Tweet
The Elephant in the Room?
Hi All,
I know this thread died about a month ago, but I have only just read it right the way through and would like to add my thoughts. Apologies for a long post...
Firstly, I believe it was Chava who wrote, concerning the ripper’s self control, if Mary led him to her room after meeting him for the first time earlier that night:
‘But I'm amazed he can control himself until Kelly gets out of all those clothes and into her nightie.’
Leaving aside my belief that the chemise was most probably an undergarment, and that the likes of Kelly would not have owned a separate ‘nightie’ (nor indeed would have stripped off to that extent on a cold, damp November night, unless her clothing was very damp or she had a man with her for warmth), why is it so often presumed that the ripper did not possess the self control to be alone in his victim’s company for more than a minute or two before striking?
Obviously he had to have enough control to wait until he was alone with Polly, Annie and Kate. But he also had to strike pretty quickly if he was going to, or risk being caught in the act. If he didn’t want a sexual service from them, and didn’t fancy a lengthy chat about the weather in an outdoor setting, he was rather compelled to strike or abort. But self control or lack of it need not have entered into it. There is nothing to indicate that he might not have chosen to bide his time and savour the moment, had the opportunity presented itself with a considerably younger specimen who could offer him more privacy and warmth.
Also, Chava wrote:
‘Sutcliffe was hiring prostitutes the whole time he was killing, and using them as a normal trick uses a hooker.’
And:
‘Green River hired and used prostitutes normally during the series. Robert Pickton did. A lot of them did. So there's nothing wrong with suggesting that the Ripper did. And if he did, he may have hired Kelly.’
If Jack was a habitual user of prostitutes, leaving most of them to die another day, it rather undermines the argument that he could not have held himself in check long enough for one to undress before attacking and killing her. Of course he could, because he would have done so on the majority of occasions.
Perry Mason offered this equally suspect pearl of wisdom:
‘And he liked killing outdoors...for god sake, when will anyone just accept that he chose outdoor work...obviously. He always had options...he just didnt use them...done deal.’
What is the evidence that shows that the ripper didn’t simply go to work where a victim took him, when he felt he could get away with it? Imagine for a second that he had bumped into a street prostitute who, instead of taking him straight through to the backyard of 29 Hanbury or the equivalent, had offered him the use of a room within the building? How do you know that he would have refused, or preferred an outdoor setting? How did he even know that Annie would give him an outdoor setting, unless the conversation was a bit more than just “Will you?” and “Yes”?
And another:
‘Mary died undressed, in her own room, and her killer very probably came directly to her room by himself. Thats the known facts.’
As others have said, Perry, it’s only a known fact that your argument is that her killer ‘very probably’ came to her room by himself. It’s no more meaningful than the next person saying it’s a fact that she ‘very probably’ invited her killer back. He was also 'very probably' a necrosadist, and we know one was active in the vicinity, operating on unfortunates who were ‘very probably’ out of funds at the time, whether it was for their next period of shut-eye, their next meal, their next drink or their next date with the tally man - and not averse to using the funds of strangers.
‘Dont make me defend her obvious relationship with Blotchy Man, which was that of a friend or acquaintance Sam, no trick Ive ever heard of starts with an aria that lasts off and on for over an hour. They were eating together, she singing, both bombed, and one, doomed. But he was'nt a trick by all indications....at least not as far as she was concerned, Maybe he had other ideas..’
Hmmm, what ‘obvious’ relationship, Perry? If you think Blotchy Man could have been the necrosadist lookalike who killed Mary, all bets are off regarding what the relationship was as far as he was concerned. As far as Mary was concerned, I think you have strangely naïve and illogical ideas about women who were prepared to give total strangers the key to their drawers, ‘very probably’ front and back. If they could do that much for the price of a drink, they could be a man’s temporary best buddy, sweetheart, wife - hell, even his kid sister or mother - without even blinking.
