Did Mary know her attacker?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

"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.

[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

[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?

[anna]

Hi all, also seems to me,that the women Sam mentions would know what direction to listen in to suss when Kelly was in or out,maybe to borrow something have a drink or a chat.So how come they arn't sure if noses come from the area of Kelly's room.Prater is directly above Kelly,and very close if you take into considertion the height of Kellys room.Maybe they all knew more than they admit to,and either knew who it was but were too afraid to say,or didn't want to get involved.

[Ben]

Fair point, Gareth, although I can well envisage the "irregularity" aspect being somewhat exaggerated by relatives wishing to convey a favourable impression of their spouse, sister, mother etc. I've no doubt that a few, if not all of them, had a semi-regular clientele.

[NOV9]

Presumably to kill her, I would imagine.

Just like he did with his other victims.

And you would imagine correctly, but why would Jack leave his safe zone?

The argument is that a Killers such as Jack was a very cautious person, that is why he never got caught.

Walking with Mary to her place and sitting up all night while she sang her song, does not make sense, he was not out for a night of entertainment, other than a quick kill and an organ removal then he was on his way.

Organized killers such as Jack would not risk unnecessary chances.

I understand that killers do advance, and change methods, or weapons, but only if they cause problems with their fantasy.

just to kill Mary you say, but not at the risk of getting caught. All interviewed killers agree getting caught was not part of their agenda.

[Chava]

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.
__________________

Sam, we've had words about this before, but I don't think you can conclude from what was said that the poster was taking Sunset Blvd or whatever as a model for what went on in Whitechapel. You chided me in similar language earlier and suggested I shouldn't relate my cosy 21st century experience to what went on then. You have no basis to say such a thing, and what Ben suggested is a common-enough event in the history of serial killers of prostitutes. Sutcliffe was hiring prostitutes the whole time he was killing, and using them as a normal trick uses a hooker. Of course Sutcliffe was prowling the notoriously sexy and high-end stroll around the back streets of Bradford. Where the tarts all look like models and you can count the 500 series Mercedes in the dozens.

Not.

Green River hired and used prostitutes normally during the series. Robert Pickton did. A lot of them did. So there's nothing wrong with suggesting that the Ripper did. And if he did, he may have hired Kelly. At least one of Sutcliffe's victims knew him as a trick beforehand I think. I'd back that up if I could find the box with the relevant books in!

Whitechapel was a slum. But so what? Until a few years ago, Notting Hill and North Kensington were slums. I grew uo in Newcastle about a mile and a half from some of the worst slums in Britain and I remember them very well. Yes, we're talking about the 19th Century, and people lived in a very degraded way, but that degradation or a very close approximation to it exists today in many First World cities. So let's not have the 'don't compare...' argument shall we? Let's assume that some posters, in fact most posters, are a bit more sophisticated than you might think.

And by the way, let's not think of Kelly as an 'irregular' or part-time prostitute. By her own admission she'd been on the game since she was 16 years old.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

I've no doubt that a few, if not all of them, had a semi-regular clientele.

Well there was the likes of Ted Stanley, I suppose, but he seems to have been more of a "boyfriend" than a punter - and some "boyfriend" he was! However, there's no escaping the fact that the type of casual prostitute we're talking about were dirty, alcoholic, middle-aged wrecks. Not to put too fine a point on it - apart from Mary Kelly (perhaps), can you seriously believe that many men came back for more?

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, we've had words about this before, but I don't think you can conclude from what was said that the poster was taking Sunset Blvd or whatever as a model for what went on in Whitechapel. You chided me in similar language earlier and suggested I shouldn't relate my cosy 21st century experience to what went on then. You have no basis to say such a thing

My intention is not to chide, Chava - I try to make reasonable, and reasoned, points wherever possible. I also try not to shoot from the hip without giving a topic some thought beforehand.

In this instance we're talking about debauched, world-weary Annies and Pollys offering offering themselves in drunkenness and desperation to men probably as drunk and desperate as themselves, and lucky to nab a couple of punters per night to pay for a roof over their heads or their next glass of gin.

There may have been places in the West of London where more "modern" models of prostitution had been adopted, where regular punters may have turned up to find their favourite girl. However, we can't easily equate such clientele with the transient, low-class "tricks", who grunted and sweated between the thighs of the gin-soaked guttersnipes of Spitalfields for a few pennies a throw.

This contrasts markedly with the Shawcross/Sutcliffe sort of scenario, where the LaShaynas and Desirees of this world are driven to Lovers' Lanes by men with plenty of cash to burn. Sure, some have their drug habits and families to feed, but few if any are forced to rely on a cheap tumble simply to secure a bed for the night.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth

However, there's no escaping the fact that the type of casual prostitute we're talking about were dirty, alcoholic, middle-aged wrecks. Not to put too fine a point on it - apart from Mary Kelly (perhaps), can you seriously believe that many men came back for more?

If the regular clientele were pretty dirty and alcoholic themselves, then yes! Seriously though, I don't see any problem with the notion that most of the prostitutes (both regular and semi-regular) may have been mildly acqauinted with a few of their regular punters. Obviously, if you're younger and attractive and patrol Sunset Boulevard, you're likely to receive a better class of "puntership". In the same vein, if you're a dirty prostitute in Slumsville, most of your takers are also likely to be dirty and from Slumsville.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chava]

Sam I think you'll find that any number of Sutcliffe's victims were in similar situations to the Ripper's women. Admittedly, most of them had a roof over their head, but at least two of them were living in hostels and had lived rough. Some of the women he killed had pretensions to glamour and probably cost a fair amount to hire. But others, notably his first victim whose name escapes me, and the woman known as 'Scottish Jean' were on the lowest level of street prostitution. I know that there are escort agencies out there and clubs where men might meet attractive hookers--the equivalents of Kelly's West End House. But there are also plenty of older women working in degrading circumstances for pennies in order to feed drug habits etc. Anyone following the Robert Pickton trial in BC recently would have had their fill of listening to the lives that some of the Pickton victims lived. They were squalid, desperate women living on the very outer fringes of society. Much like Nicholls, Chapman etc. The only difference is that those women tended to do it because they were addicted to drink whereas these women do it because they're addicted to drugs. I doubt there is much qualitative difference between living in a doss-house in Whitechapel in the 1880s and a flop house on Vancouver's Downtown East right now. It saddens me to say this, because I'd love to think we'd progressed enough as a society to make this kind of living obsolete. But we haven't and it isn't. And these are the women who the Ripper and his descendants prey on.