Did Mary know her attacker?

[paul emmett]

Paul,

Supe, Hi. Isn't that the great thing about the Casebook: we all have different notions of evidence

Um, I'm not sure "great" is the word I would use there.

Don.

Don.
Well, sure, we'd all like the world to see the world as we do, but I have noticed that you are willing to share and listen with your friends.

Paul

[plang]

Yes, in reallity, they were all singing as things rolled along. Nothing but another bloody musical. Saw 'Sweeny Todd' recently, did you?

Plang (guitar)

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

As far as Maxwell is concerned, I'd say it's dangerous to put too much stake on her testimony.
Yes, she was sure indeed of whom she talked to and when, but witnesses are in fact often mistaken even when under the most extreme circumstances. Examples of this are numerous.

We had one murder case here in Sweden, which adressed the very same problem and where a witness had seen the victim several hours after she was supposed to be dead. The witness was very sure about it and was prepared to swear upon it in court - as far as the time and date is concerned, he also made associations to other events that day which would almost make it impossible for him to get it wrong (we can compare with Maxwell here and the fact that the day in question would have been the day of Lord Mayor's show).
However, it later turned out that the witness WAS mistaken after all, in spite of the fact that he had been absolutely certain of that he was right.

All the best

[The Good Michael]

Excuse me, I brought up the idea of Kelly's murderer singing "Violet from Mother's Grave" as a joke; as a silly concept to compare with other silly speculations. To make anything out of that, such as duration of unending singing is to make the absurd more absurd. Divest yourself of those notions.

Mike

[paul emmett]

Hi, Sam.

I think singing does fit in here, in the sense that the more she sings, the more comfortable she seems with Blotchy(or whoever) and the more likely it is she knows him. But I'm OK with dropping it. And clearly from the enthusiastic response it got, it's best not to go to another thread. That said, one last answer to your is it continual question. I think that Cox's use of "still" two times suggests that at least for certian, significant, times it is.

Hi, Glenn.

Clearly you are right that mistakes can be made, and yours is an interesting example of that. Maxwell could have been wrong. But that doesn't mean she was wrong.

Hi, pang.

You gotta keep up with the posts. I answered your question back a few pages.

Hi,Good Michael.

You gotta keep up with the posts. Of course, you brought it up as a joke, but Nov9 turned it into, alas, a serious issue--which, as they say in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, it is.

[plang]

Good one Paul. Sorry to be such a pang in the arse. I'll go now.

Plang

[The Good Michael]

Hi,Good Michael.
You gotta keep up with the posts. Of course, you brought it up as a joke, but Nov9 turned it into, alas, a serious issue--which, as they say in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, it is.

I kept up with the posts. The singing was a joke, and it still is. It doesn't bolster an argument. Drunks sing all the time, regardless of an audience. I would share many stories if it wasn't such an obvious concept.

Mike

[NOV9]

Well, killing Kelly may have amounted to a SAFER zone. This was an easier kill for him, and one that provided time and light without the possible interruption of a patrolling PC. It was late at night and everyone was in bed, some, undoubtedly passed out from drinking. What more could a guy want in a 'safe zone'? I think this is inarguable from a stance of common sense. Lucky man, that Ripper. He got just what he wanted in a victim, and more.

Mike

Kelly was killed, no argument there, however not by the Ripper, the face attack was personal, it was done by someone very close to her. And I am not going out on a limb with this one, but the same guy did Eddowes.

This is so easy to figure out, but everyone wants to blame poor old Jack.

[perrymason]

Sam,

Kelly could have been singing to a friend or a stranger - or both, if she'd had another visitor after Blotchy

Ah, but you forget the rules of "evidence" around here. No one saw Kelly leave her room after she entered with Blotchy, and thus she didn't go out again that night. No one saw a friend or stranger enter after Blotchy so clearly none did.

Of course, strict adherence to that rule would mean that by all that is right and holy, Blotchy should have been sitting there by Kelly's body when McCarthy prised the door open the next afternoon. That he was wasn't there must mean he left unnoticed. Gee, you don't suppose, then, that Kelly might have gone out again that night unnoticed, do you?

Don.

Hi Don,

I attached your quote with the hopes that we could deal with what is reasonable to assume, and what is not.

It is reasonable to assume Mary did not go out again...the only witness that says she did is disbelieved within 72 hours.

It is reasonable to assume Blotchy left sometime during the night...because simply put, he is obviously not there when Bowyer looks in. We dont know when...but we certainly can conclude he did leave, nonetheless.

It is unreasonable to suggest Mary had the need to go out again.....she was obviously fed, drunk, and had a room.

It is unreasonable to suggest Blotchy Man was a client, as clearly she entertained him with song....off and on. A whore singing between tricks is a little much I would think.

