Did Mary know her attacker?

[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]

And I don´t 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

[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.

[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]

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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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).

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.