Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Mary know her attacker?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Well we know she brought Blotchy-Face home. But I'm not certain she brought everyone back there. Mary Ann Cox clearly was 'unfortunate' but the way she testified at the inquest suggested to me that she wasn't bringing tricks back to her room. It doesn't sound like Lizzie Prater was doing that either. All that to-ing and fro-ing would eat into precious trick time...

    Comment


    • #17
      Kelly had a room to herself after Barnett left, or to be more accurate, after he lost his job and Kelly had to go back to work. She may have even been bringing tricks back for all we know, when Barnett was there. We know she had prostitute friends over at her place, so why not men along with girlfriends?
      I don't think there can be any doubt that she used her apartment as well as the streets, and probably as well as other peoples' apartments to earn a living.

      Mike
      huh?

      Comment


      • #18
        Hi Mike,
        Just to correct a point, Barnett stopped using her room on the 30th October, just ten days before her death, hense not a two month span.
        Ir would appear from witnesses that Mjk was very much on the game and that would have included pre the 30th october.
        There is a hear say tale of kelly ofter returning to her room with sailors complete with a bottle under her arm, and often singing or being noisy, also of her using other peoples accomodation to service men.
        I would suggest it is very clear that J Barnett objected very strongly to her offering herself,[ quite understandably] and she tried to conduct business away from his knowledge.
        I also suggest that the sleepovers that kelly brought home were done for two reasons , a few extra coppers, and company at nights, the latter being the main reason.
        The amount of preaching from her man [ Barnett] the reading of all the gory bits refering to the murders, according to her friend Lottie brought on her nightmare in which she was 'Being murdered' and therefore she was extremely scared of being in the room [ that she had her dream] alone..
        On the eve of her death she ventured out , observed by Prater wearing a coat and bonnet. yet at midnight she is observed with Blotchy face wearing different clothing[ by cox],
        That raises several points.
        Was Prater lying ?
        Was Cox lying?
        Or did MJK return to her room to dress up?
        Prater seems to give a truthful account as little snipits such as.
        I dont own a coat or bonnet....
        She said goodnight 'My Pretty' the name she always called me.
        Mrs cox however appears less then honest.
        She reports that she saw 'Blotchy face' in her police statement, yet told her neice years later 'He was a real toff', also why would kelly return home to get changed from her sunday best ,to her shawl and shabby dress, in which according to Cox she was wearing at midnight?.
        I have strong doubts if Blotchy face ever exsisted, and a far better account would be that kelly was alone in her room and singing by herself at the time she was heard.
        I have a strong hunch that Kelly whilst dressed up on the thursday evening met a respectably dressed man [ arranged] and he offered to take her to the 'Lord mayors show the next morning, i believe that Hutchinson saw this man in commercial road at the time he said, and dressed in the attire he mentioned .
        Hutchinson having missed his time to get into the Victoria home thought mayby Mary could let me doss for the night for sixpence, and he followed the man down the street into Dorset street and into millers court, where to his surprise entered by invitation in Kellys room.
        He waited opposite the court for some time out of curiosity and then believing he had no chance of a doss moved on.
        On the monday he told a lot of the truth but left out kellys meeting with Astracan and walking back with him as he wanted to assist the police without hinting his real reason for being in Dorset street at that hour was to call on kelly, also giving a explanation for being there ie 'I followed them out of curiosity'.
        Just my thoughts.
        Regards Richard,

        Comment


        • #19
          Hi Chava,
          Originally posted by Chava View Post
          Well we know she brought Blotchy-Face home. But I'm not certain she brought everyone back there. Mary Ann Cox clearly was 'unfortunate' but the way she testified at the inquest suggested to me that she wasn't bringing tricks back to her room. It doesn't sound like Lizzie Prater was doing that either. All that to-ing and fro-ing would eat into precious trick time...
          ...what if they bumped into a "trick" near the junctions of Dorset and Commercial-streets? They'd hardly be inclined to wander a few hundred yards further from home in search of a dark alley when they were within easy walking distance of their own private rooms.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • #20
            I think that the ongoing discussion of whether prostitutes brought clients to their rooms or not is a strange one. It has been thrown forward that they may have seen their rooms as sanctuarys away from the trade, but to my mind that is a romanticizing suggestion that would not have applied to those involved. These women made no secret of what they were doing, and their trade was something that some of them HAD to resort to, given the economical circumstances offered.

            This is what was said by witness Rose Bierman about Ada Wilson, sometimes regarded an early Ripper victim. They were neighbours on Maidman Street, Mile End, and Wilsons occupation is typically given as "seamstress":

            "I knew Mrs. Wilson as a married woman, although I had never seen her husband. Last evening she came into the house accompanied by a male companion, but whether he was her husband or not I could not say. She has often had visitors to see her, but I have rarely seen them myself, as Mrs. Wilson lives in the front room, her bedroom being just at the back, adjoining the parlour." (Eastern Post and City Chronicle, 31.3 1888).