Much has been made of allegations that cannot be substantiated, but surely that doesnt prevent anyone from using common sense, logic, and the "evidence" that is known, to arrive at some very basic and sound "likely's".

Mary most likely did not bring clients home before November 1st as Barnett slept in that same bed with her, and there is no evidence she ever brought a client in that courtyard after that, ....Mary had a history of not applying money given to her for rent arrears, we never hear that any money she is given by Barnett or Flemming, makes its way to McCarthy, so she is not acting in fear of eviction, ...Mary did not suffer from any of the usual reasons for whores soliciting at night....she had eaten, drank, and entertained a friend in her room, in her name.

I really think its time to stop the nonsense that there is nothing to learn from the killer most likely coming into the courtyard alone, and then gaining access to Marys room and being allowed to enter. The only possible protestation from her is a faintish cry that may or may not have come from Mary...with no noise at all following it.

Its very reasonable to suggest that Mary Kelly went in before midnight and did not leave again, that her company was not a client, and her killer therefore came to her in her room....or was Blotchy Man.

If you wont admit that under those circumstances there is a good chance that Marys killer was known to her, or at least knew her and where her room was, then your not being pragmatic...your just being intentionally resistant to the idea.

And I dont blame you....because if you feel Jack the Ripper killed her, that circumstantial evidence is troubling....because it has nothing to do with a Ripper approach and acquisition at all. And it would be hard to maintain that a suspect who police suspect kills strangers, killed just one acquaintance that wasnt soliciting at the time.

We can play this debate game....where no points are scored until someone proves something imperically, which aint gonna happen, ... or we can be reasonable human beings, take our collective heads out of the Canonical sand, and admit that there are some very strong indicators that Mary did not go out, and that her killer came in. And was allowed to stay.

Say what you like....claim Jack did it anyway...cause thats all the proof Bond and others offered or needed apparently.

My regards all.

[paul emmett]

Kelly was killed, no argument there, however not by the Ripper, the face attack was personal, it was done by someone very close to her. And I am not going out on a limb with this one, but the same guy did Eddowes.

This is so easy to figure out, but everyone wants to blame poor old Jack.

Nov9, if the same person did Eddowes and Kelly and he wasn't JTR, then there is no Jack the Ripper.

By the by, what happened to YOUR singing theory?

[The Good Michael]

It is reasonable to assume Mary did not go out again...the only witness that says she did is disbelieved within 72 hours.

It is also reasonable to think a prostitute, who owed money, might go out again.

It is reasonable to assume Blotchy left sometime during the night...because simply put, he is obviously not there when Bowyer looks in. We dont know when...but we certainly can conclude he did leave, nonetheless.

Agreed

It is unreasonable to suggest Mary had the need to go out again.....she was obviously fed, drunk, and had a room.

She needed money. Obviously her laundry career (not my belief) wasn't a booming business as she was several weeks arrears in her rent. Again, it is reasonable to think she went out again. You don't know when she ate exactly and when she had consumed enough alcohol. It may have happened when she went out again.

It is unreasonable to suggest Blotchy Man was a client, as clearly she entertained him with song....off and on. A whore singing between tricks is a little much I would think.

It is decidedly much more unreasonable to suggest Blotchy was a bosom buddy, perhaps a brother from Limerick? A singing drunk is a happy drunk.

Mary most likely did not bring clients home before November 1st as Barnett slept in that same bed with her, and there is no evidence she ever brought a client in that courtyard after that,

No evidence that a particular individual brought a client home, just millions of precedents from all parts of the world, throughout all times in history and probably prehistory. Yet that isn't enough for you.

....Mary had a history of not applying money given to her for rent arrears, we never hear that any money she is given by Barnett or Flemming, makes its way to McCarthy, so she is not acting in fear of eviction,

She was much like many drunks. Her habit was more important than paying bills. This does not mean a person isn't afraid of paying the piper. it is a psychological and physical dependency on something that takes precedence over what is right. You read too much into this.

...Mary did not suffer from any of the usual reasons for whores soliciting at night..

She was no different. All of them had rooms at one time or another. Too much is made out of this room nonsense.

Its very reasonable to suggest that Mary Kelly went in before midnight and did not leave again, that her company was not a client, and her killer therefore came to her in her room....or was Blotchy Man.

It is reasonable to believe that anyone could have killed her, and that Kelly went out a couple of times that night. There is a sickness sweeping these boards, a belief that Kelly was different. There are of course possibilities that someone other than the Ripper killed Kelly. The domestic idea is graspable. Still, it is far more probable that she was just another unfortunate victim of the same man.

