours until she shuts up and turns in. And unfortunately, Cox's account of Kelly's singing is corroborated by other people in the court...

If BF is not the Ripper, Kelly could have left her crib and gone out immediately after his leaving. But it doesn't sound like she did. She kept on singing indoors. So either an angel came to her around 1.30-ish and said 'get out and earn some money otherwise you'll be on the street' or...? If Kelly wasn't bothered about the rent when she was sober at the beginning of the evening, I don't see any reason why she would be bothered about the rent when she was half-cut in the small hours of a rainy night.

[Sam Flynn]

All we know of Kelly's movements that night are that she was drinking...

Indeed, Chava, but we also know that she owed significant arrears, and that her "husband" had called that very evening to say that he had no money for her.

Back to my original question, however, about Mike's observation regarding the Kelly and Cox work ethic. Our evidence consists solely of a few scattered witness reports; reports that refer to a few fleeting minutes within a handful of hours of one evening. What of the remaining hours and minutes that made up that night? More to the point: what of the other 365 days that year, and other years? We know next to nothing about Kelly, and arguably less about Cox - hence any inference extrapolated from the events of that one night can never reach the level of an assertion.

[perrymason]

Hi Sam, Chava...

Chava, I think you did a great job of illustrating the issues and possible answers that are at the core of the night in question. This isnt about what happened at what time, as much as it is what is represented by action or inactivity by the people in question in the courtyard.

And that is where the basis is for the statement I made Sam...but only when the evidence regarding Mary Kelly "generally"... from the people closest to her physically is added.

The specific information bits that night that are used are the multiple trips to find clients in the pouring rain by one of the court witnesses who is also a street whore....the absense of any trustworthy account of Mary leaving her room again after 11:45pm on the 8th,...the evidence that suggests Mary did not bring a man to her room soley for sex for money that night, perhaps indicating that there was no financial bond between her and Blotchy Face and that he may just have been a vocally entertained escort home, the fact that Marys hair was not said to have been soaking wet by rain and blood, there was no traces of wetness or mud from a venture out when the rain increased described on the floor or on her clothing, the fact that Mary was said to be very intoxicated when arriving home, perhaps even to the extent she couldnt handle any business at that time, or within the hour, that her room was said to have been dark and quiet from 1:30am on, shortly after the singing ended,... the fact that the night before rent was due she comes home hammered with a man and in her room sings to him off and on for over an hour, while her working counterpart comes in and goes back out to find clients.....and the fact that alcohol when consumed in large amounts often is a depressant or relaxant rather than a stimulator, motivator and energizer.

The information from other than that night and other sources forms the opinion.....she was behind in her rent substantially and well within McCarthys rights to throw her out without signs she was trying to catch up, rent was going to be collected the next morning, (perhaps a known, maybe not), ...she was not said to have paid down one penny in debt since Joe left yet we know he gave her money likely for that purpose daily, and perhaps received money from another lover at the same time,... that Mary was known to have been evicted in the past for non-payment of rent, despite being what could be described as a very marketable whore,...and the lack of any evidence that suggests that specifically Mary started bringing clients into her room after Joe left, an opportunity a keener for making money might have leapt at.

With this night Sam you know that there is not enough evidence to see anything clearly as it was, but we do have a bit of lead up information that suggests Mary was not a hard working street whore....like 3 of 4 other canonicals were. Mary was not behaving desperately when she meets her killer.

Best regards Sam, Chava, all.

[Suzi]

Interesting thoughts here- Just as a by the way- it appears that Joe Barnett was in the habit of dropping by from time to time with money for Mary- may this not have been for rent payment if,as Richard says the room was rented in his name...just a flu-driven thought
Suzi x

[Chava]

Indeed, Chava, but we also know that she owed significant arrears, and that her "husband" had called that very evening to say that he had no money for her.

Back to my original question, however, about Mike's observation regarding the Kelly and Cox work ethic. Our evidence consists solely of a few scattered witness reports; reports that refer to a few fleeting minutes within a handful of hours of one evening. What of the remaining hours and minutes that made up that night? More to the point: what of the other 365 days that year, and other years? We know next to nothing about Kelly, and arguably less about Cox - hence any inference extrapolated from the events of that one night can never reach the level of an assertion.

