Did Mary know her attacker?

[Chava]

Hi Ben

It never ceases to fascinate me why there are no reports of Kelly prior to her 11:45 retirement. As you say where did Kelly consume her supper? More to the point where did she purchase it? Where did she and Blotchy drink that night? where did Blotchy purchase hais pail of ale? Surely someone noticed Kelly and Blotchy as the night progressed? Of course the inquest was finalised with such haste that the answer to those questions might just have been in the process of being corrolated. Were such records ever compiled? I think so. More to the point where are they now?

Observer

I like the poem!

I understand that drink can slow down the process of digestion. However if sleep slows down the process, then she was likely sleeping at some point during the night. Like perhaps when she was attacked!

I've also always thought it strange that no one saw Kelly that night except Cox. It's possible that the food was eaten in her room at the time Cox saw her. She could have crammed a chip or two in the old cakehole in between bellowing stanzas of her song. She may have been the one carrying the fish and chips while Blotchy carried the pail of beer, and Blotchy may have been the one who actually went into the chippy to buy the food, so no one would have seen her in there with him. However she'd clearly been drinking ahead of going home with Blotchy, so had been in a pub somewhere.

I wish we could at least agree to disagree on the possibility of Kelly being killed by someone she knew. Just as I wish we could agree to disagree on the possibility of her not being a Ripper victim. The evidence suggests that she could have been, and maybe she was, but it's far from being conclusive. Apart from any other consideration, the Ripper was clearly interested in taking female internal genital organs as trophies. He does this twice. In Eddowes he takes a kidney as well, but he makes sure he gets the uterus. Kelly's uterus has been removed, but it's on site. Her heart is apparently missing. If her heart was missing along with everything else, I'd say 'OK, Ripper victim'. But it isn't. So while we all hold opinions as to Kelly's killer. I don't think any of us can say categorically that she was killed by the Ripper. There's evidence for that, and evidence against it.

[Observer]

Hi Ben

It never ceases to fascinate me why there are no reports of Kelly prior to her 11:45 retirement. As you say where did Kelly consume her supper? More to the point where did she purchase it? Where did she and Blotchy drink that night? where did Blotchy purchase hais pail of ale? Surely someone noticed Kelly and Blotchy as the night progressed? Of course the inquest was finalised with such haste that the answer to those questions might just have been in the process of being corrolated. Were such records ever compiled? I think so. More to the point where are they now?

Observer

[Dan Norder]

The idea that the Ripper knew Kelly and/or broke into her room is not new. It is certainly plausible, but it is far away from being the most likely option based upon both the direct evidence in this case and the general evidence of how prostitutes work in the real world as compared to how they do things in some artificially constructed argument for the purposes of wasting time on a message board.

The evidence clearly shows she did take at least one strange man to her room that night, perhaps two. Arguing that there is no evidence she entertained clients in her room is nothing but sheer stubborn and purposeful ignorance of both the case evidence and the history of prostitutes both in general and in the area. Kitty Ronan, for example, lived in a neighboring room and can be proven to have taken a client home instead of entertaining him in an alleyway somewhere... and she was killed for it also. To argue that Kelly for some reason would not do such a thing is, frankly, pretty idiotic.

"Perrymason" just jumped to a rather implausible idea -- that Kelly was different and killed by someone else -- and now is willy nilly trying to cook the evidence to support that conclusion. In the process he's falsely claiming that everyone else is ignoring the evidence despite it being made clear that the exact opposite is the case.

[Observer]

Hi again

On a serious note though.

Wind swept rainy November night, no Ripper murders for 6 weeks, the harlots of Whitechapel go about their buisiness with renewed vigor, do they care a jot about the time? I think not. However, Kelly could have ventured out unnoticed after 11:45 a.m. , missing Prater, and Cox by split seconds. It is possible.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi again

On a serious note though.

Wind swept rainy November night, no Ripper murders for 6 weeks, the harlots of Whitechapel go about their buisiness with renewed vigor, do they care a jot about the time? I think not. However, Kelly could have ventured out unnoticed after 11:45 a.m. , missing Prater, and Cox by split seconds. It is possible.

Observer

[Ben]

11:30pm is about right for Kelly's supper, in which case she probably ate it (in a pub?) before arriving home with Blotchy. Sleep and booze slow down the digestive process.

[Observer]

Hi Perry

Speaking of tigers my great great great grandfather was the inspiration for Blake's poem Tiger Tiger Burning Bright, he was an amatuer poet with a fascination of all things oriental, his original poem (which Blake nicked from him) began.

Tiger Tiger burning bright

In the forests of the night

Stalking prey on your endless journey

Did you eat a chap named Ernie.