‘In modern day, this would be a supermodel with a serious drug habit that dates only pushers of her drug...or rich guys, regardless of their looks. She is rewarded for "just being herself" by these types....who all want to boink her. And she in return makes them think they can...as long as the drug of choice is flowing. I believe so was Mary. I think she got fed and drunk November 8th by sidling up to Blotchy Man, and used a pleasant song to douse the flames of desire he might have when he was in her room. I think she took money from both Barnett and Flemming, letting each believe they were her "special one"...and… I could see her just walking up to men she knew and asking for money for doing nothing....just being sweet Mary Kelly.’
Now this just cries out for attention, Perry. It’s ‘harsh’ to suggest that Mary was a working girl, whose only income was from strangers in return for whatever sexual favours they craved, but fine for you to argue that she was a pr**k-teasing, cheating con artist, who did anything to fleece men she knew of their hard-earned cash rather than lie on her back for it?
‘I think sweeping assumptive statements about what all whores did or didnt do completely negates that these were people before they were whores, women with their own minds and habits, and different lives. Some had children, some husbands...all of which would affect their "work" schedules. Yes many were starving. And many had no rooms to sleep in. Those are strong work motivators for them.’
But it’s not a sweeping assumption for you to paint a picture of Mary as a tart with no heart who took and took from men in her life without ever giving something back?
‘Blotchy Man cannot be considered as a stranger seeking sex, because we have testimony that Mary was singing to the man for over an hour, off and on. I suggest the "off" times were when she ate a bit of the food they brought in. By all appearances, Blotchy Man escorted Mary home, and enjoyed her company for a bit.’
Again, if he was the man who set about mutilating Mary after death, he enjoyed a tad more than her company. Who can say what other totally bizarre activities her killer may have found enjoyable - like, ooh I don’t know, eating and drinking with a young working girl who liked the sauce even more than he did, perhaps, or listening to her drunken singing? I take it you can’t see the enjoyment to be had from cutting a woman’s throat and then reducing her to a bloody shell, in which case you would hardly be able to see what enjoyment Mary’s ‘guests’ might or might not have had from anything else on offer once inside her room. If she was with a man who did not care for her singing, he could have left or stopped her racket with one of two things: his money or his knife. If he actually enjoyed her singing, money could have bought more of it.
‘I really think its time to stop the nonsense that there is nothing to learn from the killer most likely coming into the courtyard alone, and then gaining access to Marys room and being allowed to enter.’
‘…the only thing Ill say about having to repeat my position over and over with the hope that logic someday might set in, is that my position can be substantiated with accredited witnesses.’
This really is insufferable, Perry. How dare you suggest you hold the key to logical, no-nonsense thought, and to what’s ‘most likely’? Your preferred scenario, involving Mary’s killer arriving at her door and being allowed in because she knows him, is just one hypothesis that may be explored in connection with the few indisputable facts of the case. We can only learn something about Mary’s killer, and what she may have known about him, from what we know for a fact that he did - not what you or anyone else considers he ‘most likely’ did. So please don’t think you can teach us anything on such a basis. Pretty much all we know for certain is that Mary and Blotchy were seen entering her room together, via the door, and that one was found dead after the other had departed. You don’t know if they had known each other for years or had met that very night; nor if Blotchy was out again like a whippet, or was in there for the duration, only letting himself out when he had thoroughly outstayed his welcome. Either way, nobody saw anyone leave that room at any time, and we only know of one man who must have done so at some point.
So consider, if you will, a possible alternative scenario:
Mary takes Blotchy back to her room because he can feed and water her, and may also be good for a bit of back rent, even something to spend on Lord Mayor’s Day, if she shows him a really good time. They are happy to oblige one another and she is ‘spreeish’ and in the mood for a song, and isn’t going to refuse him anything within reason, especially if he likes the idea of her singing for her ‘supper’.
Mary doesn’t have to know Blotchy from Adam and there is no Joe around any more to whinge about who is sharing her bed. She didn’t know Joe from Adam when they met and shacked up together almost immediately. No change there then. Joe may even have wooed her for the price of a drink and a fish supper, and she may have sung for him too.
