Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Mary know her attacker?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hello all,

    I would think Mary knew Mary Ann Cox, and what she did for a living....and likewise Mary Ann of Mary. Mary Kelly said "goodnight" to Mary Ann Cox before midnight....when its quite possible that in the life of a normal street whore, they might see each other out working at all hours of the night, long after midnight. It may indicate that she didnt think she'd be running into Mary Ann later on, because she was intending to stay in.

    Not a smoking gun by any means, but it can be added to the circumstantial pile that says Mary didnt go out again.

    In which case...thanks Paul,...(although you hedged you bet quite a bit, as if you were backing a known madman )... the possibility she knew her attacker is among the two answers as to how he came to Millers Court to kill Mary Kelly...IF she didnt go out, he came in by chance or he knew who he was looking for.

    That may not address whether Mary knew him at all....but it does aid that arguments possibilities.

    So...you have a killer that may have entered the court looking for Mary Kelly specifically, or someone who randomly accesses her room. There is also a known man in the guise of Blotchy Face...a 50-50 shot for the previous point though. You have Mary Kelly bidding her neighbor good night, which implies Mary Kelly did not think she would see Mary Ann again that night, you have all court based witness testify that during the course of the evening, and their passes by Marys room, it remained dark and quiet after 1:30am, ...and you have some specific wounds and circumstances, among which is the killer locking the door, that would lead one to conclude that it cannot be ruled out that Mary Kelly may have known her killer.

    This issue is not about one witnesses account, or all of them, its also about the circumstantial factors, and many indicate that her killer may have at least known where her room was...something that only court residents or Marys closest friends would likely know about.

    This woman was reported to have been scared by the Ripper press that Barnett read to her....Elizabeth Prater puts furniture against her door inside the house, so the likelihood that at this time in history, street prostitutes would readily divulge the location of their room, or start bringing strange men into her home, is far less than may have normally been the case.

    Why would you accept that Mary starts bringing men into her room when Jack the Ripper is still at large, and with his last kill, showed he can kill anywhere he likes...even twice a night. That room is the only sanctuary Mary has....just like many of her kind probably. The ones lucky enough to have landlords that wont toss them for rent arrears, or even have a room in their own name.

    So.....it would seem, based on Marys fears, the fact the killer is still at large, and Marys known habits up until November 1st, her bringing strange men to her room seems unlikely, and as we can see, the only man aside from her beaus that have been in Marys room since Barnett left is someone she sings to, for over an hour...off an on.

    I think she entertained Blotchy while they ate the food Blotchy got for them on the way to Marys. Mary Ann Cox, from her vantage point, may well have missed a bulge in the coat pocket of Blotchy, or he could have had some fish chowder, with potatoes, in his mug. How Mary Ann missed the food isnt important, what is is the nature of that room visit...by all appearances, a friendly visit, is.

    If Blotchy never leaves. he likely kills Mary. Known man. If Blotchy leaves and Mary goes out, bringing home Astrakan...it is the first "customer" that we know of, and still might be just someone Mary knows. If Blotchy leaves, and Mary doesnt go out, then someone either finds her room by accident, or on purpose. 50-50, Known Man.Someone knowing where her room was should be someone she knows..as we have shown earlier.

    I cant think of any more ways to illustrate that we have ample reasons to include a man known to Mary as her possible killer. It cannot be ruled out....using what we know, and if she never left that room after midnight.

    Ok...Thats it...enough energy expended on this lone subject...I'm sure much to the relief of many here, but if I cant make anyone see the reality above, then its probably my weak explanation, rather than anyones inability to see the logic contained within.

    My best regards all...
    Last edited by Guest; 03-04-2008, 07:05 PM.

    Comment


    • She had been in the locked room for a while and had no doubt attracted flies and so on to her mildly decomposing flesh. The smell of burned clothes and melted metal from the kettle would also have been there. The general smell of day to day living in a place with lots of people crammed in to a small area without air fresheners or deodorant.
      Nobody is going to have a gentle sniff and say 'Hmm. Cod.'
      Roll up the lino, Mother. We're raising Behemoth tonight!

