Did Mary know her attacker?

[anna]

With all due respect, I'm suprised just about everyone in Dorset Street and most of Spitalfields didn't use Mary's room! After all, they were all trying to get a money for a room for the night,when all along there was an "open" room at their disposal. If the window were broken during a noisy fight which must have attracted attention,how come everyone hadn't tried the window trick?

[celee]

Brad,

Let my dismiss your argument about Kelly's killer being other than the Ripper because he killed her at his first opportunity. From this, I take it to mean that after Barnett left her, he struck at his first opportunity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Barnett left at least as late as early September, by his testimony, and yet she was killed 2 months later. Surely, anyone stalking her would have found an earlier opportunity? As NOV9 suggests that the killer was someone who hated her; had a grudge against her, then this argument fails for the same reason. Why wait two months, and only on the weekend? I can't for the life of me understand why this would have been the best opportunity. Please explain why to me.

This killing was, in my mind, an opportunistic one, but not of a stalker or a vengeful lover, but opportunistic in the same way his other murders were. She was there when he was prowling, and she fell victim. It is just that simple, in my mind. Then again, the burden is not on me to prove anything.

I agree with you and I argue that side more often then not. However I was suggesting that the Kelly murder and the Barnett departure being so close together,Combined with the fact that the Ripper had been quiet for six weeks, might be the best argument for Kelly knowing her attacker or her attacker stalking her.

Mike

Hi GM,

Thanks for your reply.

The fact that Barnett moved out October 30, Just ten days before her murder, You were already informed by Richard, is interesting. However I was unaware that according to witnessees prior to Joe's departure, Kelly was on her game.

I would think that if Joe was so upset about Kelly sharing her room with another unfortunate woman, he would have been beside herself if Kelly brought clients back to the room. In my opinion he would have left long before if those hear say tale's are true.

Your friend, Brad

[Sam Flynn]

"sufficiently acquainted" could merely amount to a prior experience of Miller's Court on a contractual basis, which wouldn't be at all surprising given that prostitute-killers often turn out to have been regular punters with a mild "nodding" acquaintace with a few of the prostitutes.

True, Ben. However we must be careful of adopting such models in this context. In the case of the Whitechapel murders, we're dealing with often irregular prostitutes (and punters with irregular wages!) in a milieu significantly different to Sunset Boulevard and other more "modern" red-light districts.

[Ben]

So as y'all know, I'm concluding that (a) Mr A is a figment of GH's imagination and (b) Kelly either knew her killer and was sufficiently relaxed with him to get into bed to sleep or he was sufficiently acquainted with her to know how to get into the room quietly. If he was around during the evening he would know she was very drunk. If he wanted to kill her he would know the chances were good he could take her unawares.

...And a very reasonable conclusion it is too, Chava! The "sufficiently acquainted" could merely amount to a prior experience of Miller's Court on a contractual basis, which wouldn't be at all surprising given that prostitute-killers often turn out to have been regular punters with a mild "nodding" acquaintace with a few of the prostitutes.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

no-one believable saw Mary out after 11:45pm the night before.

It was by all accounts a quiet night - perhaps because of the rain, perhaps for other reasons. I mean, let's face it, Dorset Street and its environs didn't have much going for it after the pubs shut. On that basis, it's unlikely that many people who knew Kelly would have noticed her out after 11:45. The couple of women (Cox, Prater) who did happen to know Kelly merely breezed in and out of the locale for a mere few minutes out of the 3-4 hours between 11:45 and her death. Under these circumstances, it's hardly surprising that nobody reported seeing her out - but that doesn't mean that she didn't go out again.

[Dan Norder]

2. There are no records, no comments from her known friends, nothing that states Mary Kelly ever entertained clients indoors in her room.

Other than the statements by Mary Ann Cox (never been disputed) and George Hutchinson (often disputed, but still proof that your claim is wrong). But that's two comments from her known friends (or reputed friend in Hutchinson's case) that she did entertain clients there on top of the bloody obvious conclusion that she would have done that over services clients in the streets as compared to your completely baseless assumptions that you keep trying to present to the world as if they were facts.

The problem here is that you make these false claims about evidence all the time. If you keep this up you won't be able to claim that you were just ignorant and didn't know any better, you'll be well into intentionally lying to try to make your arguments look stronger than they are -- assuming you aren't already.

[Chava]

PerryMason, I'm a bit suspicious of any and all after-the-fact recollections and that would include Dew's! There are statements that suggest Kelly did have at least one hat and wore it, even if she wore her hair loose beneath it. People have been romanticizing Kelly since she was killed. And she did a pretty good job of it herself by all accounts.

At bottom, I think we are left with an efficient young whore who lived off men either singly as in Barnett's case, or severally when she was on the game full-time. She was good at spinning a yarn and a few of those yarns are still around today, most notably the West End Fancy House and the Trip To France With A Gentleman.

Blotchy Face would be a candidate to me if we didn't know that Kelly was exercising her lungs for an hour at least after she was seen taking him into her room. (My guess is he was long gone by 1.00 am but she was still singing.) After that point either she buys or is bought a fish supper. If GH is accurate on anything, she's alone when he sees her. So likely she got a bit of money during the evening probably including some from BF, and she went out and had a bite to eat. Then, still going with the GH statement, she heads out to find a bit more business.

That's when things start to get really cloudy. You've got GH's testimony about Mr A. And you've got Kelly apparently killed in bed while more than partly undressed and in her nightwear. So ready to sleep or sleeping. Mr A could have paid to stay the night, but why would he? It's not as if he hasn't killed clothed women before. He's killed that way 4 times already. If he thinks that he can have more fun in a room than on the street, he's probably right. But I'm amazed he can control himself until Kelly gets out of all those clothes and into her nightie. One might say that he knew GH might be out there, so he took his time just in case. One might be right. But if GH was at the mouth of the alley or across the street, Mr A wouldn't have known he was there at all unless he went out of the room and looked. Which GH doesn't report. For all Mr A knows, GH is right outside the door. And ready to apprehend him on the way out of the court.

So as y'all know, I'm concluding that (a) Mr A is a figment of GH's imagination and (b) Kelly either knew her killer and was sufficiently relaxed with him to get into bed to sleep or he was sufficiently acquainted with her to know how to get into the room quietly. If he was around during the evening he would know she was very drunk. If he wanted to kill her he would know the chances were good he could take her unawares.

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.

[Ben]

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

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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 Encyclopędia 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.

[richardnunweek]

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.

[Varqm]

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.

[Chava]

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!

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.