Did Mary know her attacker?

[Sam Flynn]

I know you like percentage calculations, so I think that in this case, if she did not go out, its at least 50/50 that he knew where Mary Kelly lived.

But that doesn't mean that she knew him, which was my point, Mike. Therefore, whether she stayed in or went out again, it has little or no relevance to whether or not she knew her killer.

Hello folks,

Gareth, I think you took offense at my phrasing before, and it was'nt intended. But I do stand by the contention that if Mary did not meet her killer while she was working outdoors, he either enters her room without her permission, or with it. I know you like percentage calculations, so I think that in this case, if she did not go out, its at least 50/50 that he knew where Mary Kelly lived. One side has random chance, like all the C4 previous seem to indicate, ...painting the portrait of a local man that perhaps knows the haunts of the street women in general, and takes what opportunity presents him, in Marys case that would be finding an open door, or seeing the window access...the opposing side has the killer seeking his victim where she lives, going into Millers Court to seek out Mary Kelly specifically.

Within the confines of the known facts about that evening, it is therefore extremely plausible to include a killer known to the victim as one of a few likely possibilities.

Its the cumulative effect of these issues, and others.....the facial destruction and heart removal, the choice of working in a room, on a victims bed...(if Mary didnt go out again, and he wanted at her that night, he had no choice but to seek her out at home)...that at least to me suggest that its quite possible Mary Kelly was the intended target of her killer, that she was not chosen by the killer as she worked the streets.

A known killer is someone who knows Mary, but she needn't have know him well...or maybe at all....or its someone she does know well, but he doesnt know her well, or they are both well know to each other.

Those scenarios could be applicable here, and there is not one other attributed Ripper kill that we can say the evidence suggests that there may be some connection between killer and victim.

My best Sam, as always.

[Chava]

Now, that I'm more comfortable with, Ben - but only inasmuch as I believe the killer to have lived "there or thereabouts". It's by no means certain that all five (or four) Ripper victims would have recognised him - in fact unless he really was Timothy Donovan, I'd find it extremely unlikely.

Sam, I've never suggested that. In numerous posts I've said I thought that the first four were probably killed by someone they had never encountered before. Even if they had met him, they probably wouldn't have remembered him. You keep talking about 'Mondeo Man' and by that I assume you mean some kerb-crawler who is well-known in a red-light district. As Peter Sutcliffe undoubtedly was. I don't think that is who we're looking for, I've never thought that was who we are looking for and I do think that the first four were victims of a blitz attack from a man who was a complete stranger to them.

But I also think it's not unlikely given the circumstances that Kelly was killed by someone she knew or had met before. Regular client? Maybe, in the sense that she done business with him before. Ex-lover? Possibly. Landlord? Possibly. Ripper? Whoever killed her could have been any of the above and the Ripper as well.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm angling more for a local chappie who sauntered the area in which both he and the prostitutes lived

Now, that I'm more comfortable with, Ben - but only inasmuch as I believe the killer to have lived "there or thereabouts". It's by no means certain that all five (or four) Ripper victims would have recognised him - in fact unless he really was Timothy Donovan, I'd find it extremely unlikely.

[Ben]

Why, therefore, would someone so undiscriminating as to "select" Chapman in the first place have worried about seeking her to the exclusion of others on his next night out

Not "select", Gareth. More a case of "Oh ere's this fella who wanders around this area looking for sex. He's an ugly bugger, but he pays like the rest of em". Similarly, the perspective of our local regular might have been: "Oh ere's this old gin-soak who I always see round this area. S'pose she's no uglier than thre majority of 'em round here." For the record, though, I share your doubt at the prospect of someone non-local venturing into Aldgate, selecting specific prostitutes and eventually killing some of them. Far too "cloak and daggers".

I'm angling more for a local chappie who sauntered the area in which both he and the prostitutes lived, who naturally encountered a number of them on several occasions whether through prostitution, hawking, or in a doss house kitchen.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

It's possible [Kelly] had repeat clients. It's possible that the Ripper was someone who had patronized her before.