Anyway, they do whatever comes naturally to them both and at some point a weary George Hutchinson decides to come over and see if Mary is at home and willing to ‘move over darling’ so he can share her bed, now Joe isn’t doing so. He hangs around until 3 ish, but whoever is in there gives no indication of coming out anytime soon and he pushes off. When he learns of the horror within, he makes up a story leading up to his long wait for ‘service’, perhaps using prior knowledge of Mary soliciting in Commercial Street, where I believe work was in progress for the trams, giving the street girls more potential customers of an evening. She has asked him for money in the past, and he may have seen her going off with customers, with a laugh and a joke, in the direction of Dorset Street.
Hutch can make himself look jolly important and useful, and perhaps earn himself some cash along the way, by claiming to have been there when Mary picked up whoever was in the room when he arrived, describing him in admirable detail and claiming to have followed the pair, like the good, naturally curious and highly observant citizen that he was, back to Miller’s Court. He needn’t have actually seen anyone at all. He only needed to assume that the man who killed Mary was ‘very probably’ in the room with her while he was outside waiting in vain, and that she had picked him up on Commercial Street.
Maybe the police didn’t believe Mary went out again after Blotchy any more than you do, but believed Hutch had hung around the court for some time because he was happy to admit as much. The timing may have led them to conclude - rightly or wrongly - that Hutch had the best alibi in the world, and that the killer was ‘very probably’ in the room all the time Hutch was waiting outside, but ‘very probably’ bore little if any resemblance to the man he had described. As many people have observed (and it may not have escaped the police either), it would be surprising if Mary’s killer had been happy to strike, aware that a witness had observed him closely and could have followed him to Dorset Street and be lurking nearby.
There is no evidence that Blotchy was not Mary's sadistic killer and a total stranger to her until that night, or that he could not have struck in the aftermath of Hutch’s retreating footsteps, when complete silence returned to the court - just as a hushed theatre audience finally allows the curtain to rise and the much-anticipated performance to begin.
Much anticipated by the world and his wife, but not necessarily by Mary's killer, until the food and drink had been consumed, the singing had died away, the sex - if any - had been had, and he found himself in the mood, and with the perfect opportunity, for something completely different.
Love,
Caz
X
Hi All,
I know this thread died about a month ago, but I have only just read it right the way through and would like to add my thoughts. Apologies for a long post...
Firstly, I believe it was Chava who wrote, concerning the ripper’s self control, if Mary led him to her room after meeting him for the first time earlier that night:
‘But I'm amazed he can control himself until Kelly gets out of all those clothes and into her nightie.’
Leaving aside my belief that the chemise was most probably an undergarment, and that the likes of Kelly would not have owned a separate ‘nightie’ (nor indeed would have stripped off to that extent on a cold, damp November night, unless her clothing was very damp or she had a man with her for warmth), why is it so often presumed that the ripper did not possess the self control to be alone in his victim’s company for more than a minute or two before striking?
Obviously he had to have enough control to wait until he was alone with Polly, Annie and Kate. But he also had to strike pretty quickly if he was going to, or risk being caught in the act. If he didn’t want a sexual service from them, and didn’t fancy a lengthy chat about the weather in an outdoor setting, he was rather compelled to strike or abort. But self control or lack of it need not have entered into it. There is nothing to indicate that he might not have chosen to bide his time and savour the moment, had the opportunity presented itself with a considerably younger specimen who could offer him more privacy and warmth.
Also, Chava wrote:
‘Sutcliffe was hiring prostitutes the whole time he was killing, and using them as a normal trick uses a hooker.’
And:
‘Green River hired and used prostitutes normally during the series. Robert Pickton did. A lot of them did. So there's nothing wrong with suggesting that the Ripper did. And if he did, he may have hired Kelly.’
If Jack was a habitual user of prostitutes, leaving most of them to die another day, it rather undermines the argument that he could not have held himself in check long enough for one to undress before attacking and killing her. Of course he could, because he would have done so on the majority of occasions.
Perry Mason offered this equally suspect pearl of wisdom:
‘And he liked killing outdoors...for god sake, when will anyone just accept that he chose outdoor work...obviously. He always had options...he just didnt use them...done deal.’
