Did Mary know her attacker?

[jason_c]

"If you want to suggest that she took a trip later on, even using Hutchinson as the reference for that statement, if you like the odds with Carrie Maxwell, its your business. Its just that the records show no such trip witnessed, and they dismissed the single account that made such supposition possible."

Perrymason

No witnesses place her in bed either.

In our modern day 9 to 5 working world we regulary go to bed late evening. We cannot compare the modern middle class forum contributors working lives with that of todays street prostitute junkies. Likewise alchoholic prostitutes of the late Victorian era.

We have many accounts of that period where drunken prostitutes worked the early morning hours. Annie Chapman was almost certainly not working those early daylight hours to obtain money for a bed.

Considering the job of market porters etc and the lack of Government welfare, Victorian Whitechapel was as much a 24/7 culture as todays.


btw, reading the above infuriates me as to McDonalds inquest questions. Simply asking wether Kelly was a regular those morning hours could have saved modern Ripperology much wasted anguish.

[Ben]

We don't know if it was because her time of death wasn't reliable enough to know that Hutchinson's sighting was the killer or not, or if he had identified someone as the person he saw who for whatever reason satisfied the police that he couldn't have been the killer

If the police believed Hutchinson had seen a man with Kelly, they had an obligation to keep his description in circulation whether they believed that suspect to have been the killer or not, and irrespectve of any ambiguity over TOD. Suspects observed near a crime scene or in the company of the victim before her death are worthy of investigation until they can be satisfactorily eliminated from police inquiries, which Hutchinson's suspect could not have been unless the contemporary police had occasion to believe that the suspect description had been fabricated. Even if he'd identified a man with a proven alibi in Weston-Super-Mare on 9th November, that was still no reason to discard his evidence completely or assume he told the truth about his initial sighting.

This is an entirely seperate argument, of course, from the premise that Hutchinson had seen Kelly, which isn't as easy to cast aside.

[Sam Flynn]

The witnesses testified, the details of the night are based on their accounts. Its there, you see it or you dont.

I see the gaps in between the witness testimony, Mike. The witness observations account for the most fleeting of moments that night, whereas the gaps in the record amount to some hours.

Sorry, Mike, but you haven't yet provided one shred of "accepted" evidence that Mary Kelly was in her room for the 2-3 hour time-slot during which no witnesses were around to notice. It all boils down to the old maxim: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

As to the other challenges you posed to Dan, well none of us can answer them. I daresay that many of the people who were there at the time couldn't have answered most of them either - on that basis, the likes of you and I have no chance with such questions.

There's not much point throwing down the sort of gauntlets that you can't even pick up yourself

Sam,

Since I am the one using the accounts provided at the Inquest to formulate my opinion of activity in that court that night, it is not I who has to prove anything. We have no witness account, we have multiple corroborations for the state of her room until at least 3am. A state entered into before Elizabeth Prater came in. Which means if Mary left when her room went dark,...its either that or she is is in with Blotchy or alone, she would almost have to pass Elizabeth in the archway, or have run into Mary Ann when stepping out of her room.

If you want to suggest that she took a trip later on, even using Hutchinson as the reference for that statement, if you like the odds with Carrie Maxwell, its your business. Its just that the records show no such trip witnessed, and they dismissed the single account that made such supposition possible.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. The witnesses testified, the details of the night are based on their accounts. Its there, you see it or you dont.

But dismissing my idea without providing any contrary proof doesn't seem ethical, or very fair to those trying to solve cases by actually using the evidence, rather than a subjective opinion of what all whores would do, or how they acted.

Anyway, as I said, Im not selling anything,...I dont have a myth I need to perpetuate to keep me in sheckles. So I dont need the hassle for just offering some ideas. Seems few of the ones around for 120 years have panned out so well....

Moving on....thanks for the lovely dinner.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

You neglected to answer one....

...because they are unanswerable, as I've already pointed out. The evidence simply does not exist - and that cuts both ways. We don't have any evidence that she stayed in either. Conversely, we have plenty of evidence about the habits of other East End prostitutes of the period. We even have evidence of the movements of those prostitutes who lived in Miller's Court on the morning of Mary's death - and they were out and about long after midnight.

