Did Mary know her attacker?

[NOV9]

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.

I agree with you and anyone else, that it was Mary singing that night.

Who could have mistaken her voice for anyone else?

I was just explaining that men do sing with high voices, just listen to Curly Joe of the 3 stooges.

[Sam Flynn]

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

Very few witnesses were around, and then only fleetingly. Indeed, the total amount of time when the (very few) witnesses were placed to notice anything is dwarfed by the total time when there was nobody thus placed. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that we have so few "checkpoints" as to Mary's movements that night.

I have pointed this out time and time again.

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

My respect for you aside, just saying something over and over doesn't make it correct.

We do have 3 separate women, who at some point after Mary went in to her room, were out of theirs. Mary Ann Cox sees Mary arrive, then walks past Marys door around midnight, returned at 1am, and left again before 1:30,...(Mary was still singing), then returned again before 3am. Sarah is in that court near 2am. Elizabeth first noticed the room being dark before 1:30am, and the singing had ended.

So we have witnesses to Marys room at 11:45am, 12:00 midnight, 1am, 1:30am, and 2am, and then 3am, when Mary Ann Cox comes in for the night.

All accounts are that Marys room remained dark and quiet until at least when Mary Ann Cox came in, at near 3am. Thats multiple accounts and over 3 hours covered, ...hardly a fleeting glimpse, and by people either in the same courtyard, or the same house as Mary.

If Mary left before 1:30 when her lights were out, she could have been seen by Elizabeth, about to come in..she could have been seen by Mary Ann, ...who was going out, out and about a few times after that, or she could have been seen by Sarah, when she comes into Millers Court.

When added to the fact that Mary Kelly is found dead in her own bed, undressed, its very clear that Mary need not have gone anywhere after 12:00am to get herself killed. And in fact, thats just what the records indicate.

Its far more probable all 3 women were right about the state of Marys room, than a man who claims he saw Mary out, despite the lack of evidence suggesting she did, and has his story discredited.

I wont belabor this any more Sam, but you should know that is one of the most critical clues to how her killer may have acquired Mary, that he came to her, and that in and of itself makes him at least 50-50, a man known to Mary. And in that scenario, it is nothing like any other Ripper slaying.

My best regards Sam.......moving on

[anna]

Hi all, For what it's worth, I think these women knew full well something was amiss in Mary's room,which they felt duty bound to report something but were selective to what that was.They would have known on a day to day basis what direction to train their ears to listen for Mary,or each other for that part, as women do, for a chat or a drink to borrow something.We have Cox with her footsteps leaving, Prater with her "oh murder!" she was so close to Mary's ceiling she probably heard every word uttered in that room,yet she seems to be unsure it is from a room she is used to hearing sounds eliminating from every day.

[Sam Flynn]

My respect for you aside, just saying something over and over doesn't make it correct.

Indeed not

[The Good Michael]

Indeed not

Gareth, I think that may have been lost on some people. Great post though!

Mike

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,

As for Sam's brief counter, the only thing Ill say about having to repeat my position over and over with the hope that logic someday might set in, is that my position can be substantiated with accredited witnesses. The counter position cannot.

Its funny how that seems to get lost in the shuffle.

There is no believable evidence she went anywhere after midnight, and based on what we know of Marys habits, there is nothing on the records that would compel her to go out.

So...your admiration post for the counter is nothing more than your staunch support of completely unsubstantiated conjecture...something most people here get crapped on for.

My best regards Mike.

[The Good Michael]

So...your admiration post for the counter is nothing more than your staunch support of completely unsubstantiated conjecture...something most people here get crapped on for.

Yes, they do, and should

Cheers,

Mike

[plang]

Now look, what happened here was opportunity, Jack new or saw he could access MJK's room with ease.
If MJK new her killer, would she not scream out "No _________,?please!
Buy all accounts she screamed out "Oh! Murder!
Seems to me she was taken completely by surprise.

[The Good Michael]

and based on what we know of Marys habits, there is nothing on the records that would compel her to go out.

We know nothing of Kelly's habits. Any conjectures you make regarding what is probable or likely cannot be based upon her personal habits as we are ignorant in that regard; ignorant as in "you and I". Instead, in order to make conjecture, if it is to be at all credible, we must make comparisons with similar people, in similar situations, at similar times, and in similar places. The only comparisons we can make are with the other victims who existed contemporaneously and who lived in similar circumstances. In comparing Kelly with others, we are left with a prostitute who was down on her luck and in similar circumstances as the others, in a similar area, and a contemporary. In your musings, your conjectures are not even based upon anything save for what you believe Kelly's habits to have been, or to have not been. That's fine. Your theories may all be right, and mine, though, in my mind reasoned out and perhaps fashioned in a conservative way, may all be wrong. I think many would say that mine are based on human nature, or probabilities, while yours are based on an argument such as: There are no witnesses that have said otherwise, so it must be such and such a way. Indeed, you may be correct.

Maybe time will tell.