      Comment


      • Hi CD,

        Nor do I. But it still seems less outlandish to me than a prospect of a "prior arrangement". Why take the risk when Kelly could have told others what she doing and who she was seeing, and at what time? Hardly worth it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Chava View Post
          In fact, if they did smell fish and chips in the room, which they did not, it would have been a clear indication that some were consumed there.
          We don't know that they didn't; and if they had it wouldn't have stood out or been very notable.

          If they had in some small way smelled greasy food or fish it probably wouldn't have been too different from the standard odor. Greasy food would have been a staple of her diet, no doubt, and certainly Barnett could have brought a lasting odor of fish with him many times.

          And certainly the idea that the small would have been at all notable with the other odors in that room (burnt clothes, rotting flesh, pools of blood, and all around gore) is just not at all realistic.

          Dan Norder
          Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
          Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

          Comment


          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
            Hi Paul,

            I am not sure I understand your post. The scenario I described would take him out of the stranger category but why is he in that category in the first place?

            c.d.
            Hi c.d.

            I know this is out of place now, but I wanted to clarify that the "stranger" part was from Sam's original assertion.

            Hi, Michael.

            I don't know no madmen. Besides, I'm way beyond 50-50 for accident-on purpose.
            Last edited by paul emmett; 03-04-2008, 08:06 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dan Norder View Post
              We don't know that they didn't; and if they had it wouldn't have stood out or been very notable.

              If they had in some small way smelled greasy food or fish it probably wouldn't have been too different from the standard odor. Greasy food would have been a staple of her diet, no doubt, and certainly Barnett could have brought a lasting odor of fish with him many times.

              And certainly the idea that the small would have been at all notable with the other odors in that room (burnt clothes, rotting flesh, pools of blood, and all around gore) is just not at all realistic.
              Well, first of all we're arguing about nothing, since no one noted a smell of fish and chips. However the flesh wouldn't have been rotting yet. The blood would have smelled quite a bit when fresh, but probably by the time they got there, not so much. The charred material would have smelt a bit but it wouldn't have overpowered other smells. Barnett hadn't been around for a while. And Kelly had fish and chips in her system. So she ate that meal outside rather than in the room since there was no smell of food and no greasy wrappers. That in itself is interesting, because it would be good to find out where and when she bought her meal. If it was before Blotchy Face appears, then BF could still be on the hook as a possible suspect. If after, he isn't.

              Comment


              • Hi Michael,

                Why would Mary feel safer on the street as opposed to her own room when all the previous victims had been killed in the street?

                c.d.

                Comment


                • Hi all,
                  If one takes the Kelly murder as a modern day criminal investigation, we would have the last witness to have seen the victim alive giving evidence, also the description of any person or persons seen with the victim at that time.
                  Clearly therefore like it or not , the most likely person to have killed Mjk, given the limited time avaliable, was the Market porter in Plaid seen with her outside Ringers, this being the case. proberly what kelly considered to have been a early trick turned out to have been a bit more then that...
                  Regards Richard.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                    Hi Michael,

                    Why would Mary feel safer on the street as opposed to her own room when all the previous victims had been killed in the street?

                    c.d.
                    Hi cd,

                    I would'nt think she would feel safer at all cd, in fact I would think she would feel much safer indoors, in her own room, with her door blocked like Elizabeth Prater. But I would also think street whores dont have the luxury of strange men being able to find them when they are indoors at home, since most stayed in transient dwellings, so street whores go where they are expected to be seen after midnight by street clients so they can make money to pay for their transients bed...in Marys case, unnecessary that evening...or they pay for food and drink...in Marys case, already dealt with.

                    cd, I think perhaps you must have lived in one small room to understand why someone would be protective of that space, and particularly a woman, while a killer is known to be killing women in her line of work. You may say...well, thats why she now uses her room...which is all well and good except that there is no justification at all for that conclusion. We know that Mary very likely did not bring men into Millers Court for paid sex while Barnett was there, and since he has gone we have no reason to think anything had changed.