Dan,

Lets just say I havent your years of study behind me, so my errors might be forigiven. You would think you should know better, right?

To summarize your answers are:

Your single piece of accepted evidence she went out?.....predictably, a discredtiited witness account, dismissed that same week.

Your single account of Mary bring a client in? An explanation on how Victorian whoring actually took place based on your research, first with refreshments and song off and on for over an hour. You don't seem to understand that whores were actually just women too.

Your single piece of evidence that Mary told anyone of her possible eviction for arrears?...I'm on crack.

Your single account of the Canonicals that whored after paying for their food, booze, and bed?....a mistaken comparison using Polly Nichols....who did not go whoring after paying for her food, bed and lodgings. She earned it and spent it instead. So evidently did Liz.

You neglected to answer one....a single account that shows Mary had given any of the money paid to her by both Joes towards her arrears. I dont blame you for not addressing it, because it surely would have come out in McCarthys testimony, or any of her friends living in the court would know she was paying down her debt, Bowyer might have known. Barnett apologized to Mary for not having money the night of the 8th, Is it your contention he didn't care what she used it for? That he didn't think at least some was for back rent they ran up when he lived there? Hear of any arrears being paid?

You may know details Dan, but putting things together based on a plethora of circumstantial evidence is not your forte. If I were you Id stick with the research. Because all you'll ever know is "who" died, "when", and "where" and "how" many cuts ....you obviously don't have either the RAM, the humanity, or the common sense, for "why".

Surely you know by now that one beacon for me to know Im looking in the right places is your derision of the idea, and your insults.

Regards.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
The Title of the Thread is 'Did Mary know her attacker'?,
The obvious answer is Yes, albeit mayby not actually well, but at least was aware of the man that was soon to kill her.
There are three men that are in the frame for the murder of Mjk during the evening/morning of the 8th/9th nov88, they are ..
a] Blotchy,
b] Astracan.
c] Mrs Maxwells porter.
All three of these [ if existed] Mjk would have been aware of.
Blotchy. Because of a song and a drink.
Astracan . Because of a fair walk back to her room in Millers court, from where she was seen to encounter this man.
Porter..
The most likely suspect simply because he was the last man to have been seen in her company, even if it goes against the grain[ witnessed by Maxwell]
The fact of the matter is the three people mentioned, are the only suspects that presented themselves during that night/morning, that however is not to say that a break-in is not possible or other alternatives.
Regards Richard.

[Dan Norder]

Dont you think that at least once in a while you should offer some proof of this superior understanding of the case you seem to feel you possess?

You've never offered even a smattering of evidence that you had any understanding of the case at all, so a majority of people here are superior to that by default. But then as far as my knowledge goes, your strategy seems to be just to insist that I must not have any because I disagree with you. I've shown you to be wrong on claims you've made dozens of times (if not hundreds by now) over your history here under the "perrymason" alias and your previous ones. Your sole response to everything I or anyone else says that shows you to be wrong is to stick your fingers in your ears (well, except for that time you threatened to hack into Chris Scott's computer and destroy it, got yourself kicked off, came back under a new alias, and then somehow managed to not get kicked off again once you revealed that you were the same person).

Provide one piece of accepted evidence for Mary having left her room after midnight. Last time I asked you this you brought up Hutchinson...like he was viable, and believed beyond that same week.

And, again (considering that this was all pointed out already, you pretending it wasn't means you are either delusional or a liar), you certainly do not know that his testimony about Kelly being out of her room and picking up a client was not believed past a week. You know nothing of the sort. All we know is that at some point -- as already spelled out to you in extensive detail previously -- police decided that his testimony would no longer be useful in attempting to catch the killer. We don't know if it was because her time of death wasn't reliable enough to know that Hutchinson's sighting was the killer or not, or if he had identified someone as the person he saw who for whatever reason satisfied the police that he couldn't have been the killer, or any number of other perfectly valid explanations that would in no way prove that he didn't see Kelly out that night. You insisting that Hutchinson's testimony is not accepted evidence means nothing.

