Did Mary know her attacker?

[perrymason]

Since some feel the intruder theory is more plausible than some of my own, the issue of light and noise in #13 should be of interest to you as well.

There is none. Of either. None heard by anyone shortly after Mary stopped singing, and no light seen by anyone after 1:30am in her room. With more than one witness, at different times, never mentioning seeing light or hearing noise.

Is the next Ripper line in the sand now that he sneaks in and gets her before she wakes or utters a sound? Or is the "oh-murder" that sound, the cry we don't know the origins of...with no sounds from the room following it. Does she come and go and service men all in the dark while whispering?

Or do we still have her leaving.. like he appears...silently, stealthily, from nowhere.... only hes probably not drunk and libel to start singing, and he is intentionally being discreet. Would Mary be? I suppose some would answer, sure....she must have tiptoed and whispered to the strange man she just met and picked up and brought home. And he kills her so quietly that even her struggles causing defensive wounds dont make the bed creak.

Then he sets the door to lock behind him,....geez this guy really must be the Ripper and a stranger to her and that room.

Regards.

[paul emmett]

and no light seen by anyone after 1:30am in her room. With more than one witness, at different times, never mentioning seeing light or hearing noise.

Is the next Ripper line in the sand now that he sneaks in and gets her before she wakes or utters a sound? Or is the "oh-murder" that sound, the cry we don't know the origins of...with no sounds from the room following it.

Hello, Michael.

As my posts here show, I agree about the before 1:30: I'm convinced that MJK is in her dark,quiet room at 1:30. And I agree with your last paragraph above: drunk or no, she'd have to get a sound off if she was broken in on. And it, for me, isn't "Oh, Murder,"

But who besides Cox(and, of course, Hutchinson, who I don't think you're buying into) sees no light from Kelly's room after 1:30?

[perrymason]

Our Miss Lewis comes by Marys door around 2am Paul, and again, Marys windows face a 2 storey whitewashed wall, one of the side walls of the two story units in the courtyard. Light would be noticeable walking past...as likely would noise be. Sarah mentions neither.

So although Sam is correct in stating we have only sporadic room coverage from 1:30 until around 3am when Mary Ann finishes for the night, we have that from 3 separate people.

As a pre-empt, not saying they saw no light or heard no noise is not really a counter, and when on the stand recounting that night only 3 nights later, since its obvious to all concerned that Marys whereabouts, during those passes and after, is all that their statements can address really.... a light or noise while passing the door itself would be noticeable and mentioned.

I would think most people should agree that Mary is not likely killed while Mary Ann Cox is still out, nor is she likely killed when 2 sets of ears are straining for any noise to follow. Its most reasonable to assume her killer dun her in after everyone is in that lives or is staying there, and presumed sleeping. Hence the footsteps heard by Cox until almost 6am.

That alone dismisses Hutch's A-Man.

ps....I also have this crazy idea that the reason Hutch's story is deemed untrustworthy is due to their investigation and due consideration of it, weighed against other testimony. I think they may have discarded it for the same reason most of us do today. It doesnt jive with court residents accounts.

Best regards.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn, I didn't know that Kelly had a defensive wound on one of her arms; I thought that the arm wounds were post-mortem. Interesting.

Hi Paul,

Just a correction - my mistake - it was the right thumb and the back of her hand which showed superficial cuts with internal bleeding under the skin, not one of the arms. Judging by their character, they could very well be defense wounds.

And for the record, like Michael, I don't give the intruder theory any credence whatsoever. I am of the opinion that Kelly let her killer in herself.

All the best

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Leaving aside my personal fancy Barnett as her killer, the most likely killer of MJK was the 'Market porter' that Maxwell viewed, even if one has to discount 1888 medical opinion,
That being the case, I would suggest that she did not know her killer, and to her, he was just a early morning punter, any fear that he may be 'Jack' would have not emerged, as it was broad daylight by this time.
Going by the bedclothes[ blanket roll] I would suggest that Mary kelly was not undressing for bed, but for sex, and her killer entered her room several minutes after she had left him outside Ringers, which was an arrangement which suited both parties.
Market porter... He would therefore not be seen entering the court with Mjk.
Mary Kelly.. for the same reason, also would give her time to get out of her clothing.
I would therefore suggest that she was surprised , and attacked as she turned, and placed her left leg stocking on the bed roll.
I simply do not buy the intruder theory, and I don't believe the 'Oh Murder' cry was Kellys last words.
And I actually believe Hutchinson/Maxwell, and will continue to do so ,until convinced otherwise.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

The bedclothes were probably moved by the killer to facillitate the mutilations, just as she was likely tilted towards the partition to divert the bloodflow. A "visitor" scenario is a viable alternative to the intruder, but I'm still inclined to give the latter more credence.

