Did Mary know her attacker?

[perrymason]

Hello again,

Im really tired of comments like "thats ridiculous" when countering a point made, instead of showing where an error was made using evidence and documentation.

Ok Sox, you issued the challenge...using only what we know that is documented, name one other Canonical Victim that has the potential for some pre-existing knowledge of killer and victim, prior to their death....implicit in the evidence gathered.

Prove what I said was incorrect.

Here, Ill even give you the list;

Mary Ann Nichols
Annie Chapman
Liz Stride
Kate Eddowes

Now, which one is it that you contend has the real possibility the killer may have known his victim presented in the murder investigation evidence gathered? Mary Ann? Since we have no witnesses, and she was killed outdoors, away from her accommodations, there is no evidence to suggest she was anything other than a random selection by her killer. Annie? It appears she took a client to where whores took clients, and she dies in a strangers backyard, nothing in that to suggest the killer may have known her,... Liz....she is seen assaulted just before she dies, by someone she did not refer to by name, or act friendly towards, and he is by far the most likely killer of her by proximity and timing,... so, no indication that she knew him at all,... and Kate was killed in the City, where she likely had few friends, in a public square...again, not one shred of evidence to even suggest that she met her demise by anyone other than a possible client or stranger.

All 4 above were away from their usual residences, and likely working selling themselves on public streets and in private back yards.

Mary Kelly however, it appears, was at home alone very likely sleeping when her killer comes to her room. He may have come by chance, sure..... but on paper, it is very possible that the killer knew Mary Kelly, and where she lived...because he very likely comes to her room alone.

Point being Sox, you can effectively rule out the probability of personal attachments in all the prior victims with their killers. There is nothing in known evidence to suggest it. In the case of Mary Kelly, it is right there smacking you in the face. Mary died undressed, in her own room, and her killer very probably came directly to her room by himself. Thats the known facts. If you dont agree that scenario allows for a "known" killer of Mary, then you are most definitely incorrect.

I think its important that the concept of what unsolved murders are isn't discarded....there is no proof a "Jack the Ripper" or any one man man killed the "Canonicals"...they are a group of unsolved murders that investigators linked, not the evidence,....as the "evidence" in most cases is only a review of the wounds for similarity.

My best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Mary died undressed, in her own room, and her killer very probably came directly to her room by himself. Thats the known facts.

Avast there, me old mucker! The known fact is that Kelly was found partially undressed in her own room, and if the killer "very probably came directly to her room by himself" it is certainly not among the known facts.

[paul emmett]

Michael, I have already tried to answer this in part, but you never responded. Eddowes was thought to be meeting someone in MSquare, and the women all seemed to buy into JTR; they let their guards down to the point that I feel they knew him.

And besides, don't you yourself believe that Stride knew her killer? And then there's the old tournabout: show me they didn't know him.

Hope all is well. See you on the Maxwell thread after dinner.

Paul

[perrymason]

Hi Gareth,

It certainly is if she never went out again after midnight though....something however distasteful to you, we cannot rule out using surviving documents and time-trusted statements on record.

Its is the crux here gents, and Im afraid that I can only win if the records are complete, or in this case, lacking anything contrary.. on the matter of Kellys status in her room for the balance of the evening, and you can only win if they are not complete, using a discredited witness, and a trip out and back at least once was unseen by all the people who gave trusted statements.

Mary Ann Cox was trusted...her Blotchy Man becomes the primary suspect by Nov 16th...Sarah was trusted, her Wideawake Man may have helped spark a Pardon issuance within 24 hours, Elizabeth Prater is trusted apparently, since the key point of her testimony is not the "cat waking" but the status of Marys room when she ascends the stairs for bed, ...George Hutchinson was not trusted to have given an accurate suspect description, and due to its flowery embellishments, its impossible to believe it was accidental, and Caroline Maxwell was considered incorrect before taking the stand, she countered all accepted evidence about the corpse.

So..........it appears, by the records, that Mary may well have stayed in with her full belly and polluted liver, and secured roof... and been in the dark in her room since 1:30am.

On paper its the most probable answer. And that leaves a man knowing her, and her room, and maybe how to use the window/latch method, firmly on the table.

My best regards Sam.

[perrymason]

If the 3:45ish faintish cry heard by Sarah dozing on the Keylers chair, and Elizabeth Prater, somewhere above Mary, thought to have come from the court...was from Marys room, I think you have to mark that as either her arrival home, or her greeting the person who arrived at her door. It is clearly not the attack commencement as some have suggested, there is no further noise heard, by someone listening for further noise, in the same house.

So, you either have Mary arriving, after she supposedly had already with Astrakan, or Mary being in the room alone... greeting someone she then lets in.

My best.

