Did Mary know her attacker?

Hi Don,

Before I answer you Don....
I suppose its obvious by now I truly believe what I am suggesting,... and having nothing at all to do with me, I think there might be more fruitful lines to follow than ones restricting her killer to a man unknown to her, who accesses her in a manner unknown to all but Hutchinson. I truly feel that there are many factors that seem to indicate Mary must have known her killer. Not the least of which are injuries.

Sorry Don. Ok,

"One thing that has always puzzled me about your theorizing about this issue is why you consider the fact that no one saw a light in her room or heard any noise from within is "evidence" she wasn't out?

I dont think the darkness is the indicator, I think its the fact it remains that way from 1:30am until Mary Anns last past by at 3am. Using another street worker in the court, if you want to suggest Mary goes out, then why not a few times like Cox did? Ok....but does Mary Ann light a candle when she comes into warm herself? Probably Does she make noise walking in and out at night? Likely.

No-one hears her either. She had a piece of candle left, and the remains of the fire. Had she gone out and in she would have had to use firelight, which would reflect enough to be noticed by Mary Ann walking past...or the candle piece, again, noticeable in a dark court at 3am.

Plus, if Mary went out when the room first was recorded as dark by Prater, and no-one noticed any light or heard or saw anything until at least 3am, meaning she hadnt returned...then Hutchinsons story still doesnt work.

Blotchy Face is easy.He may be the killer, or not, but we can say 100 % that he did leave the room at some point. Him slipping out once, and quietly, is one thing,...but Mary slipping out quietly before 1:30, after being hammered...then slipping back in with man or men, but never lighting the candle or stirring up the fire or making a sound...which is what is being suggested, is different.

I know this isnt a popular position, because Im tired now....so Ill leave it be for the moment. Im not trying to break new ground, ...or come up with "the" theory, but just think what may have been uncovered if the focus on where to look for Marys Killer was on a small circle of men, instead of anyone 5'6-5'8, who had a deerstalker hat with felt brim, was around 35, and that lived within walking distance.

Best regards Don.

[Chava]

Gosh, I turn my back and look what happens!

Here's a suspect pearl of wisdom for you Caz: Mary Jane Kelly's clothes were found folded on a chair near her bed but a quantity of other clothes were burnt on the fire. Some of those burnt rags were identified as children's shirts and bits and pieces. ie they did not belong to whoever killed her unless he was a Little Person or a murderous child and they probably did belong to Kelly. It's not a stretch to assume that she actually got undressed and into a nightgown. Yes, she was poor and earned her living on the streets, but no, she wasn't destitute as the other poor women were. I will allow that we have no proof she was wearing a nightgown rather than an under-chemise. But by the same token I think you must allow that we have no proof she didn't possess a nightgown.

Suspect pearl of wisdom #2:

After Sutcliffe was apprehended, he described pretty minutely what happened when he killed prostitutes. He killed them the very first chance he got. He didn't hang around. The only victim he didn't kill the moment he felt he had the opportunity to do so was Wilma McCann, who I believe was not the first woman he attacked, but the first woman he killed. He had a very brief conversation with her. She then crouched down on the grass to urinate in the area where they had gone for business, and he killed her immediately. All the others were killed as soon as Sutcliffe thought it safe to do so. Patricia Atkinson had a flat where she took punters. He went to that flat with her and by his own admission killed her as soon as they walked in the door--no languid postponement there. When Sutcliffe didn't feel like killing, he didn't kill. When Sutcliffe wanted to kill, he did. And as soon as was convenient to him. So I don't think we have any evidentiary reason whatsoever to ascribe 'patience' to the Ripper. He also killed as soon as he felt he was able to do so. We have absolutely no reason to believe he would hang about and 'savour the moment' because his prey was so young and pretty etc etc etc. That's the kind of thinking that sets my teeth on edge because it's part of the unnecessary romanticization of Mary Jane Kelly. If you look at Sutcliffe's women, some were extremely unattractive, some were very pretty, some were ordinary-looking women. And he killed them all without any hesitation or 'patience' or whatever as fast as he could. Let's not have any more lip-smacking over Mary Kelly the Spitalfields Stunna than is absolutely necessary, shall we?

[Supe]

Michael,

One thing that has always puzzled me about your theorizing about this issue is why you consider the fact that no one saw a light in her room or heard any noise from within is "evidence" she wasn't out? If anything, that would suggest she was out unless you think she would keep a relatively costly candle burning and a clockwork mechanism rocking her bed every few seconds.

And yes, I know that no one saw her go out, but then no one saw Blotchy face leave either. Of course, we live in a real world and "Diddles" belonged to Ms. Prater, not Hr. Schroedinger so it is no surprise that Blotchy face was not there the next afternoon when the door was prised open. But it does mean that the ill-complexioned bloke did slip during one of those long periods when no one was about to see him leave. Just as, Mary might have.

Don.