[caz]

Hi Perry,

Just a quickie this time, you’ll be relieved to know!

Being found indoors undressed with no client rendezvous doesnt make Mary similar in that respect at all.

You really are determined to keep testing the depth of the water with both feet, aren’t you? Now where have I seen that phrase recently?

You argued that Blotchy could have been some grubby old fella bewitched by the thought of spending time in the room of a pretty, sexy young lady who sings for her supper. And that Mary was lonely and only too willing to oblige.

Now do you seriously imagine that if you are correct this time (and I’m not disputing that you could be), the scenario you describe could not constitute a classic client rendezvous? How did this odd couple meet in the first place? On the street? Down the pub? What did they have in common, besides being seen entering the crime scene together and not being seen leaving it again?

Isn’t it a whole lot more believable, if you want to make Blotchy any more than a total stranger (as Joe Barnett was the day he first met Mary), that he knew her from evenings in the pub and she only took this grubby old fella home with her because he fed and watered her and gave her the ‘incentive’ she would have needed to let him into what was, essentially, her bedroom?

I just don’t get your refusal to see a quarter inch further here and at least allow for the remote (tongue-in-cheek alert) possibility that a stunner like Mary (tongue-in-cheek alert) would not have entertained this grubby old fella in her bedroom out of the pure goodness of her heart, but would have expected him to pay for the privilege, whether he was a boozing acquaintance, prospective new meal ticket or her own long lost uncle.

I can only think it’s because it would do horrible things to your theory that Mary was ‘different’ and therefore her killer was too, if you had to admit that ‘prostitute with own bed’ was her best personal asset now Joe had slung his hook and the ripper’s best personal opportunity to date.

It really is quite bizarre to think of Mary still giving fourpenny knee-tremblers in stinking alleyways at the height of the ripper scare, when she could have earned more on that bed, and even more bizarre to think of the ripper hearing about his latest murder and kicking himself because some other bugger had all the fun.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"‘prostitute with own bed’ was her best personal asset"

...and this is where I point out that the fact that Cox did not bring any men home that evening does not necessarily go to show that Mary would not have. In fact, that "fact" is not even a fact, as long as proven facts go. For we only have Cox´s own words to go on here, do we not?

What if she simply refrained from telling the police that her warming up sessions were business of a different kind. Though it was obvious she was an unfortunate, I see no reason why she would speak of clients, especially not when you ponder that the police would have been asking for names. And such things would have been bad for business.

If her comings and goings that night were punter-accompanied - would she have said as much to the police?

By the bye; was not Prater waiting for a young fellow at the entrance that night? Business, anybody?

Any thoughts?

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Caz, your scenario is completely possible. Kelly clearly was after some kind of meal-ticket, and if one presented itself all smiling and shiny, she'd grab its hand off. I'd agree completely it's possible the Ripper sweet-talked himself into her bed with this line. But a voice (maybe the same one that told Sutcliffe to go forth and rip the **** out of any woman he could find) yells in my ear that our boy Jack may well have been impotent and that was the source of the whole problem. Now this is parlour psychology of course, and all down to Freud Made Easy For Tiny Tots which I read when young. But the way he uses the knife. The constant appearance of passageways and dark areas that he goes through with his victims, always emerging into a larger area where he kills 'em. All this screams 'sexual symbolism' to me. And all this is here, of course, in Kelly. He has to go through the tight, dark Millers Court passage before he gets into the 'womb' of the place and so to Kelly's room where he kills her. If I'm going to be completely serious just for a moment, I would suggest that his accompanying his victims through this surrogate 'vagina' is part of the thrill for him and that is why it tends to be swiftly followed by the death and the highly phallic knife work in the nether regions. However if he enters Kelly's room with her, he obviously doesn't kill her immediately, because she gets undressed and lies on the bed. This might simply mean he's evolving as a serial killer and his method is changing. But previously he has been very fixated on female genital organs. This time, if an organ is taken, it's the heart. That is much more personal. And all this is why I do think it's possible that Kelly was killed by the Ripper. But I don't think she was killed by the Ripper for the same reasons he killed the others. I think there was something personal between them. He killed her because of that personal reason.

Hi Chava,

Isn’t it funny how the evidence can look one way to one person, but another way entirely to another. Exploring the possibilities is fine, but I am always cautious about going a step further than the evidence allows me to go, especially when there are other options that don’t require that step.

I see a big clue about Sutcliffe’s motivation for claiming that he had no control and had to attack his victims immediately, whether that was actually true or not. It’s a classic way of ducking out of personal responsibility. It’s no coincidence that the ‘voice’ told him beforehand to “go forth and kill”. Nobody ever reports it when a voice tells them to “go forth and make your own decisions, sunshine. If you fancy killing a bit of time with an old prossie, or taking your hammer to a young bank clerk, it's all the same to me”.