[Tron]

So..........it appears, by the records, that Mary may well have stayed in with her full belly and polluted liver, and secured roof... and been in the dark in her room since 1:30am.

On paper its the most probable answer. And that leaves a man knowing her, and her room, and maybe how to use the window/latch method, firmly on the table.

Like I mentioned before, a big problem is that we don't know when she had dinner and with whom. I fear you are also a bit quick to assess witness statements.

The last point is somewhat true. While I favor the theory of an intimate partner homicide, I also see the possibility that she was known in the area and so might have been her address. In essence we have absolutely nothing that proves whether she knew her killer or not, at least so far i have not seen any concrete evidence.

[perrymason]

Michael, I have already tried to answer this in part, but you never responded. Eddowes was thought to be meeting someone in MSquare, and the women all seemed to buy into JTR; they let their guards down to the point that I feel they knew him.

And besides, don't you yourself believe that Stride knew her killer? And then there's the old tournabout: show me they didn't know him.

Hope all is well. See you on the Maxwell thread after dinner.

Paul

Hi Paul,

Well, I wont argue that the police had a theory that Kate may have had a pre-arranged meeting, but I will argue that they had any proof on which to base that suggestion, or anything we have been made aware of more exactly. Liz is almost certainly killed by Broadshouldered Man, and no, I dont think she knew him, or that he was Kidney for example. There is no reason to suggest that.

My personal opinion on these ladies is irrelevant, I cant prove what I believe is the case with Kates killing, or Marys or Liz's....but I think there is evidence present that they are not necessarily as they were categorized....Ripper victims.

In the case of the most dramatic killing, I believe it is poor investigative work to state that she didnt know her killer...as we fairly safely can with the others, because the evidence on record clearly suggests her killer perhaps came to her room.

Sorry if I missed responding to something before Paul, best regards.

[Chava]

Sox: Polly Nicholls had been shown to be working as a prostitute in 1882 when her husband discontinued his payments to her. For the next few years she lives from workhouse to workhouse and spends some time with her father who testifies that she was a hopeless alcoholic. In May of 1888 she goes from Lambeth Workhouse to work at a local family's as a domestic. She lasts 2 months and leaves. Taking with some clothes she has nicked from the family. She then lives in doss-houses and there is no suggestion that she did any kind of 'honest' labour. She supported herself, or rather she supported her drink habit by prostitution. On the night she died she boasted of having had her doss-money 3 times and having spent it. She was heading out to earn some more for her bed that night and it's clear her intention was to earn it by hooking.

Annie Chapman did try and earn money by selling flowers and trinkets such as keychains. However she was an habitual drunkard and she was known to have prostituted herself on occasion. She had a series of relationships with men but they did not seem to be able to keep her. On the night she died she left the doss-house to earn some money to pay for her bed. It's clear she intended to do this by prostituting herself.

Liz Stride did a variety of things to keep body and soul together. She was a drunk and also a part-time prostitute. She had earned some money cleaning on the day she died. But that night she went out again, and it's very likely she was hooking.

Catherine Eddowes was a drunk whose adult daughter moved around South London to avoid her and her mooching ways. She did a number of odd-jobs and had gone out hop-picking. Her family strenuously denies the charge that she was on the game, and she may not have been a hooker in the way the others were. It's entirely possible that the Ripper picked her up as she left the cop shop in Bishopsgate and offered to buy her a drink. There is no proof either way with Eddowes so I'll leave it at that.

However 3 out of 4 ain't bad. And even if Nicholls, Chapman and Stride worked their fingers to the bone cleaning and stitching and carrying, on the nights they died, they were hooking. So their previous employment isn't in my opinion relevant. And please note I'm not judging them for what they were and I absolutely don't think they deserved anything of what they got.

Kelly, however, as you've noted, was a common prostitute, and there is no record of her ever doing anything else.

[perrymason]

Hi Tron,

But we can deduce something about her dinner, although Ill leave that to my good friend and Digestive Consultant Sam Flynn to address...once again eh Sam...we know when in proximity to her death her meal was eaten, and approx what time that may have been.

And please dont miss my point here, Im not saying there is proof that she knew her attacker, I am saying it cannot be ruled out...as it effectively can be in all 4 prior Canonicals, using only known data. Or.... there is no evidence to suggest it in the 4 priors.

My best regards.

[perrymason]

Chava,

The last afternoon Mary was alive she spent in her room with Maria Harvey. Maria took laundry in to make money, as well as prostituting. Maria gave Mary some money that same day. There were folded clothes, the laundry taken in by Maria, found in that room.

Underneath Marys bed is a wash tub. Outside her room there is a Pump.

I think we have evidence that like Liz, Mary earned some money not prostituting her last day on earth.

My best regards.

