Did Mary know her attacker?

[Tron]

So.... when you imagine decent women forced to turns a trick just to eat and sleep somewhere warm, remember that Mary Kelly was fed, drunk, and had a roof over her head the night she dies. Perhaps even a hard core street gal would pass on work if she already had all that taken care of for the night.

We are missing vital details like when she had her last meal and by what means she came to it (company/alone). If I remember correctly, she was quite desperate for money, so it is likely she was looking for a john, but we don't have any proof she was inviting her work back to her room (street prostitutes are different from indoor prostitutes therefore statistically low probability I would imagine).

There is virtually no data to support any assumption. From what we know she was most likely assaulted while in bed, partially undressed. This could go either way, you can use it to prove that she was preparing to have sexual intercourse or she simply fell asleep helped by the alcohol in her body. The latter would also explain the lack of defensive wounds as she would have most likely faced a person she knew (and might have reacted earlier which would result in more severe defensive wounds).

She might have been targeted by somebody she knew who tried to make the crime scene look like what he or she perceived to be a Ripper crime scene. This is also supported by her high risk lifestyle (but again still only an assumption).

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. Not only is that a new environment for a "Ripper" of street whores, it also allows for some relationship between killer and prey. It could be just that he has cased this location, or followed Mary home some night...but it could indicate he knew where she lived because he had been there before, and we do not have one scintilla of evidence that suggests she ever brought clients to that room. Only speculation by some.

Richard, Im not arguing that you dont make good sound points, Im only saying that you might as well accept that at the very least the Police Officials felt very strongly that Mary Ann had seen Mary enter her room with a man we call Blotchy Face. Because its Blotchy Face who is the official suspect after Astrakan Man goes back to where he came from...Hutchinsons imagination. Again, the proximity to Mary on a daily basis ,being a court resident herself, makes it almost impossible she would ID Mary incorrectly, or a man with her...so like it or lump it, officially...Mary Ann Cox is accredited as the last person to have seen Mary alive. Not George Hutchinson, not Astrakan Man, and most certainly not, Caroline Maxwell.

I would hope all this talk of what Victorian prostitutes would or wouldnt do is'nt based on any kind of modern field research, ...but I just wanted to add that the only thing that is the same today as it was back then are the risks. Women who were single, were forced to make some kind of living...women who were widowed, needed food and shelter,.. women who were abused by husbands, slept on streets and turned tricks to eat.

The morality of that Era being far more severe with respect to society's opinion of "street prostitutes", for heavens sake what do we think that "Victorian" moral standards were? Not all, by a long shot, of the women who sold themselves did so out of laziness or wickedness...many were forced to....maybe just by their addiction to booze.

So.... when you imagine decent women forced to turns a trick just to eat and sleep somewhere warm, remember that Mary Kelly was fed, drunk, and had a roof over her head the night she dies. Perhaps even a hard core street gal would pass on work if she already had all that taken care of for the night.

My best regards all.

[Chava]

I'd agree with that, Sam. And I'm not sure why we're arguing. Because this thread is about whether Kelly knew or had met her killer before and it looks like we both think that it's possible

As for 'you're safe with Shawcross', I think it's very likely that at least some of the other four's customers came from the doss-houses they slept in. So they may have had prior knowledge, although I agree that the phrase 'repeat customer' in this sense doesn't mean anything like what it would mean to a modern-day rent-girl or boy.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

I agree that Kelly may have constituted a special case, however the application of the "You're safe with Shawcross" principle to the casual, sporadic prostitution of the doss-house derelicts is stretching a modern analogy too far. With the possible exception of Kelly, the women we're talking about seldom operated in circumstances conducive to maintaining a roster of regular customers.

[Chava]

Sam, I'd agree with Fisherman. And I would also agree with you that the kind of punters likely to pick up the first four victims were likely about as degraded as they were. However they were probably in the position of having to pay for whatever sexual pleasure they could get and so it's possible they could be paying the same women occasionally. I also think that the first four were killed in circumstances that could easily point to a stranger--and how more vulnerable would they be to a reasonably well-dressed, middle-class-looking man after what they had been used to.

