Did Mary know her attacker?

[Tom_Wescott]

I'd go t'other way, Tom; that the client and intruder premises are about as plausible as eachother, with the latter being just that bit more parsimonious and therefore more likely.

Sorry bro, ain't buying the Hutch thang. And Barnett's even less likely. Even if either of them WERE the killer, the crime scene evidence suggests to me Mary was not alone in bed and therefore not killed by an intruder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

I'd go t'other way, Tom; that the client and intruder premises are about as plausible as eachother, with the latter being just that bit more parsimonious and therefore more likely.

[Tom_Wescott]

Is it possible Kelly was killed by an intruder? Of course. More possible than most of the theories Michael supports, in fact. Was it likely this is how she died? No.

Don,

Thanks. And yes, of course that would apply to the men, although not as much so, since presumably they weren't getting by on their looks and by appearing as young and attractive as possible. Also, some people are better at guessing age than others. As you know (you wrote an essay on it) there's many, many variables.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[paul emmett]

[QUOTE=Chava;12319


The time discrepancy in the evidence of Cox and Prater is certainly interesting, but I'm putting it down to inattention on one or both parts. Neither of them saw Kelly, but by their own accounts, neither of them saw each other either. If they are basing their timelines on the Spitalfield's Church clock, or the Brewery clock or whatever, it's possible that Cox heard it strike as she was in her room and getting ready to go out again, but Prater heard it strike as she approached Miller's Court. Both of them think 'it's 1.00!!' Prater goes into her room a minute later. Cox leaves a couple of minutes after that. Kelly goes out in between the two, and doesn't necessarily make much noise so neither of them notice.[/QUOTE]

The time discrepency is more dramatic that this. Cox comes in to warm her hands at 1:00. The last time she came in, at 11:45, she stayed in 15 minutes. I think it's likely that she would stay in around the same amount of time. So, say she leaves 1:10ish, when she still hears singing. Prater returns at 1:00, but stays by Mc's shop 20 minutes and then goes in, so she says, about 1:30. Prater, as I noted before, waffles about the light from Kelly's room, but she is sure there is no sound.

SOOO From 1:00-1:30 noone sees MJK leave, and noone sees Blotchy leave. But we know Kelly at least is there cuz Cox heard her singing at 1:10. And since MJK started singing with Blotchy, and noone has seen him leave, I think one can make a good case that MJK AND Blotchy have stopped singing for the night and have retired, since Prater hears nothing, and most likely sees no light.

What bothers me about all this is, not that it sounds kinda familiar, but that Cox and Prater don't see each other either. As usual, there seems to be a missing piece.

Ben, we were posting together, but I think my post suggests why the timing involved in Kelly's going out or not does impact on whether she knew her killer or not, AND whether she knew Blotchy or not, AND whether they were one and the same.

[Ben]

I don't see how or why the incessantly over-argued "Did she go out again?" debate should necessarily impact on whether or not Kelly knew her killer. If Kelly was killed by an intruder, he may have known her on some level (anything from casual "nodding" acquaintance to boyfriend/lover etc), or he may have been a complete stranger who stalked her, as serial killers have been known to do. If he was either one of those things, there would be nothing to rule him out as the ripper. Both are perfectly plausible, and neither one is any less likely that the notion that she was killed by a killer client.

Similarly, the assumption that Blotchy was a total stranger to Kelly is no more or less entrenched and unsupported than the assumption that he knew her. Then there's Mary Cox to consider, who was out soliciting that night but didn't bring home any clients, probably because it made better sense to get through as many clients as she could by servicing them (more or less) where she found them, rather than trekking back and forth home.

I only include Stride when I talk about Canons that others see as sacred Tom. My Canon list is much shorter.

As to how old the women looked, ok...Ill accept your breakdown, but Ive seen the photos we do have of these gals, and they dont seem young looking or attractive to me, if we are setting aside the birth certificates. But if we arent, then Mary is reported to be almost as old as Liz has been known to have been selling herself. Hard to imagine they looked the same age. And 4 middle aged women were outdoors dressed, in dark streets, and alleys....so they may well have been soliciting when they meet their killer. Being found indoors undressed with no client rendezvous doesnt make Mary similar in that respect at all.

Sam....the only guy I dont get rude with when you take shots at me.....I would think that one of the only ways that Mary could be attributed to this phantom fella... with some degree of certainty, without using wounds which are not conclusive evidence anyway... is if we could prove she met him while soliciting outdoors. Him coming in alone as a stranger doesnt quite fit the known facts, or the killer profile..and there is no reaction to this encounter that we know of...unless the "oh-murder" cry...and that is followed by silence. So...no stranger coming in and attacking as soon as he gains access to Mary.

The problem is...the only thing we have is silence and darkness for room 13 from 1:30 on. We know she didnt enter with Astrakan,....and that has her being killed when Mary Ann comes past the door anyway. She didnt go out with Blotchy apparently, as no-one saw or heard anything. She doesnt have wet clothing by the police reports, nor are there wet boot prints.