What is the evidence that shows that the ripper didn’t simply go to work where a victim took him, when he felt he could get away with it? Imagine for a second that he had bumped into a street prostitute who, instead of taking him straight through to the backyard of 29 Hanbury or the equivalent, had offered him the use of a room within the building? How do you know that he would have refused, or preferred an outdoor setting? How did he even know that Annie would give him an outdoor setting, unless the conversation was a bit more than just “Will you?” and “Yes”?
And another:
‘Mary died undressed, in her own room, and her killer very probably came directly to her room by himself. Thats the known facts.’
As others have said, Perry, it’s only a known fact that your argument is that her killer ‘very probably’ came to her room by himself. It’s no more meaningful than the next person saying it’s a fact that she ‘very probably’ invited her killer back. He was also 'very probably' a necrosadist, and we know one was active in the vicinity, operating on unfortunates who were ‘very probably’ out of funds at the time, whether it was for their next period of shut-eye, their next meal, their next drink or their next date with the tally man - and not averse to using the funds of strangers.
‘Dont make me defend her obvious relationship with Blotchy Man, which was that of a friend or acquaintance Sam, no trick Ive ever heard of starts with an aria that lasts off and on for over an hour. They were eating together, she singing, both bombed, and one, doomed. But he was'nt a trick by all indications....at least not as far as she was concerned, Maybe he had other ideas..’
Hmmm, what ‘obvious’ relationship, Perry? If you think Blotchy Man could have been the necrosadist lookalike who killed Mary, all bets are off regarding what the relationship was as far as he was concerned. As far as Mary was concerned, I think you have strangely naïve and illogical ideas about women who were prepared to give total strangers the key to their drawers, ‘very probably’ front and back. If they could do that much for the price of a drink, they could be a man’s temporary best buddy, sweetheart, wife - hell, even his kid sister or mother - without even blinking.
‘In modern day, this would be a supermodel with a serious drug habit that dates only pushers of her drug...or rich guys, regardless of their looks. She is rewarded for "just being herself" by these types....who all want to boink her. And she in return makes them think they can...as long as the drug of choice is flowing. I believe so was Mary. I think she got fed and drunk November 8th by sidling up to Blotchy Man, and used a pleasant song to douse the flames of desire he might have when he was in her room. I think she took money from both Barnett and Flemming, letting each believe they were her "special one"...and… I could see her just walking up to men she knew and asking for money for doing nothing....just being sweet Mary Kelly.’
Now this just cries out for attention, Perry. It’s ‘harsh’ to suggest that Mary was a working girl, whose only income was from strangers in return for whatever sexual favours they craved, but fine for you to argue that she was a pr**k-teasing, cheating con artist, who did anything to fleece men she knew of their hard-earned cash rather than lie on her back for it?
‘I think sweeping assumptive statements about what all whores did or didnt do completely negates that these were people before they were whores, women with their own minds and habits, and different lives. Some had children, some husbands...all of which would affect their "work" schedules. Yes many were starving. And many had no rooms to sleep in. Those are strong work motivators for them.’
But it’s not a sweeping assumption for you to paint a picture of Mary as a tart with no heart who took and took from men in her life without ever giving something back?
‘Blotchy Man cannot be considered as a stranger seeking sex, because we have testimony that Mary was singing to the man for over an hour, off and on. I suggest the "off" times were when she ate a bit of the food they brought in. By all appearances, Blotchy Man escorted Mary home, and enjoyed her company for a bit.’
Again, if he was the man who set about mutilating Mary after death, he enjoyed a tad more than her company. Who can say what other totally bizarre activities her killer may have found enjoyable - like, ooh I don’t know, eating and drinking with a young working girl who liked the sauce even more than he did, perhaps, or listening to her drunken singing? I take it you can’t see the enjoyment to be had from cutting a woman’s throat and then reducing her to a bloody shell, in which case you would hardly be able to see what enjoyment Mary’s ‘guests’ might or might not have had from anything else on offer once inside her room. If she was with a man who did not care for her singing, he could have left or stopped her racket with one of two things: his money or his knife. If he actually enjoyed her singing, money could have bought more of it.