Kelly is a different matter. Kelly had been a prostitute for a very long time. One could argue that she didn't go out hooking when she was living with Barnett, but I was looking at his statements about how they met etc. He picked her up one day and they moved in together the next. That was unusually fast even for those days, so I doubt we're looking at Romeo and Juliet here. I also think it's possible that he was living off immoral earnings and that the man Morgenstone had done that previously. However that is supposition not fact. The fact is that Kelly hooked for a living and when she needed money that is how she got it. Unlike Chapman who sold flowers and key-chains and stuff and Eddowes who went hop-picking and Nicholls who had done some charring, all we know about Kelly's work history is that she had 'gone bad' when she was young and had spent the next several years in active prostitution. She may or may not have gone out on the game when she was living with Barnett, but she certainly had done so before. She associated with known prostitutes while she was living with him. And as soon as he left, she started hooking again. She was certainly much younger than the other four poor women and therefore probably somewhat more attractive. I don't see any reason why she couldn't have had repeat customers, and if you believe any part of George Hutchinson's statement she did. Because he clearly knew her and she clearly was soliciting him with that 'can you lend me 6d' comment. So I think it's not impossible that someone she had had dealings with before killed her.

[Fisherman]

And I donīt disagree, Sam! I just thought that the knowledge about Pervy Petes and Slobbering Sids patterns of using payed-for sex belonged here.

That, as you say, does in no way lead up to any necessity of neat patterns having been formed. And though I feel certain that the prostitutes of that day spoke inbetween them of the more curious of their recurring customers, I am not at all sure whether "our" ladies took part in them discussions. That would by and large depend on the degree in which the prostituted themselves, and we are at a loss to know, are we not?

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fisherman,

The issue is one of "synchronisation". I can't really describe it easily in writing, but have some time-lines:

August 1888

Pervy Pete in Aldgate - 23:30 on 1st, 2nd, 3rd; 23:45 on 7th, 8th, 9th; 00:10 on 14th, 15th 16th.

Slobbering Sid in Ten Bells - 23:00 on 10th; 23:30 on 12th, 13th, 14th and 31st.

Annie Chapman in... well, hospital, frankly.

Polly Nichols in Whitechapel High Street - 00:30 on 6th; 02:00 on 12th, 14th, 17th, 22nd; Polly Nichols in Ten Bells - 22:30 21st, 23rd, 25th.

If we multiply the Petes and Sids by a couple of hundred, the Annies and Pollys by a thousand, and quadruple the number of venues... how on earth can such circumstances produce a neat pattern? How do they "join up"? Contrast this with: "Steve Wright in Ipswich Red Light District (street, actually) at midnight every Friday, along with most of the usual handful of prostitutes".

Like I say - we're talking about entirely different setups.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes that one prerogative for speaking about built-up clienteles of punters would be...

"that there were regular users of prostitutes in the area, as opposed to men wanting to scratch a sudden "itch" once in a while, after they'd consumed too much ale"

Now, what you say about the different culture and dynamics of society would of course have an impact, Sam. But I know that what I have read on punters point very clearly to the ones buying sex just the one time or very occasionaly being a minority, whereas those who get into paying for sex very often become long-time frequent users of prostitutes. My own guess is that they simply like the lacking demands on commitment and responsibility, or they find it difficult to play the game that is required to become intimate friends with women. If that is correct, we are talking of a phenomenon that would not be typical for our own times - it would have applied in Victorian England too. Be that as it may, what does count here, though, is that those who pay for sex more often than not seem to do so on a regular basis.
Out on the net, there are even sites where punters pass judgements on street prostitutes as if it was just another commodity from the grocerīs store. And that points clearly to an established net of users of prostitutes. I spent a couple of minutes searching for the like of this in Britain, and it did not take me long to find "punternet", which is exactly what I am talking about.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael,
I still am not convinced that the man Mrs Cox described ,ie the man that was with MJK en-route from Dorset street to millers court ever existed with the description we know as Blotchy face.
Reasons to repeat.
The clothing described by Cox that kelly was then wearing does not match that of Praters account some three hours earlier that is fact
The actual sighting has two accounts one made to the police at the time.
The one relayed to Colin wilson many years ago by Coxs neice, who said her aunt was 'waiting by her door' for her husband to arrive home.
The man also goes from a shabby man , to a 'Real Toff' complete with Kellys conversation to him.
I am sorry I am so persistant with this view , its simply i do not belief Cox, and I have always expressed doubts about Kelly doing a karoke set in front of a drunken companion which no one else has seen or heard except one dodgy witness.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

You cannot say that with any assurance when determining how, and where, Marys killer acquired her.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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:

a) these women worked the streets regularly over a period of time - something which is doubtful even in the case of Mary Kelly, especially when Barnett had money;

b) that they frequented the same beats on a regular basis - we don't know that, and Dew (for what it's worth) ascribes at least two such "beats" to Mary Kelly;

c) that there were regular users of prostitutes in the area, as opposed to men wanting to scratch a sudden "itch" once in a while, after they'd consumed too much ale;

d) that, if (c) were true, they'd have been seen on a regular basis by the likes of Annie, Polly and Kate to the point where the women felt "comfortable" with them.