I agree. But really I"m not concerned with the other 364 days of that year. Kelly knew that Barnett had no money for her from early on in that evening. But it didn't appear to concern her. There are reports of her having been seen drinking early in the evening, and she was definitely drunk at 11.45 pm by Cox's account, and I have no reason to disbelieve Cox. I'm not making sweeping assumptions about Kelly's want of character so much as I am building a case to discount Kudzu's evidence. He is the only person who states that he saw Kelly soliciting that night. And I find it hard to believe that, if she was out on the stroll then, she hadn't started work until the very small hours of the morning, when her customer-base had dwindled right down. I think it's more than likely that Kelly thought she'd let the back-rent problem sit for the night and take care of it the next day. Every account of her behaviour over the years since she came to the East End suggests that she wasn't a full-time prostitute. She preferred to glom onto some man who would earn enough money to support her. She had lived with at least 3 men in the couple of years before she died. I think that's what she was out looking for in the East End pubs, and that's what she saw Blotchy Face to be.

(Of course there is a scenario in which BF is the Ripper. He thinks he is in good with a woman he can have fun with and goes home with Kelly. But she commences to singing terrible songs and won't shut up, and he can't jump her until she does in case someone gets suspicious that her song ended too abruptly. So he has to sit and endure dreadful music sung by a drunken woman for two hours. Until mercifully she stops caterwauling and he can kill her. And takes gruesome vengeance on her body for making him sit through all that crap...!)

Suzi, I hope you feel better soon!

[perrymason]

Interesting thoughts here- Just as a by the way- it appears that Joe Barnett was in the habit of dropping by from time to time with money for Mary- may this not have been for rent payment if,as Richard says the room was rented in his name...just a flu-driven thought
Suzi x

Hi Suzi,

Merry Christmas and get better willya.

Mary Kelly had the room in her own name, considering her track record and habits, and the fact that Joe is a co-tenant moving in, its a wonder. But the facts, m'am.

Feel better soon, cheers.

[Sam Flynn]

I agree. But really I"m not concerned with the other 364 days of that year.

365, Chava. 1888 was a leap-year

And we really should be concerned with the rest of that year, and previous years, if we are to make bold statements about Mrs Cox's versus Kelly's respective "work ethics". The fact that we don't know the necessary level of biographical detail means that we shouldn't make specific assertions about either woman's behaviour. It's not at all clear to me that "we sure can see different work ethic" in play for Kelly as opposed to Cox, and it's simply not possible to extrapolate from the fragmentary evidence to make a case for it.

To be more specific: perhaps Cox or Prater brought a man-friend back for a beer and a sing-song occasionally - I don't see why they shouldn't have Perhaps they went back onto the streets after he'd left - I don't see why that couldn't have been the case either. Maybe these sorts of events (if they occurred) took place when Cox and Prater were also in rent arrears - and why not?

Now, that's a lot of "perhapses" and "maybes", but we shouldn't be swayed by the tragic little window we have on Kelly's last hours and perceive those events as somehow "significant" or "definitive". We really don't know enough about her, and still less about the likes of Prater and Cox - at least at an individual level - to make that call. If we don't know their specific biographies, what chance have we of predicting their movements on the basis of a handful of ill-remembered incidents that took place within the space of a few short hours?

[perrymason]

Hi again Sam,

Ill address your points within your quote, because I would disagree that there is no evidence on file with which some assertions can be made fairly safely...

And we really should be concerned with the rest of that year, and previous years, if we are to make bold statements about Mrs Cox's versus Kelly's respective "work ethics". The fact that we don't know the necessary level of biographical detail means that we shouldn't make specific assertions about either woman's behaviour. It's not at all clear to me that "we sure can see different work ethic" in play for Kelly as opposed to Cox, and it's simply not possible to extrapolate from the fragmentary evidence to make a case for it.

Thats incorrect Sam, we can see clearly on the night in question that Mary Ann Cox attempts to work repeatedly while Mary is entertaining a man with song, despite the hard rain and the fact that we have no indication at all that she is behind in her rent. When what is known of Mary's past is added, that she did run up arrears in other places and was evicted for that before, one could make a case for her lax work ethic, particularly when faced with imminent eviction perhaps.

To be more specific: perhaps Cox or Prater brought a man-friend back for a beer and a sing-song occasionally - I don't see why they shouldn't have Perhaps they went back onto the streets after he'd left - I don't see why that couldn't have been the case either. Maybe these sorts of events (if they occurred) took place when Cox and Prater were also in rent arrears - and why not?