Provide one account of Mary ever bringing a client into Millers Court. Sorry...a serenade doesn't count as a "trick".

Well, see, again, if you insist that the fact Mary sang means that she wasn't entertaining a client, then not only are you woefully ignorant of the kinds of things that happen with casual prostitution, but you've clearly demonstrated that any evidence anyone provides about anything can be dismissed just because you refuse to let it "count." What do you think happened in that room that night? She was a prostitute, not running some fireside theatre event.

Name one person who says Mary feared eviction.

Name one instance where Mary paid money to McCarthy given to her by Joe Barnett or Joe Flemming for her arrears.

Are you on crack? Seriously, use your head here. Your bizarre insistence that neither of these things happened does not mean they are true, and even if they were true that in no way would mean your conclusions are the only sensible explanation.

Name one of the Canonical 5 that was prostituting after already having food or booze and a bed paid for that same night.

Polly Nichols. Totally boozed up and had the money for a bed three times that night, but decided she'd rather continue prostituting. Your argument that Kelly wasn't prostituting herself that night is naive to the extreme.

actually understanding what you read, or properly interpreting it, or writing things in an accurate unbiased manner don't seem to be among your strengths.

Coming from you, that's a positively glowing recommendation. Anyone you would consider to be accurately interpreting things, based upon the bizarre and baseless nonsense you keep pushing, would have to be seriously lacking in pretty much any actual knowledge about the case or even a smattering of common sense.

[Sam Flynn]

Provide one piece of accepted evidence for Mary having left her room after midnight.

Sorry, Mike, but you haven't yet provided one shred of "accepted" evidence that Mary Kelly was in her room for the 2-3 hour time-slot during which no witnesses were around to notice. It all boils down to the old maxim: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

As to the other challenges you posed to Dan, well none of us can answer them. I daresay that many of the people who were there at the time couldn't have answered most of them either - on that basis, the likes of you and I have no chance with such questions.

There's not much point throwing down the sort of gauntlets that you can't even pick up yourself

You've repeated this many times in this thread despite being repeatedly shown that it's not true. By "complete lack of any contradictory evidence" you apparently mean "by ignoring all the real evidence," and with "fits with the known evidence" you seemingly mean "well, there is no actual evidence but I insist upon believing it anyway, so shut up."

You've got nothing to support you except the most ridiculous speculations about what happened that night, and you have to completely ignore the testimony of more than one witness, including ones who did speak at the inquest. I'd like to think you are only lying to yourself and not everyone here, but it's getting more and more difficult to excuse your utter ignorance about the actual facts of the case with multiple people here having provided them to you.

Dan,

Dont you think that at least once in a while you should offer some proof of this superior understanding of the case you seem to feel you possess? Insults from you are just water on a ducks back, but maybe for the others reading, you could correct the points I have been making.

Provide one piece of accepted evidence for Mary having left her room after midnight. Last time I asked you this you brought up Hutchinson...like he was viable, and believed beyond that same week.

Provide one account of Mary ever bringing a client into Millers Court. Sorry...a serenade doesn't count as a "trick".

Name one person who says Mary feared eviction.

Name one instance where Mary paid money to McCarthy given to her by Joe Barnett or Joe Flemming for her arrears.

Name one of the Canonical 5 that was prostituting after already having food or booze and a bed paid for that same night.

The only thing I know you can do is read and write, actually understanding what you read, or properly interpreting it, or writing things in an accurate unbiased manner don't seem to be among your strengths.

Regards.

[Dan Norder]

So we are being accurate here, my "musings" are based on a complete lack of any contradictory evidence that is accepted as believable, and fits with the known evidence of that evening through accredited eye witness testimony given at the Inquest.

You've repeated this many times in this thread despite being repeatedly shown that it's not true. By "complete lack of any contradictory evidence" you apparently mean "by ignoring all the real evidence," and with "fits with the known evidence" you seemingly mean "well, there is no actual evidence but I insist upon believing it anyway, so shut up."