Well, geography acts in support of that possibility, Chava - in that Kelly lived where she was killed, therefore her "Mondeo Man" had a fighting chance of zooming in on her. With the others, it all flies out of the window I'm afraid.

My brain fries if I try to accommodate the same "repeat client" just happening to pop up near Bucks' Row, Hanbury Street and Mitre Square (include Berner Street if you like) at all times of the night. This simply doesn't fit with the same man returning to his favourite pick-up point (Aldgate, say, or the 10 Bells) knowing he stood a fair chance of finding a familiar cheap prostitute, his familiarity with whom he could then exploit. The notion of the Ripper scouring the streets until - by magic - he found Polly, Annie and Kate in the most unlikely and varied locations before accosting them with a deceptively friendly smile is beyond the pale.

[Chava]

Hello, Sam, All.

I'm not sure that it would have to be undiscriminating in the first place. The selection of women who most folks might not find as attractive as others could be driven by many other motives besides desperation. There might be a certian feature or body type that "attracts" for any number of reasons. It might remind the selector of someone else, or it might be just plain subjective aesthetics. It might be that "good looking" women intimidate him, or it might be that he just needs someone, who, again according to his lights, looks the part. And then it would seem that this is the very person who might well be a repeat trick. If, for example, he could find a woman who didn't intimidate him, who would accept him, he would be looking for her next time. Ya dance with who brung ya.

And maybe that would be all he could afford!

In any case, I think what's causing the trouble is the perception of what I mean by suggesting that it's not impossible that the first four women may have encountered the Ripper as a regular client. By 'regular' I mean 'normal' or 'non-homicidal'. I don't mean 'every Saturday night at 10 pm'. It's certainly possible that the women in question had occasionally picked up men they had picked up before. But I don't think any of them had what might be called 'regulars' in any real sense. Even Kelly was a fair way from Miss Whiplash. But the same applies to her and perhaps more so, because she was more attractive and younger. It's possible she had repeat clients. It's possible that the Ripper was someone who had patronized her before.

[paul emmett]

Why, therefore, would someone so undiscriminating as to "select" Chapman in the first place have worried about seeking her to the exclusion of others on his next night out?

Hello, Sam, All.

I'm not sure that it would have to be undiscriminating in the first place. The selection of women who most folks might not find as attractive as others could be driven by many other motives besides desperation. There might be a certian feature or body type that "attracts" for any number of reasons. It might remind the selector of someone else, or it might be just plain subjective aesthetics. It might be that "good looking" women intimidate him, or it might be that he just needs someone, who, again according to his lights, looks the part. And then it would seem that this is the very person who might well be a repeat trick. If, for example, he could find a woman who didn't intimidate him, who would accept him, he would be looking for her next time. Ya dance with who brung ya.

[Sam Flynn]

Frankly I find it upsetting this constant harping on their personal appearance and habits. It almost sounds as if you think they deserved to die. Not because they were hookers but because they were unnattractive hookers. I'm sure this is not something you intend.

It isn't what I intend, Chava - but it's the painful truth. I have every sympathy for the victims and their plight, but filthy, middle-aged gin-swillers do not an obvious "see-you-again" proposition make - because for every one Annie Chapman, there would have been dozens of others. Why, therefore, would someone so undiscriminating as to "select" Chapman in the first place have worried about seeking her to the exclusion of others on his next night out? And, I should add, this assumes that poor Annie was a regular (as in "frequent") prostitute in the first place, but we have no evidence of that.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

Sam, no one is talking about Miss Whiplash. We know how degraded they were but they were hooking anyway and clearly making some money at it. In every post you've made the point about how disgusting, raddled, revolting etc the victims were, and with respect, I think you are allowing your own prejudices to overtake your arguments.