We know Mary Kelly lived with Joe Barnett up until Oct 30th? We know he objected to her "street work". Julia Vanturney was interviewed and stated seeing Mary with Joe Barnett, and mentioning another one she was seeing, but made no mention of Mary ever bringing strangers in. Nor did Mary Ann Cox offer that information, nor did Elizabeth Prater. Since Joe has been gone just over a week, and we can only account for her whereabouts some of that time approximately, she only had potentially 7 nights to start bringing men in. Something that had occurred that recently, a change in behaviour, would have been noticed by Julia, Mary Ann, or Maria...who spent much of that time with Mary...including a few of those nights she was alone.

So....if you are right and she suddenly started, your payout would be much better due to the long odds going in.

Mary Kelly is not on record as having told any of her closest friends and neighbors that she was concerned about back rent being due. Mary Kelly was not stated to have cleared any of the arrears she had up until November 8th by McCarthy, and since he was asked to comment on that issue, would have mentioned any recent payments. It is said that Mary Kelly was given money by at least Joe Barnett daily, excluding the 8th, to address the arrears, as he was also living there when they were acquired.

You may say that not all were asked direct questions as such, but you can surmise by the various minutia mentioned that such things would be memorable.

Now, use Polly and Annie for examples of whores who are pissed and dont have any money or a home as the street women you refer to...the ones that keep going out. Because its clear Mary was not in the dire straits the others were. She had a roof still..was drunk and fed that very night.

I think that addresses the points you jumped at Sam. Im not idly, or without probable merit, suggesting anything about Mary Kelly or that night. She fits the profile I spoke of, one that has no need to work with filthy men in the rain when at home in bed, fed and drunk. Nor is there one reason to suspect she did that night.

Thats why I say hell with the fence.

Best regards.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I am sorry but I cannot continue to argue this point with you. As I have stated numerous times, if I had to place a wager, I would say the odds are that she didn't go out. But I can't be sure.

If you feel you are being ganged up on, well I am sorry. I see you as Lee J. Cobb in "Twelve Angry Men." See you constantly harp on the evidence...where is the evidence...show me the evidence. But you have to question the evidence that is available to us. If you go simply by the evidence, then you are right, there is no evidence that she went out. You are right, period. But is it reasonable to question the evidence and to show flaws in it? For instance, is it reasonable to assume that the witnesses who say that they didn't see her go out were not watching her door in a 24 hour vigil? Or do we simply ignore that question? That is the whole crux of this argument. I can't state that more clearly. If you are unwilling to go beyond the evidence and draw what I and others think are reasonable inferences then we can never reach any common ground on this. I am getting a headache from ramming my head into a brick wall. So I am going to bow out here. All the best to you.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

I dont want to stay safe and say maybe she did go out anyway...it defies the nature of the evidence available.

It doesn't in the least, Mike, but hey-ho!

Im pleased to see that you two have decided your mutual beliefs and gracious stance in the middle is where we need to be on this issue, ...but I sadly cannot allign with that thinking. I think for too long people have just accepted stuff about these cases, advanced and beginners, and it hinders real progress. I think that 120 years of no answers at all backs that up. Time for people to take some of this stuff to task, following the conventions is going nowhere.

I dont want to stay safe and say maybe she did go out anyway...it defies the nature of the evidence available. And why keep a door open if it is only open out of habit and ritual...like The Canon. Lets close that door....there was no Canon..some of the c5 seem to match, but some non-c5 match better, .....it was opinions,......grasping for something to tell people...cause they knew absolutely nothing about any real man with any real motive and availability.

Yeah Im stubborn, its not always confrontational but can be, but I would like to be able to make a statement that has support within existing known evidence, and not have it treated like a Mason theory.

Although re-reading, I suppose it must be.

Over and out for 2nite.

[Sam Flynn]

But all I am doing is pointing out that accepted records do not include a trip by Mary

If you'd said "preclude" rather than "include", you'd be bang on the money, Mike.

and from what we know of her via friends statements, she is not likely to have gone out under the circumstances that night anyway

We can't deduce that from her friends' statements at all.

and she never brought clients home.

And we don't know that either. If you must defend one side of the equation, Mike, it'd help your case if you avoided making assertions such as these.

As CD has pointed out, we have no emphatic evidence either way. The best we can do is make reasonable inferences based on the behaviour of others in Kelly's situation, some of whom - including one or two of her neighbours - were in the habit of "situating" themselves on the streets until the small hours.

Hi Michael,

I have no evidence that Mary knew her killer nor do I have evidence that she did not.

c.d.

Then explain why I need to defend half of that equation constantly. I get treated like Ive created a new Royals theory around here, like Im not quoting Inquest or witness statements accurately....which is untrue....and since the actual existing accredited evidence, which I often refer to as "facts"... favor a visit with a friend and no trip out later, I get aggravated having to do so.

If I tell you Tumblety did it and heres why, go ahead, run me down. But all I am doing is pointing out that accepted records do not include a trip by Mary...and from what we know of her via friends statements, she is not likely to have gone out under the circumstances that night anyway, her immediate needs were met, and she never brought clients home.

Regards cd.

[Sam Flynn]

Would you please state your opinion on the record on this issue. Are you arguing that Mary absolutely positively metaphysical certainty written in stone went out that night to meet her killer or are you just saying that it is a reasonable possibility? Thank you.

