Did Mary know her attacker?

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

You say that Mary's needs were met that night and that she had no need to go out but what about the rent money? And even if she had somehow managed to get the money why give up a weekend night the best time to make money. She still needed money for food, drink, fuel for the fire etc. in the following days.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

You say that Mary's needs were met that night and that she had no need to go out but what about the rent money? And even if she had somehow managed to get the money why give up a weekend night the best time to make money. She still needed money for food, drink, fuel for the fire etc. in the following days.

c.d.

Hi cd,

And thanks for the nice way you challenge a point. The arrears were as McCarthy said, "got as best you can", implying perhaps that Mary had some legal right to stay in the room regardless of the arrears, as long as some money was received against rent. He may have been nice to her, and carried her a bit...or he may have had some legal restrictions on what constituted eviction type situations.

And to work all night meant she would miss most of Mayors Day, something which she clearly was looking forward to.

All I can say cd is that her need for food, her need for booze, and her need for shelter do not seem to be such that she would feel compelled to work in the rain. She was fed, drunk and in her own room. Thats the one nice thing about living a seemingly hopeless life....theres always tomorrow..not to plan for of course.... but thats when her luck will change for the better. Like a miracle.

The irony here is that she effectively halted Mayors Day.

My best cd.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

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?

I can't see that they should have, especially those who may have been on the game themselves - honour among thieves, and all that. Perhaps, with a young firebrand like Kelly, the sensible thing was to turn a blind eye. I wouldn't be surprised if Barnett's didn't resort to the same tactic, his apparent "piety" perhaps being a case of over-protestation on his part. Let's not forget that they were poor together, and he may not have felt disposed to being too fussy as to where the money came from when it suited him.

Anyhow - that's way off topic. Just doing you the courtesy of a reply

[Supe]

Simon,

I forgot to mention that, somewhat inexplicably, in its printed inquest testimony The Times quoted McCarthy as saying he sent Bowyer at 10:30, even though the other papers and the official transcript have him saying that he sent Bowyer at 10:45.

Michael,

Millers' Court was not a gated community nor were any of the residents under that delusion, so that there is no specific complaint against Kelly or anyone else bringing in transients is hardly surprising. As it is, there are contemporary newspaper interviews in which residents and neighbors did say that strange men were in and out of the court most nights. It was a "live and let live" sort of society.

Don.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Don,

Thanks for clarifying the McCarthy/Bower time of 10.45 a.m.

Any thoughts on Paul Begg's Millers Court market porter 10.30 a.m. story?

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

Apologies for overlooking your post, and thanks for the smile.

However there is no reason to believe they thought George Hutchinson was an out right lier.

This topic was amongst the first to resurface after the crash, but it would be very difficult for the police to have discredited Hutchinson's evidence unless they suspected fabrication, at least with reference to his description. They could not, for example, justify ditching him on the assumption that Kelly ventured out post-Astrakhan.

All the best,
Ben

[paul emmett]

yet a morning murder has never been a serious contender.
Why?
Regards Richard..

Hi, Richard.

I think most folks go with the Doctors' reports: for time of death, Bond says 1:00-2:00; Phillips says 5:00-6:00. Then there's the timing of it. If Maxwell sees MJK out and about at 9:00, there's not much time to get back home, undress, light a fire, kill, mutilate, . . .. And if she vomited at 8, there's also the fish dinner issue. Possible, some say, but not very likely. What do you think?

[perrymason]

Michael,

Millers' Court was not a gated community nor were any of the residents under that delusion, so that there is no specific complaint against Kelly or anyone else bringing in transients is hardly surprising. As it is, there are contemporary newspaper interviews in which residents and neighbors did say that strange men were in and out of the court most nights. It was a "live and let live" sort of society.

Don.

Hi Don,

I'm quite sure that there was indeed men traffic in and out of Millers Court, as we know of at least 4 single women who lived there...1 albeit upstairs in 26 Dorset. But Im also fairly certain that aside from Joe Barnett, Joe Flemming and Blotchy Face, none were ever said to be attending Mary or Marys room specifically.

I just think that to just assume Mary took clients in, it should be at least be based on one precedent setting occasion....and there are no such accounts on record.

However we do have on record that her live in lover resented her whoring herself on the streets. One would imagine that would have impacted her also doing so in the same room and bed that he slept in. For 10 months until November 1st that was the story of # 13.

Where is it indicated that had changed by November 8th?

My best regards as always Don.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Since you are so adamant that Mary did not go out soliciting, let's assume for the sake of argument that she did not. Now what conclusion are you drawing from this? Is it that she knew her killer and let him in? If so,that brings us back to the question in what way did she know him? Since that can run the gamut from lover to met earlier in the day, I don't see where that gets us anywhere. But maybe you are drawing a different conclusion.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hey cd,

For the sake of this threads premise, yeah, Im suggesting there is evidence to sustain speculation that she may have known the man that kills her if she did not leave after arriving home before midnight.