                    Richard, this was very good and quite true...."If one takes the Kelly murder as a modern day criminal investigation, we would have the last witness to have seen the victim alive giving evidence, also the description of any person or persons seen with the victim at that time."

                    This however is not true ..."Clearly therefore like it or not , the most likely person to have killed Mjk, given the limited time avaliable, was the Market porter in Plaid seen with her outside Ringers, this being the case."

                    It is very clear whom police believed was the last man seen in the company of Mary Kelly. From November 13th, until Nov 15-16th, it was Astrakan Man. From November 16th until today,... it is Blotchy Man, the person seen by Mary Ann Cox with Mary Kelly arriving at her room before midnight. Should you have any doubts about that I suggest you review all the press after November 16th that references Marys murder suspect.

                    As you can clearly see, there is plenty to discuss about that night and Mary Kelly that doesn't involve "witnesses" the police already dismissed 120 years ago.

                    George Hutchinson was not believed more than 3 days...and Caroline Maxwell was not believed at all.

                    My best regards.
                    Last edited by Guest; 03-04-2008, 11:28 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Hi All,

                      There's a intriguing footnote in Paul Begg's 'The Facts'.

                      p.490—f. 106 (Barnes & Noble Hardback Edition)

                      "McCarthy said that he sent Thomas Bowyer to collect the rent at 10.45 a.m., but the police recorded the time of the discovery as 10.30. A market porter leaving Millers Court about 10.30 a.m. found the police already in charge of Millers Court . . ."

                      Does anyone know of any provenance for (a) the police recording the time of discovery as 10.30, or (b) the market porter story?

                      Many thanks,

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        Hi All,

                        There's a intriguing footnote in Paul Begg's 'The Facts'.

                        p.490—f. 106 (Barnes & Noble Hardback Edition)

                        "McCarthy said that he sent Thomas Bowyer to collect the rent at 10.45 a.m., but the police recorded the time of the discovery as 10.30. A market porter leaving Millers Court about 10.30 a.m. found the police already in charge of Millers Court . . ."

                        Does anyone know of any provenance for (a) the police recording the time of discovery as 10.30, or (b) the market porter story?

                        Many thanks,

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        Hello there Simon, nice to see you,

                        That is an interesting story, although its the first time Ive heard of it. Because as you've noted, Bowyer was only sent to collect the rent at 10:45am, and he still had to tramp back to McCarthy's office so he could beetle on back with him, so he could see for himself, then beetle on down to Commercial Street station, then back to the room with Police. Which would have the police first "notified" around 11-11:15am, when they returned with McCarthy.

                        I also noted in the inquest that McCarthy was said to comment on sending Bowyer for the rent and arrears in this way,.."Rent was to be paid weekly. Arrears are got as best you can".

                        Perhaps this little story about someone preceding the police and Bowyer to the courtyard was picked up from someone in the Carrie Maxwell camp. Or was spawned from that tale.

                        My best regards Simon.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by perrymason View Post
                          We know that Mary very likely did not bring men into Millers Court for paid sex while Barnett was there
                          We don't "know" that Mary very likely did not bring men home while Barnett was there - we might speculate upon it, but we certainly can't say that we "know" any such thing.
                          , and since he has gone we have no reason to think anything had changed.
                          Never heard the expression, "While the cat's away the mice will play", Mike? Incidentally, the absence of the cat needn't have been a permanent arrangement either. Men worked long shifts in those days, and Mary is likely to have had the room to herself for something like 12-14 hours a day (or longer), if we take some of the typical working-patterns of that time and place into account.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            We don't "know" that Mary very likely did not bring men home while Barnett was there - we might speculate upon it, but we certainly can't say that we "know" any such thing.Never heard the expression, "While the cat's away the mice will play", Mike?