[Supe]

Michael,

I think we have evidence that like Liz, Mary earned some money not prostituting her last day on earth.

No we don't. Your notions of "evidence" are strange to say the least.

Don.

[paul emmett]

Chava,

The last afternoon Mary was alive she spent in her room with Maria Harvey. Maria took laundry in to make money, as well as prostituting. Maria gave Mary some money that same day. There were folded clothes, the laundry taken in by Maria, found in that room.

Underneath Marys bed is a wash tub. Outside her room there is a Pump.

I think we have evidence that like Liz, Mary earned some money not prostituting her last day on earth.

My best regards.

Hello, Michael. First of all, I'd ask what is at stake here. MJK wasn't a full time prostitute? Seems like a lot of her life is caught up in it. I've never heard the Maria gave Mary some money line--nor the fact that the folded clothes were taken in by Maria. Weren't they Kelly's?

Back a post or two, the asserted proof for CE meeting somebody in Mitre Square was that they checked couples, and did not find Eddowes with anyone. Also, you can't say, "IF the cry of 'oh Murder' was coming from MJK's room, then . . .." cuz not only do you lead into a kind of either/or fallacy, you dodge the possibility that it never came from there at all.

Good evening.

[Tron]

Hi Tron,

But we can deduce something about her dinner, although Ill leave that to my good friend and Digestive Consultant Sam Flynn to address...once again eh Sam...we know when in proximity to her death her meal was eaten, and approx what time that may have been.

That would be very interesting since I failed trying to accurately calculate her time of death relative to having her last meal. At best we (ok, maybe just me) can approximate but not accurately. Then of course there are no witnesses and there is Mrs Maxwell who believes to have seen her in the morning which is entirely possible according to my (poor) calculations.

And please dont miss my point here, Im not saying there is proof that she knew her attacker, I am saying it cannot be ruled out...as it effectively can be in all 4 prior Canonicals, using only known data. Or.... there is no evidence to suggest it in the 4 priors.

Of course you cannot rule it out that she knew the perpetrator (statistically it is very likely) but there is no evidence either way. It is unclear when it comes to the prior victims whether they did know the killer or not (I would even wager they were not all victims of the same killer). In this case it seems there is bias since she was murdered in her room and the prevalent assumption is that only somebody who has known her would know where to find her. Yet, it is possible somebody followed her from drinking/dinner and waited in the vicinity until it was safe to make his or her move. There is no data for that time frame so anything short of an alien abduction gone wrong is within the realms of possibility.

[Chava]

Perry, I've don't regard the fact that there was a pump outside Kelly's room and a washbasin under her bed as proof that she took in washing. For a start, where was she going to hang it to dry? I don't see any record of a washing line in her room and there was certainly no room for one in Millers Court. Chances are that the washbasin was one she washed herself in, and she'd be pleased the pump was right outside the door so she didn't have to schlep the water for her ablutions too far.

In any case, as I've said before, she was hooking on the night she died along with (probably) all the other victims.

[Sox]

Michael,

I think we have evidence that like Liz, Mary earned some money not prostituting her last day on earth.

No we don't. Your notions of "evidence" are strange to say the least.

Don.

We agree on something.

Point being Sox, you can effectively rule out the probability of personal attachments in all the prior victims with their killers. There is nothing in known evidence to suggest it. In the case of Mary Kelly, it is right there smacking you in the face. Mary died undressed, in her own room, and her killer very probably came directly to her room by himself. Thats the known facts. If you dont agree that scenario allows for a "known" killer of Mary, then you are most definitely incorrect.

So, we go from 'very probably' to 'known facts' and you cannot see why I have a problem with this??? These 'known facts' are known facts to exactly one person - you. There is no evidence, anywhere, that Mary Kelly knew her killer, none.

I cannot rule out personal attatchements in all the prior victims, and neither can anyone else! For all we know, the killer could very well have previously had sex with every single one of the victims. Now she's a washerwoman according to you!

Kelly could have known her killer yes, but there is nothing to suggest this is so. She was killed in her own room, half undressed, because she was a prostitute, and Victorian prostitutes undressed to their chemise before sex. Kelly was almost certainly a different kind of prostitute than the others, do some research for yourself and see. I have no idea why you try to make this woman out to be something she was not, or why you try to turn her death into something it was not.

She died in her room because that is where she worked.Some evidence with previous victims suggests that the victims themselves chose the location.

She died, half undressed, because that is how her particular class worked.

The only real mystery here, is who killed her.

I have read every single part of the official files over and over again Michael, and at no point do police seriously consider that Kellys killer was a personal aquaintance or lover. There is not one single scrap of hard evidence that any of the victims knew their killer. What we do have is over a hundred years of supposition and opinion, that is NOT evidence.