My pleasure - I think it's a reasonable possibility, CD.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

Would you please state your opinion on the record on this issue. Are you arguing that Mary absolutely positively metaphysical certainty written in stone went out that night to meet her killer or are you just saying that it is a reasonable possibility? Thank you.

c.d.

Not correct Sam....we have 3 separate witnesses that at various points from 11:45 to 3am were exposed to the state of Mary Kellys room. It never changed from 1:30, and many of the passes in and out were during that period of time.

No-one sees her leave after midnight, no one hears her arrive again, no one sees light after 1:30 from her room, no-one ever sees her bring a client into Millers Court, no-one can say that Blotchy Man was a client by her obvious method of entertaining him, no-one can say Mary was concerned about back rent, no-one can say that Mary Kelly ever went out to work after arriving home hammered first, there is nothing in that room that indicates she went out in rain, that someone other than Blotchy came in with her, or that she was doing anything but sleeping when her killer arrived.

Yet little or no noise is recorded by anyone. Does he break in, and get to her quickly so that she only screams faintly, and Mrs Prater now awake hears nothing, even though Mary is receiving defensive knife wounds at the time? Does he knock, and when she opens he attacks?...Well, she is killed on the bed, and no noise was heard after "oh-murder"....hmm...well then, it appears by the records of the night, the ones that speak of actual events and times, that her killer came in and got to her without her raising the roof for help.

Now that couldnt be because she had her guard down and knew him?...Certainly not.....she went whoring and the witness that lied actually told the truth, so not only is Mike a fool, Ill just call all the investigators who dismissed Hutchinson fools too.

Sorry...hate it or like it, your disappointment with my inflexible position is certainly not aided by the demand that I accept unsubstantiated fiction as the nights records.

Best regards,

[Sam Flynn]

Stop for a second and look at your position......for you to be correct, many things about that night occurred without anyone seeing or hearing them, even though people came and went from that court until 3am.

Mrs Cox (twice), Mrs Prater (once) and Sarah Lewis (once)... that's hardly Rembrandt's Night Watch, is it?

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Take a chill pill here, bro. I don't know of anyone on these boards who absolutely insists that Mary went outside and picked up her killer. They are only suggesting that it is a reasonable possibility. You however absolutely refuse to admit the possibility.

I have no evidence that Mary knew her killer nor do I have evidence that she did not.

c.d.

Michael, my friend,

I can certainly share Caz's frustration in arguing with you. You constantly make the same arguments over and over but absolutely refuse to consider opposing arguments. It's as though you are a juror and after hearing the prosecution complete their case you say well that SOB is quilty before hearing what the other side has to say. You bolster your arguments by harping on the evidence as though that evidence can never be questioned.

Consider P.C Long's evidence regarding the apron. Do we go strictly by the evidence, i.e., his testimony or do we say well it was dark, it was a dark apron and he wasn't on the lookout for it? Now I and others would factor in those arguments since I think they make sense. But in doing so, we are questioning the evidence. That is the crux of the argument. So when you say there is no evidence that Mary went out that night you are absolutely correct. But at the same time you want to ignore the very rational arguments that say that is what prostitutes do and no one was paying attention to her coming and going.

To suggest that the rest of us are fools because we are not going by the evidence is quite condescending. I think questioning the evidence makes much more sense.

Stay well my friend,

c.d.

Hi cd,

I dont recall saying or intimating that anyone here is a fool, so be offended at your own peril....I only suggested that some smart people base their opinions on this matter based on flawed logic...that which creates unlogged excursions out of necessity, infuses Mary Kelly with a work ethic not present prior to that point, and is completely contradictory to the lifestyle of the known very poor street whore.....who works for food, works for shelter, or works for booze...or all the above.

So..... which one again was Mary lacking that night?

How you and others can claim a more reasonable position is that Mary went out anyway...unseen, was picked up by a man, and seen by another (who is later assumed to have lied about his story by Police)...and she brings him to her home and he kills her... its quite honestly a completely unsupportable stance.

Why.....once again, and you ask why I need to repeat it.......she had no record of ever bringing clients in, there is no legitimate record of a sighting of her out after midnight, she has none of the requisite problems most whores work for on that night....food shelter and booze, the pubs are closed, and she is hammered and at home, while it rains outside.

You talk about insults,.... you expect anyone of any intellect to believe that all these things happened without anyone knowing, and because Mary is a whore and does what most whores do....that its more likely than the existing evidence?...which does not have a trip, client or whores need to whore in it.

Stop for a second and look at your position......for you to be correct, many things about that night occurred without anyone seeing or hearing them, even though people came and went from that court until 3am.

If Im correct, Hutchinson lied. What a revelation that would be huh?

The premise that Mary Kelly meets her killer oustide of her room after midnight on November the 8th/9th has NO evidential support ...other than Hutchinson. And sorry Richard,. cause you are persistent about him.....the officials thought his suspect story was a lie. Im not arguing with you...there is no argument.

Try this on for size,.....name one thing....one fact...one piece of evidence from Millers Court that says definitively her killer did not know her personally? A faintish "oh-murder?" Were not even sure it was her.

Lets call a spade a spade shall we....there is no evidence she went out...period.

Cheers cd.