All the glamorization, and all the speculation, and all the romance of this young, sainted woman, a foul victim of unfortunate circumstance; a veritable virgin Mary undone by fate's cruel whims; a woman who represents, simultaneously, the sparkling voice of Charlotte Church, the pretty innocence of a young Annette Funicello, the vivacious sexuality of a Cameron Diaz, and the strength of character of a Katherine Hepburn; all of this amounts to nothing. It is fantasy. It is the reason I stay away from Ripper fiction. All this argument IS Ripper fiction. I don't need to go elsewhere.


The Good (and reasonable) Michael

[NOV9]

Nov9, if the same person did Eddowes and Kelly and he wasn't JTR, then there is no Jack the Ripper.

By the by, what happened to YOUR singing theory?

There definitely was a Jack the Ripper.

And the singing theory, is no theory, what I said was that man, but not all men, did sing with a high pitch voice, it is freaky but they did and still do.

This is something that you could look up.

However I'm not saying that the murderer was singing that night while he was carving up Mary, or maybe he was?

It could have been a way of letting people know that Mary was still alive.

Or perhaps he was enjoying himself.

[Sam Flynn]

Or perhaps - like 100% definitely - when people said they heard Mary sing, it meant that it was Mary doing the singing. She was reputedly fond of singing Irish songs, so her voice would have been quite familiar to those who knew her.

[Blackkat]

I think her voice would have been very familiar too. Not only that but I'd gather that the "general direction" of where the voice was coming from was another sure thing. Makes you wonder if her singing got annoying for those around her. Heheheheh " Oh gawwd not again." :: pulls pillow over head:: only made worse by being tone deaf.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

Good Michael...or should I say Baron, ...and I dont like the inference with this new name.....

Anyway,...you have unfortunately joined a crowd that believes just saying "That cannot be" is enough of an argument in and of itself.

"It is also reasonable to think a prostitute, who owed money, might go out again."

You have either been selective in what you read, or have a very short retention, but we can reasonably conclude that Mary cared a Rats Ass about her arrears..she mentions that to no-one, and McCarthy himself said they were "got as best one can", and Marys lovers have given her money towards her bills there and we have no reports she paid one penny down when she had the money. Now you say she goes out earning it in the rain, stuffed and hammered, to get it...even though we know there was no looming eviction. Nonsense.

"She needed money. Obviously her laundry career (not my belief) wasn't a booming business as she was several weeks arrears in her rent. Again, it is reasonable to think she went out again. You don't know when she ate exactly and when she had consumed enough alcohol. It may have happened when she went out again."

You may think what you like, but Id prefer to hold my support for her leaving after midnight until 1.....just one.. credible witness... saw her. None did, speculate all you like about what whores do when they owe money...perhaps though factor in Mary has been evicted a few times, she is hardly afraid of eviction. Sure she may have eaten had she gone out again...however, since it appears by the evidence submitted she did not, then its all just conjecture.

No evidence that a particular individual brought a client home, just millions of precedents from all parts of the world, throughout all times in history and probably prehistory. Yet that isn't enough for you.

I may not be able to speak for how whores conduct themselves, Victorian Whores no less, but I can say that it would appear Mary did not bring men home to her room prior to November 1st, and I can think of a bunch of reasons why she wouldnt start now. And since there is no records that say anyone saw her do that at all....my guess is that she didnt... unless it can proven otherwise.

She was no different. All of them had rooms at one time or another. Too much is made out of this room nonsense.

Again, nonsense. She was in a minority, being a woman, a whore and with a room in her own name. Its very clear some women peddled each night to make the 4d for the bed. Mary didnt have to...she could even run a tab effectively.

There are of course possibilities that someone other than the Ripper killed Kelly. The domestic idea is graspable. Still, it is far more probable that she was just another unfortunate victim of the same man.

Ahh...because only Jack cuts women up?...Oh, I guess someone should have told Alice McKenzie for one....because there is only one serial killer around at that time?...Oh, then the torso in October and again the following year were unrelated? Who killed the non-canonicals then, all individuals?

So you know, I dont see any movie material in this whole series, I think Jack the Ripper is just an urban legend, a catch phrase, a campfire boogyman....and that there were just some killings linked to one or more persons. And some were intended to be blamed on others. I think Mary Ann, Annie and possibly Kate were by one man,... Mary Kelly by another, Stride by another, then Alice perhaps again by the killer of the triple slayings.

I think whomever you call Jack the Ripper, if he was the guy who did the killings of Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate, then there is no question his focus was on the abdomens of women,... not their chest cavities. And he liked killing outdoors...for god sake, when will anyone just accept that he chose outdoor work...obviously. He always had options...he just didnt use them...done deal.

My best regards.