            In all probability, this was a very common picture. A prostitute, abandoned by her husband, calling herself a seamstress - and entertaining numerous visitors in as discreet a manner as possible - in her room. The same would have applied for many, many other "unfortunates", I suspect.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              In all probability, this was a very common picture. A prostitute, abandoned by her husband, calling herself a seamstress - and entertaining numerous visitors in as discreet a manner as possible - in her room. The same would have applied for many, many other "unfortunates", I suspect.
              ...well, at least to those comparatively rare birds who had a private room to themselves.

              Good post, Fisherman.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • #22
                However I feel if we are looking for reasons to believe that Kelly may have known her attacker or her attacker was stalking her or if Kelly was a copy cat crime, then the fact that he, Jack or somebody else, struck Mary the first real chance he had to do so is an interesting reason.

                Your friend, Brad

                I think it was more or less two days after Maria Harvey left he struck.
                It's the same with Eddowes. Eddowes stayed in the casual ward after her return from Kent. She was killed the first night/early morning she was out in the streets.
                Both of them happened after the Chapman murder when people/police became aware that there is a killer of the type Jack was and the first sign of the mobs forming and perhaps police reinforcement. Perhaps partly affected by the above events or not,it's not hard for me to believe that there was a slight change in the way jack found/choose his victims.
                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                M. Pacana

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hello all,

                  There are some telltale indicators present that suggest that Mary Kelly was indeed killed by a person known to her, and some of them are related to MO...one that could have changed, if Jack the Ripper desired it.

                  1. Mary may have been in her own bed sleeping when her killer acquires her.
                  2. There are no records, no comments from her known friends, nothing that states Mary Kelly ever entertained clients indoors in her room. Even if she had, Barnett has been gone only 8 days, so her opportunity to do so was a very short period of time. Please dont suggest that Barnett let her have clients in the room....its not just probable, nor supported.
                  3. Using witness testimony that is credible 48 hours after the inquest, it would appear that whomever was with Mary in that room either caught her by surprise completely, so she may have only cried out faintly.. if approximately 3:45am is the time he arrives, or he may have been allowed to enter, or accompanied Mary in. Only a break in suggests a person unknown, and unfortunately we have a a window pane that allows for that to happen even by someone just figuring it out on the spot. By the way, we are to believe that in daylight not one policeman noticed this pane possibility, nor did they heed McCarthy's claim it could be accessed that way, as per Barnett. The room is never suggested to be anything but dark and silent from around 1:15am until that cry. Then nothing could be heard after, with two women listening intently for a while, now both wide awake. The point being if he doesnt surprise her, then he is being allowed to stay, without any appreciable noise, conversation, or movement of chairs that might be heard. He might even be allowed to stay while the room was dark.
                  4. Mary is almost fully undressed when murdered. Street prostitutes, or ones that struggled internally with having to resort to that life, likely were glad of encounters in alleys with only their backside exposed. Does Mary seem like someone who didnt struggle with that thought at times? Considering we have on record that she had lamented about her life to a friend.
                  5. Mary Kellys killer engaged the spring lock when he left, because Marys door was locked when Bowyer arrives, and unless he (killer) entered via the window completely, the lock had to be set "on" the latch to access the room, either by reaching through to the inside, or with a key, or from inside. It seems an odd thing to do for the Ripper,...does he even cover them all back up, let alone carry or drag them into shadows, he has never restricted access to a corpse before,.. and an odd thing for a complete stranger to do.

                  A couple of points only, there are others, and also conflicts with the types of wounds and organs taken that night, might lead one to surmise the killer knew her.

                  I think on a fair scale, using the entire re-creation of that night, using accredited witnesses, and statements from the people closest to Mary..including perhaps the closest at that time, Maria Harvey, that Mary could well have been asleep when her killer arrives, or with Blotchy Man with the lights out. Either way, that would probably be a known man.

                  My very best all.
                  Last edited by perrymason; 02-29-2008, 03:28 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Well she did bring Blotchy Face back there, and he doesn't sound like someone well-known in the court, although she was comfortable enough with him to sing her head off so he may have been somewhat known to her. I don't think there's a blanket one-way-or-the-other thing going on. I think sometimes she brought tricks back--especially if they had liquor with them! And sometimes she didn't. I just don't think it's likely she brought every trick back. As for the 'refuge' idea, I agree it sounds as if it romanticizes the prostitutes. However it probably has some validity. I can see how, if I was on the game, I might enjoy the privacy of my own room sometimes. I wonder if any of the other women on the board would agree.

                    The main question is how did her killer get in the room? Did she bring him in; did she let him in; did he break in either using the window or a key. She could have brought him back as a trick--but he would have had to make it clear he was staying the night or the chances were good she wouldn't have undressed. He could have knocked or more likely scratched on the door--no one in the court heard, but it's not impossible. If that's the case he was almost certainly known to her. He could have broken in, but in that case he either knew her or stalked her.