The ‘constant appearance of passageways and dark areas that he goes through with his victims, always emerging into a larger area where he kills 'em’ screams ‘unfortunates servicing in Spitalfields’ to me, before sexual symbolism.

I would call the ripper’s fixation with his female victims’ body parts personal full stop. With apologies to fellow Life of Brian fans:

“Well, if it’s not a personal question, are you a prostitute who will let me kill you so I can take your womb/bladder/kidney/heart home with me to enjoy later?”

“If it's not a personal question?? How much more personal can you get???”

Only one of those organs was exclusively feminine, but the killer knew each one was female. This time, before seeing any personal or romantic symbolism in the removal of a victim’s heart (or indeed two sadists operating independently, both with symbolism uppermost in their thoughts as they plundered) I would have to take into account that the ripper varied his ‘diet’, so to speak, from Annie to Kate, and the menu would have been limited by the time he had at his disposal as well as by the clothing they wore. Even if he would have preferred more variety on those occasions, or a specific organ, taking the heart was not one of the easier options and quite possibly not an option at all.

Mary was on her bed, offering the full menu with a chemise for a doily, and her killer was clearly spoiled for choice. He was able to remove the heart from her body and slice off the breasts as well. Even assuming he had the means and opportunity to take away pretty much anything that he fancied, his motivation is still sheer guesswork on anyone’s part. Was the variety all too much for him? Was he simply not interested in organs that had been taken away previously? Was the effect he created just too good to mess with by taking stuff away? Were his thoughts occupied the whole time with what ‘Jack the Ripper’ should be doing in his position?

Love,

Caz
X

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Fisherman,

I think we have a tendency to overexaggerate the 'seriousness' about the occupation of these women. After all, although keeping a brothel was illegal, actual 'puntering' or soliciting appears not to have been something the local police took any great interest in. It could hardly have been a mystery to the police and the authorities what these hundreds of women in the area actually did for a living. The police seems to have been more occupied with disturbance of the peace, occasional loitering, abuse, robbery etc. But hardly soliciting in 'private' not connected with brothels.

According to the statements we have, women like Prater and Cox had already been quite frank with the police that they were prostitutes and that they were soliciting, so I don't think it would matter that much if they revealed that they had any punter that night or not. They were already known as prostitutes, so what would be the difference, besides the hazzle they would get if they disclosed the punter's name (and they didn't have to, since most prostitutes don't know their clients by name)?So if Cox had really found clients that night, I fail to see why she would say otherwise. Just my take on it.

Cheers, Fisherman!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

This time, before seeing any personal or romantic symbolism in the removal of a victim’s heart (or indeed two sadists operating independently, both with symbolism uppermost in their thoughts as they plundered) I would have to take into account that the ripper varied his ‘diet’, so to speak, from Annie to Kate, and the menu would have been limited by the time he had at his disposal as well as by the clothing they wore. Even if he would have preferred more variety on those occasions, or a specific organ, taking the heart was not one of the easier options and quite possibly not an option at all.

Of course, suggesting that the Ripper in Miller's Court would take the heart instead of the womb (as he'd done on two previous occasions) because he wanted 'variery' or because he had less time constraint is total speculation. We are still left with the fact, that the Ripper in connection with two previous murders did take the womb in its entirely (plus some other parts of other stuff) and didn't chose any other organ INSTEAD of the womb.
In Miller's Court, the victim suddenly loses her heart instead of the womb (which remains on the crime scene). Those are facts - everything else is speculation without any foundation in fact.

I have said it before and I'll say it again - based on what he did on the two previous occasions, there would be no reason for the Ripper to change his or alter his choice of organs or his modus operandi just because he moved indoors. None whatsoever.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Hi Glenn!

Yep, we´re agreed on the fact that Neither Cox nor Prater kept their occupation from the police. And it of course follows that there would not have been much to it to tell about any customers in the court that night - but for the one point that they may have wished to keep these customers from the police´s attention.
We have something of a parallel in Pearly Poll, who may have been reluctant (or afraid, for that matter) to disclose the identity of her companion/s for the evening with Tabram.

So even if we accept Cox being alone as the safest bet (and I do), it is of some interest to keep in mind that we have no definite proof of it. And that has some bearing on the Kelly case, since it is so often suggested that the prostitutes of the court did not bring customers home, especially if you couple it with Prater´s young man.

Just an idea...

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Chava]

I think you could well be right, Fisherman. Cox maintains she is an 'unfortunate' at the inquest, and given that polite veils were brought across a lot of detail at the inquests, the coroner may well have chosen not to ask Cox if she were accompanied when she went in to 'warm up'.

The thing about the position on the bed is this: if she's with a punter who has said he wants to stay the night I doubt she would have turned her back on him like that. It's obvious and good business to lie facing the guy so as to look as if you're interested even as you quietly doze off while he's telling you about his wife and how she doesn't understand him etc. After all he's paid you and might pay you some more.