I am not telling porkies, this is the absolute truth........hic

Observer

[jason_c]

"We know Mary Kelly lived with Joe Barnett up until Oct 30th? We know he objected to her "street work". Julia Vanturney was interviewed and stated seeing Mary with Joe Barnett, and mentioning another one she was seeing, but made no mention of Mary ever bringing strangers in. Nor did Mary Ann Cox offer that information, nor did Elizabeth Prater. Since Joe has been gone just over a week, and we can only account for her whereabouts some of that time approximately, she only had potentially 7 nights to start bringing men in. Something that had occurred that recently, a change in behaviour, would have been noticed by Julia, Mary Ann, or Maria...who spent much of that time with Mary...including a few of those nights she was alone.

So....if you are right and she suddenly started, your payout would be much better due to the long odds going in."



Perrymason

Firstly, i hope you dont think im picking into you. But we have Cox seeing Kelly with Blotchy face. As far as we can tell this man was a stranger to Cox. She doesnt mention being surprised that Kelly brought a stranger home, a drunken stranger at that. No surprise from Cox that a drunken Kelly brings a man back to her room so late at night.

[Chava]

Paul Emmett says:

Second, I agree with Caz that the assumption that JTR has to jump on his victim immediately is almost becoming part of the legend. So I'm glad it was spoken against.

But this ain't the Prince of Wales's Debutante Ball. The object of the exercise is to get laid (from the trick's point of view) and to get paid (from the hooker's point of view). The trick wants to get in, get on, get out. The hooker wants to get to her next tot of gin--or possibly to her bed at the doss-house. And the longer she makes polite conversation, the less her prospects of earning more money, and she has to keep that assembly-line moving in order to survive. So I don't think either party to this transaction would normally spend a bunch of time making conversation. They would find a reasonable place, use it and move on. A trick who wants to chat a while might arouse suspicion. A trick who wants to buy the hooker a drink would be welcome, and it's possible that the Ripper did this. However I'm certain that as soon as he could, he got her into the situation he wanted and he killed her. I very much doubt he spent time chatting up Polly Nicholls in Buck's Row or Annie Chapman in Hanbury St. Kelly was killed on her bed. So it's possible she picked up a guy who put her to sleep while he blathered on and then made his move, but I doubt it.

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.

The thing is that I believe she must have gone out at some point after Blotchy Face, because she definitely ate a fish supper and it's likely, given that some was undigested in her stomach, that she ate it after 11.30 or so, which is when she might have eaten it with BF. Now it's true that someone could have brought her that fish supper. But that would be someone she knew, wouldn't it? In fact I don't have any problem with her going out after Blotchy Face leaves, and I think it's highly likely that she did. If she earned any money with BF or any other trick, then she may well have spent it on food. We know Cox is still tricking until 3.00 am, so Kelly may have expected to work that long as well. We don't know her exact time of death, so it's possible that she was out working and came home a little after Cox did. As has been noted, there are all kinds of variables here, but one hard fact, and that is that she was killed in her nightgown/underchemise lying on the bed and very possibly was attacked while she slept. In which case I believe she was done working for the night and had gone to bed just as Cox and Prater had done.

[Doctor X]

Probably because the conclusions of a responsible researcher prove only as certain as his evidence and analysis of his evidence.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

Since Im not exactly Making Friends and Influencing People with my explanation of commitment to one premise rather than straddling a fence, Ill try once more using something I know better than JTR details, and I hope you'll understand better.

Tiger Woods is 150 yards from the pin. As far as distance to carry, that would be a routine, 3/4 swing 9 Iron for him. So does Tiger Woods take out a 9 Iron every time he is 150 yards from the pin? Of course not. It depends on many factors, all which have to be considered...including what we know of his skills, and important criteria such as weather. He may hit anywhere from a 4 iron to a sand wedge depending on the adversity.

But make no mistake, Tiger does eventually have to select a single club to make the shot. He cannot stand on the tee muttering to himself forever...."the 6 iron could also accomplish the shot, well...so could the seven I guess, but so could the 8 if I hit it easy...or maybe a soft seven...too short for a five iron?

He weighs the obstacles, weighs his objectives, assess as much ambient data as possible, and commits.

I think the answer of " well, we cant say that for sure, although it does certainly appear that way on paper" is insufficient. At some point you could have all the information that you could possibly have that survived about Mary Kellys death. Its feasible. Read everything.

Once you have as much info as youre gonna get, time to assess it, "I see that it should be yes, but Ill say No because thats what we have believed for 120 years" doesnt work anymore. And some people here have likely crossed that barrier of read almost all there is to read. Not me, far from it. But I never said I should be making these suggestions to pursue....its been about the scholars, the scribes who are among us and give us the details we have about these cases.

I think many would be appreciated more if they explored lines of thought rather than encourage the pat Ripperologist answer to all questions Ripper..."It may appear that way, but we cant say for sure".