                            Incidentally, the absence of the cat needn't have been a permanent arrangement either. Men worked long shifts in those days, and Mary is likely to have had the room to herself for something like 12-14 hours a day (or longer), if we take some of the typical working-patterns of that time and place into account.
                            Hi Sam,

                            Well it would make Barnett's contention that he objected to her "working the streets" seem odd. And it again requires that we inject something new into the story of Mary Kellys life to fit the suspected MO of Jack the Ripper. Sure she could have entertained while the "Cats away"...but wouldn't one of her close courtyard friends have mentioned her bringing strange men in? And that doesnt explain her constant poverty either...for she was likely suffering financially, by Joe restricting her outside work while he was there.

                            Its probably why he comes every day to give her some money...except he couldn't on the 8th...to try and convince her he can provide for her so she doesn't have to solicit. But Joe didn't think about what we do know about Mary Kelly, and that is she used to have fine dresses, and was perhaps an escort for someone while in Paris. She worked in a bordello. Joe couldn't make enough money to keep Mary drunk, let alone happy...so that is why, even though "he was nice" to her, she had to move on.

                            In modern day, this would be a supermodel with a serious drug habit that dates only pushers of her drug...or rich guys, regardless of their looks. She is rewarded for "just being herself" by these types....who all want to boink her. And she in return makes them think they can...as long as the drug of choice is flowing. I believe so was Mary. I think she got fed and drunk November 8th by sidling up to Blotchy Man, and used a pleasant song to douse the flames of desire he might have when he was in her room. I think she took money from both Barnett and Flemming, letting each believe they were her "special one"...and funnily enough, since I am so opposed to his presence in discussions about this night, I could see her just walking up to men she knew and asking for money for doing nothing....just being sweet Mary Kelly.

                            This isn't just a Victorian Tale, its timeless. Attractive Women who for whatever reason fall into addictions,... that are fed by lifestyles they hate....or to try and forget who or what they are.

                            My best regards Sam.
                            Last edited by Guest; 03-05-2008, 12:31 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Simon,

                              Reliance upon contemporary newspaper stories for either consistency or accuracy is usually a losing proposition while researching JtR. And all the more when dealing with thr events in Miller's Court.

                              As it was, the East London Observer had McCarthy sending Bowyer at "10 a.m."; the Manchester Guardian quoted McCarthy as saying he sent Bowyer "[a]bout half-past ten this morning", and the Daily Telegraph later cited a telegraph message from Scotland Yard about the discovery of the body that began "Found at 10:30 a.m....."

                              Regardless, most newspapers, the statements given the police by McCarthy and Bowyer and their inquest testimony peg the time at 10:45.

                              Don.
                              "To expose [the Senator] is rather like performing acts of charity among the deserving poor; it needs to be done and it makes one feel good, but it does nothing to end the problem."

                              Comment


                              • Hi Michael,
                                All of us on Casebook have opinions regarding each murder which may have been blamed on JTR,with reference to the victim known as Mary kelly which most have us believe is the key to the series, because of the many options avaliable in trying to decifer witnesses statements, and all of us attempting to better one another, we all arrive back at ground zero.
                                It surely is a fact that at the inquest of Mary Jane Kelly .Aka whatever...we have a sworn witness stating that she saw the victim alive several hours after the medical evidence suggested otherwise, gave a verbal interpretation of their meeting, along with a description of a male in her company at that sighting,yet we still ignore the obvious and go along with the most unlikely night prowler and the rather clever means of entry through a broken window.
                                I have explained on Casebook an explanation for Hutchinsons Astracan man, also an explanation for the reported cry, plus many other'Stuck in the mud theorys' yet a morning murder has never been a serious contender.
                                Why?
                                Regards Richard..

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X