What we do know is that shortly after she was heard to have stopped singing, a witness passed her room from inside the same house, had cracks that showed light if present, and saw there was none...or noise. So the only hope you have is if she left before 1:30..and wasnt seen by Prater coming in, Mary Ann going out. Since that light and noise situation never alters until at least 3am...which is none of each,... you cannot suggest she came home before 3am, when Mary Ann makes her last past right by that door. There is no noise, light, or witness to support a claim she arrived home during that period.

So...even if she went out, she wasnt with Astrakan, because she isnt home before 3am...thats one down, granted...that has been down for 120 years now already...
so now the only record of a witness saying he saw her out after midnight is shelved, where is our next source that suggests she went out? Anyone? No? Well, maybe Carolines statement makes her going out possible, as Mrs Maxwell has a dead woman walking, talking and throwing up, ...but no-one that night saw anything coming or going to or from Marys room between 1:30 and 3am. Nor did they after that...only the sound of bootsteps in the court.

Best regards.

[Supe]

Tom,

Good point about perceived ages and it raises a couple others.

For one, we mustn't fall into the "modernist" trap, but instead we need to understand that what seemed as apparent age in the LVP East End was probably quite different from what we would think today.

Secondly, if the actual ages of females were so hard to guage, was that also true of males and thus what are we to make of the ages mentioned in "witness" statements?

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

...saying that street walkers were killed that fall so thats how she likely met her killer....that statement has absolutely no basis in any accredditted evidence that we we know of

Mike - we have no "accredited evidence" that Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Tabram, Smith, Coles and others in the Whitechapel series met their killer that way either. However, given that many of these were streetwalkers chances are that they met their assassins in precisely that way, yet we have not one witness who can attest to this.

Yet, do we really need witnesses in these cases, when it's a fair bet that these women's position in life made them vulnerable to such a fate? I shouldn't be surprised if precisely the same were true of most prostitute murders before or since. If so, then the slaying of a sleeping Mary Kelly by an intruder would be statistically, if not definitively, less likely than the usually-accepted scenario.

[Tom_Wescott]

Since Im only talking about the one murder of a "street" prostitute here, in her room, that never on record has had a client in it, not a determined victim of Jack the Ripper, the man who killed 4 street prostitute women in their 40's on the streets or in yards,.... Hanbury was not like Millers Court at all Caz, any fence offered a way out, Marys room had one exit to a court with one exit...

I see some serious progress here. You've acknowledged Liz Stride as a victim of Jack the Ripper. Once again, brazos to you.

Regarding the alleged age of the victims, we must think visually, since the Ripper likely didn't ask for their birth certs. This being the case, we have:

Polly Nichols - looked about 30
Annie Chapman - looked about 40
Liz Stride - looked about 28
Catherine Eddowes - seems to have looked her age
Mary Kelly - looked about 30

So, we have three women who looked about 30 and two who looked in their 40's. Mary ain't so special, she just happened to have her own room, that's all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I suppose I have been trying to convince some of you to review the evidence without making unsupportable pre-conditions, like Sam did, with due respect Sam, ...saying that street walkers were killed that fall so thats how she likely met her killer....that statement has absolutely no basis in any accredditted evidence that we we know of, regarding Marys Kelly's most likely whereabouts after midnight. The only conclusion one can make that could be supported is that she didnt go out, based on only what is known,.. trusted evidence.

I can see that the fascination here for many is to see who knows more about whom or what, or about finding out who Anderson dated in high school....or where Abberline is buried. Nothing wrong with that at all, just not why I read or post here. I post to see if ideas from sources other than the leading authorities might have perspectives that arent tainted by the desire for topical knowledge creds, or the fear of suggesting something that may be proven wrong.

Thats been my point all along....heres an idea, prove it wrong. If not, maybe theres something there. Yet Ive been lambasted without once proving my suggestion untenable.

There is no known data that disproves my suggestion, but only I seem interested in exploring an early theory that so far, does not have direct evidence that refutes it. Since Im only talking about the one murder of a "street" prostitute here, in her room, that never on record has had a client in it, not a determined victim of Jack the Ripper, the man who killed 4 street prostitute women in their 40's on the streets or in yards,.... Hanbury was not like Millers Court at all Caz, any fence offered a way out, Marys room had one exit to a court with one exit.....and one woman in her room in her twenties, the last victim, Mary Kelly....its easier for me to detach the Ripperalia legend added to the evidence... that might skew perceptions.

I really dont care too much for the periphery, or the opinions Im told Im must live with Caz, no offense intended towards you or anyone.

Regards.

[caz]

Perry, you're just not reading. This isn't about proving that any of your 'suggestions' cannot be true. It's about you not being able to support your claims that they are the only ones that can be true, or that they are any more likely to be true than other possibilities thrown up by the case evidence or lack thereof.

If you've given it your best shot, it isn't nearly enough. It remains firmly in the land of conjecture.

The facts are too few and far between to allow you or anyone else to reach the type of conclusions you attempt to reach here.