OK, she lies facing him, but he wants her turned away when he kills her to avoid blood splashes. But they are both lying down and Kelly's a big girl. Not so easy to institute a blitz attack in those circumstances and I honestly doubt he'd do that.

Then there's 'turn over and let me rub your back'.

And then there is another possibility that the man she is with says he wants anal sex. She turns over and he immediately attacks her.

But it seems to me that these scenarios all would require a certain knowledge and comfort level on Mary's part. After all, she was a prostitute, and prostitutes have been getting hurt and killed since time immemorial. The concept of the bad trick didn't just emerge in 1888. One might argue that she was drunk that night and her alarm bell system was somewhat compromised. But by the time Hutchinson claims to have seen her she was 'spreeish' rather than drunk, so probably sobering-up fairly rapidly.

So here's my point: the Ripper appears to kill his other victims very quickly after he feels he is in a position to do so. But he doesn't do that with Kelly. He spends enough time with her to get her almost completely undressed and on the bed--where it will be hard to attack her completely without warning unless--and only unless--she is lying in the optimal position for him to do so. Which is lying close to the far side of the bed and facing the wall.

The only way he can get her into that position safely (for him) is to wait until she's asleep and then quickly flip her over. Or go the request for anal sex route. If the latter, then it's entirely possible that her killer is a punter who picked her up and promised her more money for 'something special'. Could even be Mr Astrakhan to whom she apparently said 'alright' to which he replied 'you will be alright for what I have told you'. And this might be a reason to somewhat believe George Hutchinson's account.

If the former, then it's someone she knew. I just don't buy her allowing a punter to stay the night and I don't think the Ripper was physically able to perform any kind of sexual act that would allow her to believe he was a normal trick. I think, for him, the killing itself was the sex. And I don't believe he went much for foreplay. So I'm still coming down on the 'she knew her killer' side of this fence, although I can understand all arguments to the contrary

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Fisherman,

Personally, I have no problem with the women bringing their clients home - I fail to see why they should not, since it would be more comfortable. Those who worked on the street most likely did so because they didn't have any home - some were even prepared to take their clients to the lodging house in order to do about their busines in more 'comfortable' surroundings.

No, we have no proof of that Coz didn't bring any clients home that night, but I remin unconvinced about the point in her lying about it. As I said, many prostitutes didn't know their clients by name anyway so it would be pointless for the police to get into that. Pearly Poll is a different matter since he was directly involved with the murder victim, had been soliciting together with her the same night and had also had seen the clients Tabram had gone away with last time she saw her alive. So that situation is a bit different.

In any case, I find the whole debate about Kelly going out or not going out after the visit of Blotchy Face to be redundant and tedious, since there is no possible way we will ever know for sure - we simply don't have enough information.
It will always remain a matter of personal opinion and it won't lead us anywhere.

All the best

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Glenn................thank you... for offering your opinion on how these two people, Mary and killer, may have met..

Caz, Im not really the mule you think I am in respect to the nature of Marys get together with Blotchy. Its my opinion, since he is holding a tankard or mug, that she met him in the pub, he got her drunk on his nickel, offered to walk her home, and intended on some sugar as thanks. I just dont think he got any, and the intermittent singing makes me think Mary chose her means of saying thanks before she accepted the walk, by being fun and good company. As I said, she may have been lonely and felt like singing with a new friend. Lets put it this way....we know she sang, we dont know "it was for her supper" if you know what I mean.

And although Mary does have this room to herself, remember she lives in this room, this isnt a bordello where you have sex in one room, and then sleep in your own. If you had one set of sheets, and only a 10 by 10 foot room to call your own, soaked strangers in your bed is probably not a desirable thing. And again, we have no evidence she ever had any men in that room besides Blotchy and the Joe's. One recorded singing happening during the court visit, and the others were lovers.

Richard...I think I now know what it must be like for you to believe something that few others do. You have my support for your convictions...but I cant offer it for the premise, Im sorry. It would seem us fanciful idea folk should support each other though, even if at odds,....cause it aint easy trying to help others to see this as we do.

And without guaranteeing them this is the correct answer...which neither you nor I know for sure, its not likely we will see much support from others.

Keep on believin what you do...no-one knows the right answers yet.

And my friend Fisherman, I think you are correct that under these circumstances, a sleeping Mary, on her side facing the partition wall, allows for a second person to join her on the bed, by lying flat on their back, or in a spoon position. That may infer a sex position, or it might be the way she reacts when woken by a man she knows and is still sleepy, so she lets him in, and heads back to bed herself...leaving him room to join her. I think he did, and when she was asleep again, or trying to get there, and thats when it started.

Best regards.