Did Mary know her attacker?

Hi Gareth,

All I can add Sam is that for my theory to be correct, the records need not be incomplete.

Jack the Ripper isn't a person, he is a euphemism for UNSUB...Unidentified or Unknown Subject. All we should be looking for is a possible killer for Mary Kelly...not how she must have encountered Mr "Euphemism."

Parents for dinner...see you soon Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Ive put forward some ideas that Mary very likely never did leave her room, and that her killer by coming in and being able to stay without any real objections in the form of loud noises, indicates he may well have been known to her. All of that is using the records we all have access to.

The self-same records that leave gaps of some hours between witness sightings, Mike. We - neither you nor I - have any witness testimony to plug those gaps one way or another. I can no more be sure that Kelly went out than you can be sure that she stayed in.

What I can be sure about, however, is that we have direct evidence of the behaviour of contemporary prostitutes, which shows that women who found themselves in Kelly's position were out at the most inhospitable hours trying to scrape together a few pennies. We even have direct evidence of the behaviour of fellow "unfortunates" living in Miller's Court on the night that Kelly died - so such nocturnal meanderings clearly cannot be attributed solely to doss-house dwellers.

In contrast, we have little or no evidence that the penniless prostitutes of Spitalfields would have gone home meekly before midnight, never to stray outside again until the sun came up.

No discredited witnesses, no fanciful notions of trips unseen

Nothing fanciful about that. Step forward Mrs Cox and Mrs Prater...

just what was on record for that court and Marys room by eye witnesses living or staying in the courtyard.

...who passed through for fleeting seconds at a time, and who only found themselves in reasonable positions to comment on Mary Kelly's whereabouts for mere minutes out of two or three hours after 1 AM.

Sam,

I don't have any problem with you at all, but I do have a problem with using the same logic in Millers Court that was applied to have Liz assigned as a Ripper Victim.....which is, even though we see that she is left alone with a man who assaulted her within 1 and 11 minutes from her death cut, by medical estimates, a few yards from the actual site, he absolutely didnt kill her...Jack the Ripper did. Even with the medical evidence that suggests she was cut at least 4 minutes before Diemshutz even arrives.

This area of study has an unfortunate legacy of perpetuating a lot of rubbish quite frankly. "Suspects" without any evidence accusing them of anything....fanciful theories of Royalty, gutter dwellers, Artists and Writers,.. a smoky ghoul killing just because he likes blood...and all of these are published ideas. Not one with proof of the accusations.

Here we have an opportunity to set aside the failed attempts, and re-visit the evidence with unbiased eyes, and actually read whats there, not read into it.

Ive put forward some ideas that Mary very likely never did leave her room, and that her killer by coming in and being able to stay without any real objections in the form of loud noises, indicates he may well have been known to her. All of that is using the records we all have access to. No discredited witnesses, no fanciful notions of trips unseen or heard, just what was on record for that court and Marys room by eye witnesses living or staying in the courtyard.

And that has been called unbelievable here.

Perhaps its not so clear to the long suffering students of these cases, but to some of us new folks, its very clear some of these issues are completely swept aside in favor of a mad killer who killed the Canonicals by many Ripperologists.

To me thats really about perpetuating an air of knowledge about the historical representation and interpretation of the facts, not about learning the truth. Because in case no-one noticed...not one of the 5 canonical victims can be attributed to any killer. They all were just killed by the guy who appears and disappears like smoke. Please.

Best regards Sam...this was a courtesy response.

[Sam Flynn]

But by all means continue to assert that Marys comings and goings were ... very likely unseen or not heard by anyone.

As they may well have been, for there were evidently very few people around in the right place or at the right time.

Ben, I appreciate you pointing out, in a less defensive manner than I, some of the reasoning here.

I popped back here to see if I needed to be explaining once again how evidence suggestive of zero light or activity in the room for hours, without a legitimate witness sighting of her being out of the room, does not therefore equate to "well she must have gone out then, she a whore, its just no-one saw her"....but I see you handle the issues fine by yourself. Even though we disagree perhaps on meaning, we at least agree that records of zero activity until 3 am probably mean just that.

Despite the folks who dismiss the notion summarily, this is a very relevant thread point, because if she did not leave, then her killer is probably Blotchy Man...someone she knows well enough to sing to in her own room, and someone we do not have a departure time for..., or the killer comes into the court, and gets into Marys room, with no more noise or fuss than possibly just a faint cry of surprise around 3:45am. As Ben points out, the last man seen with her should be our first suspect. He certainly was to the police, proven when they changed the suspect description from a man seen out of the room with Mary after midnight by a flawed witness, to a man seen entering her room before midnight by a resident of the court.

But by all means continue to assert that Marys comings and goings were just like the Ripper himself, very likely unseen or not heard by anyone.

So, have a great day, I think Ill see what happening elsewhere, cheers.

[Ben]

...which was pretty pointless at twenty past five in the morning, long after Chapman's motivation of a "bed for the night" had become purely academic

Perhaps by that stage, Gareth, yes, but when she was last seen leaving Crossingham's, she was almost certainly in search of bed money. If she was unsuccessful in that endeavour by 5:20am, then yes, breakfast/gin money seems a plausible incentive to disappear in the backyard of #29.