These women have been dead a long time, we cant help them or anyone else, we cant even prosecute a killer if we did figure it out....so, for god sakes, make a stand once in a while. Afraid of damaging a reputation? And Im not saying accuse anyone........dear Lord, that has clearly been done far too easily and often, and there is yet to be produced one viable man and motive. In todays world we'd have litigation flying everywhere using living peoples names the way we do dead peoples.

I can say for myself that I respect the envelope pushers more than the envelope lickers.

Despite protests like "these may or may not have been murders"....there are answers. Not twenty...or endless amounts as people claim, there is actually one answer that is complete. If someone said to me lets look at this angle, Id say saddle up. lets check er.

I suppose I cant inflict that spirit on anyone, so Ill leave it alone.

Best regards all.

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

1.05 approx Cox goes out again.

1.06 approx Kelly goes out again.

1.07 approx Prater returns to her room and all is quiet. Prater stands on the corner for 20 minutes and doesn't see or hear Kelly.

This is the bit I have trouble with; the notion that Prater and Cox both missed Kelly, despite the virtually non-existent interval of time that elapsed between Prater arriving and Cox heading out, and despite the fact they both gave 1.00am as the time (which was easily recorded courtesy of Christ Church's hourly chime). It also seems doubtful, to me at least, that Kelly's return with Astrakhan (or equivelent 2:10 client) would have pased unnoticed by her neighbours, particularly in light of her earlier antics with Blotchy which weren't exactly quiet.

I can't rule out the possibilty that Kelly ventured out again after 3.00am, for example (there are very few possibilities that can be ruled out viz z viz Kelly's movements that night), but I have an easier time buying into the notion that she stayed put after 1.00am for reasons discussed ad neaseam.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

11.45 pm approx Kelly takes Blotchy Face into her room and 'has a song'. Cox still hears her singing as she goes out again.

or, 12:15 Blotchy is a man from the Court who is friendly with Kelly. She shares his beer, and then tells him to get out as she has to get to work.

12:30: Kelly does a customer up against a gate somewhere.

12:50: Kelly returns and starts singing

The possibilities are endless, and I think Blotchy may have been a denizen of the Court, but not necessarily the murderer. Yet, any thought is about as plausible as the next.

Cheers,

Mike

[Chava]

You make a few good points there Michael.

However here's the thing. Cox puts Kelly in her room at roughly 11.45 pm with Blotchy Face. She's singing. Cox goes out and comes back in at around 1.00 am. Kelly is singing again. It's entirely possible that Kelly has also gone out and come back in, and is singing to herself as she warms up beside her fire, just as Cox is doing. Then she stops singing and goes out. Don't forget that Prater testifies that she comes back to her own room at 1.00 am and then stands on the corner for 20 minutes. She says all was dark and she heard no noise. So here is a possible timeline:

11.45 pm approx Kelly takes Blotchy Face into her room and 'has a song'. Cox still hears her singing as she goes out again.

1.00 am approx Mary Ann Cox returns to her own room and hears Kelly singing again.

1.05 approx Cox goes out again.

1.06 approx Kelly goes out again.

1.07 approx Prater returns to her room and all is quiet. Prater stands on the corner for 20 minutes and doesn't see or hear Kelly.

1.30 am approx Prater goes to bed and sleeps soundly.

Kelly is now out and goes off to get herself a fish supper. She eats it, and then commences to walk the streets looking for a trick.

2.00 am approx Kelly sees and propositions Hutchinson

2.05 am Kelly meets and propositions Mr Astrakhan

2.10 am Kelly and Mr A go back to Kelly's room in Millers Court.

Between then and and 3.00 am Mr A kills Kelly and mutilates her corpse. He then makes himself scarce. The room is now dark and Kelly is dead.

3.00 am approx Cox returns and goes to bed although she really doesn't sleep much. Kelly's room is dark.

Now I'm not a Hutchinson believer. Nor am I a believer in Kelly as a Ripper victim, at least he may have killed her, but not for Ripperish reasons. I do think she knew her attacker. However I cannot ignore the very distinct possibility that, based on the inquest evidence etc, Kelly went out again after Cox heard her singing to Blotchy Face. There's nothing here that contradicts that.

[paul emmett]

Hello, all.

I'd just like to make two observations that relate at least indirectly here.

First, Prater isn't the best witness for lights out at 1:30. She says at at the inqest, "I might not have noticed[a light]. I didn't take particular notice."

Second, I agree with Caz that the assumption that JTR has to jump on his victim immediately is almost becoming part of the legend. So I'm glad it was spoken against. But there's another Urban Legend that most seem to buy into--namely, that JTR just went wherever the prospective victim led him. What proof is there of that? How do we know that he didn't check out the areas ahead of time so he could lead the victim to his turf? Goes where he wants to go.