We've already agreed that Kelly may be a special case - indeed, she was once a resident of Ratcliffe Highway, where "professional" prostitutes were known to have had regular clients, albeit mainly sailors (ref. Judith Walkowitz, Prostitution and Victorian Society). However, without prejudice, the other victims of the Ripper were emphatically not of Kelly's type. Maybe they had been two decades prior to their murders, but by the time they were killed they were sporadic whores, in all probability picking up with equally sporadic clients.

As to "profiling" - we may know something about late 20th-Century serial killers, but what went on in the slums of Spitalfields is quite another matter. We simply cannot project our contemporary models onto the swamp of late Victorian London - at least not without taking account of the vastly different social structures that obtained at the time.

[Celesta]

[QUOTE=NOV9;2823]
Think about it? Jack was a Raptor type killer working his site with escape routes, why would he follow Mary to a place he may or not have studied to ensure his escape?


In regards to this, why would one necessarily assume he was not familiar with the area of Miller's Ct? He was certainly familiar enough with the other areas to make a, more or less, clean escape. Why would he not also have been familiar with the Dorset St./Miller's Ct area. It's very probable that he was a night-prowler and was well aware of what activities occurred in and around Miller's Ct., in the time frame, in which Mary was killed and may not have felt any more insecure, in his ability to escape, that night, than he did any other night. Indeed he may have felt more secure.

Best regards.

[Chava]

We know that, do we? Even if it were true, the odds are against the "Mondeo Man" syndrome. We're talking about pissed, raddled, stinking, middle-aged wrecks - not Miss Whiplash.

Sam, no one is talking about Miss Whiplash. We know how degraded they were but they were hooking anyway and clearly making some money at it. In every post you've made the point about how disgusting, raddled, revolting etc the victims were, and with respect, I think you are allowing your own prejudices to overtake your arguments. We know that all four women were killed while they were out hooking. We know that for sure. Whether Nicholls, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes did other things for money is not the issue. It seems clear that all four women had prostituted themselves in the past and were doing so on the night they died. Yes, their customers were probably just as revolting as they were. But so what? In any case it's very probable that they did business with some men who they had done business with before. I am not talking about an 'if it's 5.30 Friday, it's Jimmy' kind of thing. Just that it's as likely that they picked up men they had picked up before as not. Frankly I find it upsetting this constant harping on their personal appearance and habits. It almost sounds as if you think they deserved to die. Not because they were hookers but because they were unnattractive hookers. I'm sure this is not something you intend. But that's how it sounds to me.

Best wishes,
Chava

[Sam Flynn]

...All of the victims weren't exactly "rare" prostitutes; that they prostituted themselves fairly regularly

We know that, do we? Even if it were true, the odds are against the "Mondeo Man" syndrome. We're talking about pissed, raddled, stinking, middle-aged wrecks - not Miss Whiplash.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi again folks,

Sam, on this quote from you...."Precisely where or how Mary picked up her killer really doesn't matter in terms of whether she knew him or not. She might just as easily have picked up a stranger as someone she knew."...

As you well know you've again bypassed the possibility that she met her killer when he came to, and possibly entered himself, her room....while she is half undressed asleep on the bed.

That has nothing to do with it, Mike - and I have bypassed nothing. Her killer could have been known or unknown to her, irrespective of whether she met him in the street, whether he broke in whilst she was sleeping, or snuck in while she was out and hid in the zinc bath under the bed. Strangers break into houses every day, and killers and abductors totally unknown to their victims have been known to lurk in victims' houses awaiting their return.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I'm referring more to "familiar faces" in the district that the prostitutes were likely to encounter fairly often

But in order for that to work, Ben, we have to assume that...

...All of the victims weren't exactly "rare" prostitutes; that they prostituted themselves fairly regularly (not just during the commission of JTR's crimes), and that in a densely populated and localized area of Spitalfields, they were quite likely to solicit a number of the vaguely familiar faces that proliferated the area (irrespective of how they first encountered them), rather than bumping into complete and total strangers every time. I can honestly, and without antagonism, buy into that assumption quite happily.

All the best,
Ben