                    The overwhelming probability is that she brought him back as a trick. But in that case he waits quite a while before killing her, and that doesn't seem to jibe with his method in the other cases. I don't see the Ripper as one who goes for deferred enjoyment. He picks them up and kills them. So still a big mystery to me!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Perhaps he changed from randomly killing the earlier victims to the ones he slightly knew.Or he knew enough about Dorset St. that he acquired the knowledge that Maria Harvey left and cased Mary kelly.Also it's interesting that in the previous killing Eddowes hand was on the killer's chest..she might have known him ..although it's quite common.
                      Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                      M. Pacana

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Hello Michael,
                        A majority of casebook have the opinion that Mjk knew her killer if only just familiar with him, I share that view.
                        I would say that the most obvious killer was Astracan who I feel did exist, I would also say that Mary knew him although not for long, although there is still a possibility that he was no more then a man looking for a service which included shelter for a few hours, and infact left before dawn with mjk very much alive, the scream being the result of a reoccuring nightmare around 4am.
                        There is also the possibility that one of the men in her life killed her, but that would have been in my opinion after Maxwells reported last sighting, also even the unidentified Market porter seen talking with Mjk can be suspected , for if Maxwells account is accurate then he would be the last person she was seen alive with.
                        The Kelly murder is a fascinating one even if the others never happened, and it is full of scenerios , questions, red herrings.
                        I am still fascinated by Praters/ coxs statements.
                        Prater talks to kelly, observes her clothing and remarks on it .'wearing her coat and bonnet' yet less then two hours later Cox saw her at millers court wearing a linsey dress, and a maroon crossover and hatless.
                        She also gave two versions in her lifetime .
                        a] She followed them along Dorset street and into the court.
                        b]she was standing by her door awaiting her husband to arrive home, when she heard the couple enter the court the manl leading and kelly saying'All right Luv dont pull me along' ,
                        That version includes the description of 'A real toff' not her shabby Blotchy man as told to the police.
                        I must question that womans honesty.
                        Did anyone see Blotchy apart from Cox?
                        What makes more sense Kelly singing out loud in her room alone, or with a man with a quart of ale? that appears to have very silent in her room while kelly was singing.
                        Was he ever there?
                        Regards Richard.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by perrymason View Post
                          2. There are no records, no comments from her known friends, nothing that states Mary Kelly ever entertained clients indoors in her room.
                          Would that assumption be drawn from The Biographical Encyclopædia of Marie Jeannette Kelly, Volume 6, by any chance, Mike?

                          Of course such a book doesn't exist, but luckily rather more evidence of the behaviour of other "unfortunates" of the time has survived. From it we can deduce with reasonable certainty that Kelly is likely to have brought men home with her. Indeed, we have specific evidence on the night of the murder that attests to the fact that she did.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Hi Richard,

                            When it comes to who is most credible here, I think we have our answer in the police responses to the stories provided. They were very interested in the last man seen in the company of Mary Kelly that night...as they should have been.

                            That primary suspect was... from November 15th on, Mary Ann Cox's Blotchy Man...and is still to this day. Astrakan only existed for the police as long as it took them to see their error believing Hutchinson, and that was roughly 48 hours. And the suspicious loiterer, perhaps partly responsible for the immediate police response of issuing a Pardon for Accomplices on Saturday, the man seen by Sarah Lewis, had been replaced by the benign George Hutchinson, friend of Marys.

                            So it seems they did believe George was there, just not that he saw Mary outside at all. Which begs the question, how could they have been so sure he lied? They werent at first, Abberline bought it all. So how come a suspect endorsed by Abberline himself gets replaced in 48 hours, but part of the story is kept alive? The part that accepts it was Hutchinson there as Wideawake man.

                            Because someone else saw him. They could not deny he was there, he was witnessed, and by coming forward, he secures that spot for himself. But no-one else saw Astrakan...and no-one believable saw Mary out after 11:45pm the night before.

                            Why they didnt cuff him for the story Ill never know, but its clear they did not believe the sighting aspect within 48 hours.

                            And Mary Kelly rarely if ever wore hats or bonnets, according to Dew, her free flowing hair was a noticeable trademark.

                            My best regards Richard.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Hi all,

                              It depends if Blotchy was a client or just a drinking chum. If the latter, I'd in agree with Mike pretty strongly, and it can be reasonably argued that Kelly solicited clients where she found them on the streets, as was the practice (apparently) of her prostitute neighbour Mary Cox. However, if Blotchy was a client, it would be logical to infer that she brought home clients on other occasions.

                              Cheers,
                              Ben

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hi Ben,

                                I'd agree with that summation, and feel pretty good about the fact that when it comes to her relationship to Blotchy, all we know is that he was for some time an audience member, not a client in the strictest sense of the word.

                                My best Ben as always.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X