Beyond that, I do think the field could be narrowed even further, using some of the circumstantial aspects. As you know, I believe that Liz Stride is simply what she appears to be, the victim of a drunk thug, seen assaulting her minutes before she dies, feet from the location. In Marys case, I think if you can look beyond the ghastly mutilations for a moment as being something only Jack the Ripper could do, but requiring madness nonetheless, and consider that her killer may have known her by the fact he comes to her room himself...possibly... then we have a man who will be committed for insanity involved in what appears to be a love triangle with Mary Kelly at the time of her death. Someone who resides like George Hutchinson, at The Victoria Home for Working Men.

Ive always said that he (her killer) may have been the Ripper, but he was close to Mary Kelly personally first. I dont happen to believe he was Jack, but he makes a good case for possibly being Marys killer anyway, depending on the status of their relationship at the moment of her death. There may have been a motive other than just carnage, and it may have involved emotional issues with the killer not shown in prior victims...erasing the face and taking the heart this time for example.

Was she returning to "him" since Barnett left, or spurning his advances, even when Other Joe knows she lives alone now.....stayed tuned to this channel for all the updates on the hour, as we follow this breaking story....

Cheers Bud.

[The Good Michael]

I just think that to just assume Mary took clients in, it should be at least be based on one precedent setting occasion....and there are no such accounts on record.

There are thousands of precedents. Where there are brothels, there are rooms. Where there are rooms, there are prostitutes. Where there are prostitutes, there are clients. If Mary started her glowing career in a brothel, which testimony suggests, she was well aware that it was more comfortable and less time-consuming (i.e., trying to find a client, and walking about) using her own room. This is simple logic and not a question of recorded precedents. Wait! Mary was... different! Never mind.

Cheers,

Mike

[Chava]

Yes, except the only testimony we had that Kelly was in a West End house is her own, and I do think she was inclined to embroider. I don't see any a priori reason why she should fall as far as East End streetwalking apart from the fact that she drank--and that by itself isn't enough to take her down so dramatically. I think that story was just to up her market value a little.

[perrymason]

There are thousands of precedents. Where there are brothels, there are rooms. Where there are rooms, there are prostitutes. Where there are prostitutes, there are clients. If Mary started her glowing career in a brothel, which testimony suggests, she was well aware that it was more comfortable and less time-consuming (i.e., trying to find a client, and walking about) using her own room. This is simple logic and not a question of recorded precedents. Wait! Mary was... different! Never mind.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike,

Forgive me for being blunt, but I wouldnt say that generalizing about all Victorian prostitutes and what they did in their rooms gives you the most accurate opinion on this matter, as it relates to Mary Kelly's known habits specifically. For example, we know that Mary Ann Cox was working that Thursday evening...so were all prostitutes therefore working? In Mary Kellys case anyway, it is probable by the circumstantial evidence, she was not.

I think sweeping assumptive statements about what all whores did or didnt do completely negates that these were people before they were whores, women with their own minds and habits, and different lives. Some had children, some husbands...all of which would affect their "work" schedules. Yes many were starving. And many had no rooms to sleep in. Those are strong work motivators for them. Again, on this night, Mary was fed, drunk and in a room in her name, when her decision to go out again would be made....if she ever had any intention of working that night.

Chava, you may be right about some stories Mary told about her past, but we do have a verified account of a woman helping Mary retrieve some fine dresses left at a bordello she worked in. I think she is at the point where her opportunities to draw clients with her youth and looks is starting to wane, likely from her hard life including boozing. Not that surprising that we see her where she is after that "more glamorous" whores life. Without a benefactor, the next step for her would have been the streets.

My best regards.

[The Good Michael]

Michael,

I may not be accurate, but I would say I stand on firmer ground. Odd though, I used to be always the one swimming upstream in these arguments. I should be on your side.

Cheers,

Mike

[celee]

Hi,

It is Bike week here in Daytona and I may have inhaled to many fumes but I think that Good Michael makes a good point.

Mary Kelly was a prostitute and I know that it may not be wise to make sweeping statements generalizing all prostitutes. However Mary probably was not much different then the others.

We have two witnesses claiming to see Mary bringing men back to her room. I would say it was probable that Mary was working that night. She may have been entertaining for her supper or gin or rent but it is obvious she was entertaining men in her room.

Hi Ben,

How have you been? I know we agree on some aspects of this case. However we never seem to be on the right threads.

Your friend, Brad