‘I really think its time to stop the nonsense that there is nothing to learn from the killer most likely coming into the courtyard alone, and then gaining access to Marys room and being allowed to enter.’
‘…the only thing Ill say about having to repeat my position over and over with the hope that logic someday might set in, is that my position can be substantiated with accredited witnesses.’
This really is insufferable, Perry. How dare you suggest you hold the key to logical, no-nonsense thought, and to what’s ‘most likely’? Your preferred scenario, involving Mary’s killer arriving at her door and being allowed in because she knows him, is just one hypothesis that may be explored in connection with the few indisputable facts of the case. We can only learn something about Mary’s killer, and what she may have known about him, from what we know for a fact that he did - not what you or anyone else considers he ‘most likely’ did. So please don’t think you can teach us anything on such a basis. Pretty much all we know for certain is that Mary and Blotchy were seen entering her room together, via the door, and that one was found dead after the other had departed. You don’t know if they had known each other for years or had met that very night; nor if Blotchy was out again like a whippet, or was in there for the duration, only letting himself out when he had thoroughly outstayed his welcome. Either way, nobody saw anyone leave that room at any time, and we only know of one man who must have done so at some point.
So consider, if you will, a possible alternative scenario:
Mary takes Blotchy back to her room because he can feed and water her, and may also be good for a bit of back rent, even something to spend on Lord Mayor’s Day, if she shows him a really good time. They are happy to oblige one another and she is ‘spreeish’ and in the mood for a song, and isn’t going to refuse him anything within reason, especially if he likes the idea of her singing for her ‘supper’.
Mary doesn’t have to know Blotchy from Adam and there is no Joe around any more to whinge about who is sharing her bed. She didn’t know Joe from Adam when they met and shacked up together almost immediately. No change there then. Joe may even have wooed her for the price of a drink and a fish supper, and she may have sung for him too.
Anyway, they do whatever comes naturally to them both and at some point a weary George Hutchinson decides to come over and see if Mary is at home and willing to ‘move over darling’ so he can share her bed, now Joe isn’t doing so. He hangs around until 3 ish, but whoever is in there gives no indication of coming out anytime soon and he pushes off. When he learns of the horror within, he makes up a story leading up to his long wait for ‘service’, perhaps using prior knowledge of Mary soliciting in Commercial Street, where I believe work was in progress for the trams, giving the street girls more potential customers of an evening. She has asked him for money in the past, and he may have seen her going off with customers, with a laugh and a joke, in the direction of Dorset Street.
Hutch can make himself look jolly important and useful, and perhaps earn himself some cash along the way, by claiming to have been there when Mary picked up whoever was in the room when he arrived, describing him in admirable detail and claiming to have followed the pair, like the good, naturally curious and highly observant citizen that he was, back to Miller’s Court. He needn’t have actually seen anyone at all. He only needed to assume that the man who killed Mary was ‘very probably’ in the room with her while he was outside waiting in vain, and that she had picked him up on Commercial Street.
Maybe the police didn’t believe Mary went out again after Blotchy any more than you do, but believed Hutch had hung around the court for some time because he was happy to admit as much. The timing may have led them to conclude - rightly or wrongly - that Hutch had the best alibi in the world, and that the killer was ‘very probably’ in the room all the time Hutch was waiting outside, but ‘very probably’ bore little if any resemblance to the man he had described. As many people have observed (and it may not have escaped the police either), it would be surprising if Mary’s killer had been happy to strike, aware that a witness had observed him closely and could have followed him to Dorset Street and be lurking nearby.
There is no evidence that Blotchy was not Mary's sadistic killer and a total stranger to her until that night, or that he could not have struck in the aftermath of Hutch’s retreating footsteps, when complete silence returned to the court - just as a hushed theatre audience finally allows the curtain to rise and the much-anticipated performance to begin.
Much anticipated by the world and his wife, but not necessarily by Mary's killer, until the food and drink had been consumed, the singing had died away, the sex - if any - had been had, and he found himself in the mood, and with the perfect opportunity, for something completely different.
Love,
Caz
X
Does that work on the inverse too...must we assume all night walking street whores do laundry with friends during the daylight?
Comment