You've got nothing to support you except the most ridiculous speculations about what happened that night, and you have to completely ignore the testimony of more than one witness, including ones who did speak at the inquest. I'd like to think you are only lying to yourself and not everyone here, but it's getting more and more difficult to excuse your utter ignorance about the actual facts of the case with multiple people here having provided them to you.

Hello Mike,

So we are being accurate here, my "musings" are based on a complete lack of any contradictory evidence that is accepted as believable, and fits with the known evidence of that evening through accredited eye witness testimony given at the Inquest. Just so we know where the dividing line is between historical accuracy and speculative fiction.

We do have some evidence of Marys interest in her arrears, in the absence of McCarthy stating it had reached "critical mass" and she was to be evicted, and the fact that no mention is made of her paying any of the money given to her by both Joes towards it. Nor did any of Marys acquaintances from the court indicate she expressed any concerns about the rent situation to them.

We can also conclude from what we know of some other street prostitutes, that their whoring was often for one of three reasons, ...to get a bed, get drunk, or get fed. Immediate needs. Desperation.

Mary had none of those issues present when she arrived home. To surmise that women would resort to selling their bodies for any less than immediate needs is for one, downplaying the vicious types of tricks they would service, and the places they would have to go to attract clients. I would say that from what I have read about the whores of the period...which were a huge percentage of the local single or divorced women, many were without options, and likely despised having to resort to servicing filthy clients. Most of these women didn't have jobs...whoring is not a job...they did what they needed to, what they had to do to survive.

Which means many would do it when they had no choice. Mary had choices, her Whores Maslow's Hierarchy has all her foundation needs covered that night.

I never said Mary didnt work the streets, of course she did, I have said that there is no proof at all that she brought her "trade" to her room... ever...or that she had any dire need to address by working that night.

Added together, I think to argue that she went out despite the lack of evidence to suggest it occurred, and to assume Mary was concerned enough about her arrears that she would "work" after already being drunk, fed, and with her own room and bed, clearly shows the disregard for existing evidence that people assuming Mary was killed by Jack usually follow.

Because if she didnt go out....likely half the protagonists for Mary as a Ripper victim would have to re-assess their positions.

Most buy into her as a Ripper death by the bond of prostitution she shared with the priors, and by using a discredited witness to support the notion that her killer meets her just like the killer met the others, while they were out on the streets after midnight likely working. Any idiot can cut people up, many of her wounds are not particularly Ripperesque.

However, it is clear by using only what is known...not what may have occurred...Mary most likely stayed in after midnight, and was killed by either Blotchy Man, or a killer who comes to her room himself.

One is a known man....the other, very likely the same.

My best regards Mike.

[The Good Michael]

and based on what we know of Marys habits, there is nothing on the records that would compel her to go out.

We know nothing of Kelly's habits. Any conjectures you make regarding what is probable or likely cannot be based upon her personal habits as we are ignorant in that regard; ignorant as in "you and I". Instead, in order to make conjecture, if it is to be at all credible, we must make comparisons with similar people, in similar situations, at similar times, and in similar places. The only comparisons we can make are with the other victims who existed contemporaneously and who lived in similar circumstances. In comparing Kelly with others, we are left with a prostitute who was down on her luck and in similar circumstances as the others, in a similar area, and a contemporary. In your musings, your conjectures are not even based upon anything save for what you believe Kelly's habits to have been, or to have not been. That's fine. Your theories may all be right, and mine, though, in my mind reasoned out and perhaps fashioned in a conservative way, may all be wrong. I think many would say that mine are based on human nature, or probabilities, while yours are based on an argument such as: There are no witnesses that have said otherwise, so it must be such and such a way. Indeed, you may be correct.

Maybe time will tell.

Cheers,

Mike

[plang]

Now look, what happened here was opportunity, Jack new or saw he could access MJK's room with ease.
If MJK new her killer, would she not scream out "No _________,?please!
Buy all accounts she screamed out "Oh! Murder!
Seems to me she was taken completely by surprise.

[The Good Michael]

So...your admiration post for the counter is nothing more than your staunch support of completely unsubstantiated conjecture...something most people here get crapped on for.

Yes, they do, and should

Cheers,

Mike