Ill answer "why not" first...because there is no evidence that exists that says Mary Ann or Elizabeth Prater EVER had defaulted on a single rent payment....and there is with Mary. Suggesting that Mrs Prater and Ms Cox might have had male friends they entertained with song too is all well and good, its just that we can see that Mary did, we can only guess about the other two.

Now, that's a lot of "perhapses" and "maybes", but we shouldn't be swayed by the tragic little window we have on Kelly's last hours and perceive those events as somehow "significant" or "definitive". We really don't know enough about her, and still less about the likes of Prater and Cox - at least at an individual level - to make that call. If we don't know their specific biographies, what chance have we of predicting their movements on the basis of a handful of ill-remembered incidents that took place within the space of a few short hours?

Again....we can only do so when we use information that we do have, not a slew of perhaps's, maybe's, could be's or possibly's. We do have evidence of behaviour, that night, and prior to that night, of Mary Kelly...and we have evidence that night of Cox's and Praters behaviour,...and there is nothing that stands out as "unique circumstances" on that particular evening, prior to her murder, that warrants some special "options" being applied to the events we do not have on record. Meaning, there is nothing to justify the events occurring that you suggest.

Mary Kelly was by all accounts a very viable street whore, when placed side by side with all 4 prior alledged Ripper victims, she is by far the most marketable. Add a room that she could entertain in....there is no contest. Maybe thats why she was let a room in her own name...the landlords perception of that marketability, and therefore the ability to earn money regularly. Perhaps that is part of the reason he even allows arrears for her.

We do not know if that same generosity was extended to the other "working women" in that house and courtyard, but by the description of Mary Ann Cox alone, it would seem that they did not have the same level of "marketability" that Mary did. And yet we do not hear that they were behind one penny in rent, or ever had been. McCarthy mentions no-one but Mary being in arrears.

So on a night when Mary Ann Cox is apparently up to-date, current with her housing bill,.. she attempts to get clients in the pouring rain multiple times. Mrs Prater, who is also apparently current with her housing costs, is waiting to meet a "man", perhaps a client, and she gives up and goes to bed by 1:30am.

Mary Kelly is behind weeks in her rent, has been given money by her ex roomy Joe almost daily, and has apparently paid nothing towards that debt. She gets home hammered before midnight, sings to a man off and on for over an hour, she goes silent, the room goes dark, and she is not seen or heard from again until Bowyer parts the curtains. His pending visit to collect money may have even been known to Mary the night before.

Its not without foundation, nor is it unkind, to suggest that Mary Kelly did not work hard as a street whore and that led to her arrears and eviction pattern. If she was an alcoholic, that is not the reason for her not to work regularly, in fact its the opposite...she would need to earn to drink. But Mary gets drunk, and we dont know that any of that money was earned. Its her age and looks that allow her to get things without giving herself in exchange.

edit: I should add that I can see why she would be reluctant to work hard at such an occupation, particularly if she still saw herself as a cut above the street crowd...a brothel level whore, or a "consort". Id be willing to bet good money that even today, a street whore is seen as lowlife by a call-girl.

Best regards Sam.

[Chava]

Gareth, I'm not making 'assumptions about work ethics' in order to make moral points about Cox and Kelly. I'm just saying what Michael said above: according to her own account, Mary Ann Cox was working as a prostitute throughout the evening and into the small hours on the night Mary Jane Kelly died. There was no advantage to her in disclosing this. She had to stand up in front of a bunch of jurors and a coroner and admit that she was 'a widow and an unfortunate' and that she 'got (her) living on the streets'. In other words she was the lowest level of prostitute available. But she admitted to that, and testified that she saw Kelly drunk at 11.45 pm in the company of a man she was taking home.

Prater may or may not have been on the game that night. According to her, the man she was waiting for was a man she was living with, although he failed to turn up that night.

Kelly was not out on the stroll until after 1.00 am. That's if you believe Kudzu's account which I do not. Earlier in the evening she was drinking and was seen in at least one pub. No one came forward to say they saw her tricking. Whether Kelly was a part-time tart, an occasional tart or a full-time tart, she wasn't working that night. And if she was concerned about her lack of money--which is what Kudzu suggests--she managed to conceal that fear very effectively throughout the first part of her last evening.

You can interpret that as a poor work ethic, or whatever. It's really not important. What I believe is important, as Michael says, is what happened that night. Because if Kelly wasn't hooking, then Hutchinson's evidence falls apart.