Cheers,
Ben

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Ben,...which was pretty pointless at twenty past five in the morning, long after Chapman's motivation of a "bed for the night" had become purely academic. Perhaps Annie was looking for breakfast-money, rather than bed-money, by then. Perhaps she needed a few pennies to buy a shot of rum.

The point being, there were more reasons for soliciting than simply wanting to have a roof over one's head.

I certainly agree with Sam on that there were more reasons for soliciting than just earning money for a bed. After all, even these women had to eat. And then we have the fact that some of the women in those social classes were more or less alcoholics and needed the money for that.

However, in Annie's case, she apparently felt rather ill the day in question and the authopsy didn't reveal any significant amount of alcohol in her body (Donovan probably misinterpreted her illness, when he made the remark about her being drunk). Thus I think drink and possibly food was not what Annie was after that night/morning.
Since she didn't feel well she probably tried to postpone the whole thing until she finally was approached by the nightwatch at Crossingham's and later Donovan with the demand of paying or being thrown out, and felt forced to go ut soliciting even though she felt like crap. If you're ill, having your own bed is worth bundles. So needless to say, getting a roof over her head must have been her big priority this particular time.

I have to admit, though, I've kind of lost track of what this has to do with Mary....

All the best

[anna]

Hi all,I think she did know her attacker.I don't think she could have been paraletic,as she manages to fold her clothes,otherwise she would have just laid down on the bed fully clothed,or at least just dropped her clothes in a bundle on the chair.Unless of course,that just what she did,and Jack folded them in an "over and job done"act. (Like when you retire,you fold your clothes,well, Mary's "retired",so he folds her clothes for her).

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

She was told she couldn't sleep at Crossingham's because she didn't have enough money for a bed. She then left Crossingham's in order to gain money to procure a bed there.

...which was pretty pointless at twenty past five in the morning, long after Chapman's motivation of a "bed for the night" had become purely academic. Perhaps Annie was looking for breakfast-money, rather than bed-money, by then. Perhaps she needed a few pennies to buy a shot of rum.

The point being, there were more reasons for soliciting than simply wanting to have a roof over one's head.

[The Good Michael]

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. The witnesses testified, the details of the night are based on their accounts. Its there, you see it or you dont.

Or, "It may or may not be there. I see it there."

Anyway, as I said, Im not selling anything,...I dont have a myth I need to perpetuate to keep me in sheckles. So I dont need the hassle for just offering some ideas.

It isn't hassle for the offering of ideas. It is hassle for using words such as 'evidence', 'probable', and 'most likely' when it would be more appropriate to say, "I am of the opinion," or "I believe." The way you broach your arguments can only cause backlash. If you continue in that vein, be prepared for it. It happens to all of us when we argue of a certainty when none can exist. Either bear up without whining and sulking, or change your tone. I have been guilty of the same thing, and have learned from it.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Jason,

She was told she couldn't sleep at Crossingham's because she didn't have enough money for a bed. She then left Crossingham's in order to gain money to procure a bed there. She probably encountered her killer in so doing,

[jason_c]

No worries, Jason, and no apology necessary, although I'm more confused now. How do you know Chapman was not soliciting for bed-money?

I dont know for sure.

If lodging house didnt allow customers to sleep during the day we can assume she wasnt soliciting for a bed. If lodging houses did allow for Chapman to be bedded for its early morning opening hours then the jury is out. Alchoholic or drug dependants do not keep money in there pockets for hours without spending it on whatever gives them almost instant satisfaction.

[Ben]

Annie Chapman was almost certainly not working those early daylight hours to obtain money for a bed.

No worries, Jason, and no apology necessary, although I'm more confused now. How do you know Chapman was not soliciting for bed-money?

[jason_c]

Hi Jason,



Not wishing to ge embroiled in yet another relentless and entrenched "Did she go out again?" debate, but Chapman's situation isn't readily comparable to that of Kelly. Chapman needed to be out soliciting in the wee hours in order to get off the streets, as did any other prostitute inhabitant of common lodging houses. There wasn't quite the same immedate necessity in Kelly's case as she had the security of a bed for that evening, even if she hadn't procured a single client.

Cheers,
Ben

Ben, apologies, i'd slightly edited my initial post before you quoted me.

Off the streets? Since when did we know a prostitute for the taste of drink found the need to get off the streets before she had acquired more to drink?

[Ben]

Hi Jason,

We have many accounts of that period where drunken prostitutes worked the early morning hours. Annie Chapman was almost certainly not working those wee small hours that night to obtain money for a bed.

Not wishing to ge embroiled in yet another relentless and entrenched "Did she go out again?" debate, but Chapman's situation isn't readily comparable to that of Kelly. Chapman needed to be out soliciting in the wee hours in order to get off the streets, as did any other prostitute inhabitant of common lodging houses. There wasn't quite the same immedate necessity in Kelly's case as she had the security of a bed for that evening, even if she hadn't procured a single client.

Cheers,
Ben