And it doesn't help to try and shove them down the throats of those with the same array of facts as you.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

its far from convincing data to base an "unseen trip outside" and "killed by a stranger met while street-walking" story on

She was a street-walker, and, as part of her job description, undoubtedly picked up strangers. No surprises there.

Also - as we've demonstrated - the "unseen trip outside" counts for little or nothing. If we remove that from the equation, we're left with "killed by a stranger she met while street-walking" - which is no more extraordinary, in Whitechapel terms, than that which had happened at least four times since August that very year.

[Sam Flynn]

We have witness records from the court off and on until 3am... There is no record of any trip outside from any credible source all night

"On and off" being the operative phrase - must I keep reminding you, Mike? I've pointed out time and time again that Cox was in and out twice, Prater and Lewis only once each, and yet you still seem to be under the impression that the surveillance on Kelly's room was as tight as the Waco siege. As Don pointed out, nobody noted Blotchy's departure - isn't that sufficient to render any argument that "Nobody saw Mary leave" practically useless?

That, coupled with the fact that Lewis wafted past a door only fleetingly, and Cox's room was tucked away down the bottom of Miller's Court well away from Kelly's windows, means that it's hardly surprising neither report any sound or light emanating from the room. And, if there was no light, that does not necessarily mean that Mary had snuffed out the candle (with her fingers, obviously - eh, Caz? ) and curled up in the blissful embrace of Lethe for the night.

Hi Perry,

Well thanks for once again failing to address my specific concerns about previous specific arguments you made. I'll remember that next time and just issue a blanket concern for your entire position being as wobbly as a very wobbly thing, that's so wobbly you are scared it will fall over if you stare too hard at the bricks you used to build it, let alone try to add any further clarification or justification for using them in the first place.

Love,

Caz
X

PS 'her killer came in after 3am'? After the time Hutch said he left, you mean? Was that tongue-in-cheek too, or is Hutch back in favour with you as an honest witness? Apologies for not getting all the nuances of language when you post.

Caz,....youre a nice person and you know a lot about Ripper cases. But I am not going to counter any and all of your and others objections using anything other than on-record data that was trusted, to formulate my opinion. I dont get paid well enough here to do that over and over again just because someone wants a run at me, so excuse the lack of point by point rebuttals. Im sure you arent paid well enough for that either.

So..my rebuttal is.... Read the details by all trusted witnesses, read the room details and her demeanor details, read about the room incidentals like missing key, weather reports for the night, police list of effects found....read opinions of Marys behaviors by close friends of hers...read all about the men in her life at that time and the love triangle that she was engaged in...at least triangle...read about wounds that were unlike Ripper injuries, but very much like those inflicted by people with romantic or relationship entanglements........and all the other side stuff, medical opinions, press coverage, Inquest data, rent arrears, money exchanges.............and without using a witness story that has already been discarded 120 years before you and I ever had this discussion....... tell me where is there any evidence of a trip, a client, or a loud attack on a stranger?

We have witness records from the court off and on until 3am.....thats the 3am part, nothing to do with Hutch, who if accurate, has Mary being killed while Mary Ann Cox comes in last. Yet Mary Ann noticed no light or heard no noise walking past the door......she noticed no light...that would be cast upon the 2 story white wall opposite Marys windows.

We have witness accounts of who was seen with her last and when. We know from witnesses she was drunk, and from medical examination, that she ate that night. We know she has been given money for arrears and not paid it down.....read McCarthys comments, so imminent eviction is not a real possibility here, she was not in fear...she is fed, happily drunk, has eaten and is home, while it rained hard outside. She is seen going in, and found inside 11 hours later dead, undressed in what may be nightclothes, and on her own bed. There is no record of any trip outside from any credible source all night, nor is there any record that at anytime between 1:30 and 3am, during which time Elizabeth saw from the stairs, Cox is in and out and in again, and Sarah arrives in the court, right past Marys door..no-one mentioned light or noise at all from Marys room, or the courtyard.. at all... during that time.

Its not a smoking gun, but its far from convincing data to base an "unseen trip outside" and "killed by a stranger met while street-walking" story on.


Cheery bye.

[caz]

I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the Ripper could have stayed with her for a while before killing her. But that does argue, to me, more than a casual punter. Because if a casual hung around after the business end of the evening was over, I think that would have puzzled Kelly. And a puzzled hooker is not so easy to take by surprise as a non-puzzled hooker!

Fair point, Chava, except that the ripper would not fit anyone's definition of a 'casual' punter, even if that's what Mary assumed him to be. But I tend to think she would have preferred to service the non-casual punter, if the opportunity knocked for her, and let him stay with her and do pretty much whatever he fancied for as long as he fancied it, if he appeared good for all her worldly needs in the immediate future. If she let Joe into her life and her bed, within a day of them being perfect strangers, would she have been puzzled - or pleased - if the ripper had settled himself down for the night and nuzzled up to her?

Maybe a non-casual ripper said casually: "Tonight, Mary Jane Kelly, opportunity knocks. And I mean that most sincerely". And Mary wanted it to be true so much that she let opportunity give her the rudest awakening of her life.

Love,

Caz
X