Bearing in mind that recognising anyone in the anonymous wash of the East End was a bit of a challenge, I can't equate this with the "Mondeo Man" situation - for a start, Wright actually lived within the only Red Light District of Ipswich. Even if he hadn't, and preferred to cruise into town a la Shawcross or Ridgway, there were only a limited number of regular prostitutes who frequented comparatively well-lit streets, and most of them would have been young and dolled-up to the nines.

None of this would have applied to the middle-aged casual prostitutes of the East End. I just don't see an 1888 equivalent of Wright wandering down to Aldgate on the off-chance of meeting his beloved "Toothless Betty" of a Saturday night. The dynamics - the culture - are significantly different.

Hello all,

It seems that the immediate response to the thread question has been another question...could the killer have met any of the victims as a client before later becoming their killer.

That is certainly possible, and we do know that at least a few women had connections with Dorset St, but I dont believe thats what the thread was intended to address. I believe its whether there are any indications that Mary Kelly, and only Mary Kelly at this point, might have known her attacker.

Since you been discussing street prostitution, and whether the killer may have picked one or more of the Canonicals up while she was soliciting before he picks her up to kill her sometime later,..implying that he could expect to locate them again based on their work habits, routines and preferred locations. If thats the case....then he either must have followed Mary Kelly one night to see where she lived, or she must have told him her address herself, because its very possible that Mary Kelly was not working at all the night she is killed, and may not have left her room after midnight.

If Mary Kelly did not go out after Blotchy Man came home with her, and Blotchy was still there after 1:30am, Blotchy Man is the number one suspect. If Mary Kelly did'nt go out, but Blotchy left before 1:30am, then you have to include people who know Mary on the suspect list.

The Ripper most assuredly acquired the 4 attributed victims while they were dressed for late fall, working or hanging about on street corners outdoors, ones they might frequent when working, and they all may well have been soliciting. But they all were dressed and outside when he meets them.

You cannot say that with any assurance when determining how, and where, Marys killer acquired her. And if by coming to her room directly, that leaves the possibility that he knew her wide open.

My best regards all.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Stanley was more of a boyfriend, as you mentioned earlier. For every worn-out passed-it prostitiute, there would have been a plentiful supply of male equivelents in the district, none of whom were likely to have been very discerning about with women they went with. Even younger soldiers were willing to accompany Martha Tabram and Pearly Poll up dark alleys. By regular clients, I don't mean men who would delibately target one prostitute for sex and retain some sort of loyalty. I'm referring more to "familiar faces" in the district that the prostitutes were likely to encounter fairly often, whether they were prostituting, charring, hawking or whatever; someone akin to "Mondeo Man" - the nickname given to Steve Wright by a few prostitutes in Ipwitch.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Even if Jack's victims were "irregular" streetworkers, by middle-age it is almost inconceibale that they hadn't built up something resembling a client-base.

I can't be so certain, Ben. I've already alluded to Chapman's arrangement with Ted Stanley - but that's as close as I feel it could get for a woman of Annie's type. Surely, the more worn-out, desperate and gin-sodden these women became, the less certain a "regular client base" can be assumed. These women found what they could - darning clothes, charring, making menthol cones, ironing, making straw dolls, gluing matchboxes, peeling vegetables, picking hops, washing dishes, etc. For the casual prostitute, selling herself was just another desperate option to be taken as and when necessary.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I agree in part, but I'm sure you'd also agree that there's no such thing as "career" prostitution in the sense that women aspire for that occupation. Desperation is prompted by a variety of factors. In the LVP, it was in order to secure a night's sleep in a grotty lodging house. Today, it is often an addiction to heroine or other hard drugs that lead to a life on the streets. The "desperation" isn't any less potent in either case, and I doubt any woman in either situation would describe themselves as career prostitutes. Even if Jack's victims were "irregular" streetworkers, by middle-age it is almost inconceibale that they hadn't built up something resembling a client-base.

Best regards,
Ben