Cheers,

Mike

[perrymason]

Hello Mike,

So we are being accurate here, my "musings" are based on a complete lack of any contradictory evidence that is accepted as believable, and fits with the known evidence of that evening through accredited eye witness testimony given at the Inquest. Just so we know where the dividing line is between historical accuracy and speculative fiction.

We do have some evidence of Marys interest in her arrears, in the absence of McCarthy stating it had reached "critical mass" and she was to be evicted, and the fact that no mention is made of her paying any of the money given to her by both Joes towards it. Nor did any of Marys acquaintances from the court indicate she expressed any concerns about the rent situation to them.

We can also conclude from what we know of some other street prostitutes, that their whoring was often for one of three reasons, ...to get a bed, get drunk, or get fed. Immediate needs. Desperation.

Mary had none of those issues present when she arrived home. To surmise that women would resort to selling their bodies for any less than immediate needs is for one, downplaying the vicious types of tricks they would service, and the places they would have to go to attract clients. I would say that from what I have read about the whores of the period...which were a huge percentage of the local single or divorced women, many were without options, and likely despised having to resort to servicing filthy clients. Most of these women didn't have jobs...whoring is not a job...they did what they needed to, what they had to do to survive.

Which means many would do it when they had no choice. Mary had choices, her Whores Maslow's Hierarchy has all her foundation needs covered that night.

I never said Mary didnt work the streets, of course she did, I have said that there is no proof at all that she brought her "trade" to her room... ever...or that she had any dire need to address by working that night.

Added together, I think to argue that she went out despite the lack of evidence to suggest it occurred, and to assume Mary was concerned enough about her arrears that she would "work" after already being drunk, fed, and with her own room and bed, clearly shows the disregard for existing evidence that people assuming Mary was killed by Jack usually follow.

Because if she didnt go out....likely half the protagonists for Mary as a Ripper victim would have to re-assess their positions.

Most buy into her as a Ripper death by the bond of prostitution she shared with the priors, and by using a discredited witness to support the notion that her killer meets her just like the killer met the others, while they were out on the streets after midnight likely working. Any idiot can cut people up, many of her wounds are not particularly Ripperesque.

However, it is clear by using only what is known...not what may have occurred...Mary most likely stayed in after midnight, and was killed by either Blotchy Man, or a killer who comes to her room himself.

One is a known man....the other, very likely the same.

My best regards Mike.

[Dan Norder]

So we are being accurate here, my "musings" are based on a complete lack of any contradictory evidence that is accepted as believable, and fits with the known evidence of that evening through accredited eye witness testimony given at the Inquest.

You've repeated this many times in this thread despite being repeatedly shown that it's not true. By "complete lack of any contradictory evidence" you apparently mean "by ignoring all the real evidence," and with "fits with the known evidence" you seemingly mean "well, there is no actual evidence but I insist upon believing it anyway, so shut up."

You've got nothing to support you except the most ridiculous speculations about what happened that night, and you have to completely ignore the testimony of more than one witness, including ones who did speak at the inquest. I'd like to think you are only lying to yourself and not everyone here, but it's getting more and more difficult to excuse your utter ignorance about the actual facts of the case with multiple people here having provided them to you.

[perrymason]

You've repeated this many times in this thread despite being repeatedly shown that it's not true. By "complete lack of any contradictory evidence" you apparently mean "by ignoring all the real evidence," and with "fits with the known evidence" you seemingly mean "well, there is no actual evidence but I insist upon believing it anyway, so shut up."

You've got nothing to support you except the most ridiculous speculations about what happened that night, and you have to completely ignore the testimony of more than one witness, including ones who did speak at the inquest. I'd like to think you are only lying to yourself and not everyone here, but it's getting more and more difficult to excuse your utter ignorance about the actual facts of the case with multiple people here having provided them to you.

Dan,

Dont you think that at least once in a while you should offer some proof of this superior understanding of the case you seem to feel you possess? Insults from you are just water on a ducks back, but maybe for the others reading, you could correct the points I have been making.

Provide one piece of accepted evidence for Mary having left her room after midnight. Last time I asked you this you brought up Hutchinson...like he was viable, and believed beyond that same week.

Provide one account of Mary ever bringing a client into Millers Court. Sorry...a serenade doesn't count as a "trick".

Name one person who says Mary feared eviction.

Name one instance where Mary paid money to McCarthy given to her by Joe Barnett or Joe Flemming for her arrears.

Name one of the Canonical 5 that was prostituting after already having food or booze and a bed paid for that same night.

The only thing I know you can do is read and write, actually understanding what you read, or properly interpreting it, or writing things in an accurate unbiased manner don't seem to be among your strengths.

Regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Provide one piece of accepted evidence for Mary having left her room after midnight.

Sorry, Mike, but you haven't yet provided one shred of "accepted" evidence that Mary Kelly was in her room for the 2-3 hour time-slot during which no witnesses were around to notice. It all boils down to the old maxim: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

As to the other challenges you posed to Dan, well none of us can answer them. I daresay that many of the people who were there at the time couldn't have answered most of them either - on that basis, the likes of you and I have no chance with such questions.

There's not much point throwing down the sort of gauntlets that you can't even pick up yourself

[Dan Norder]

Dont you think that at least once in a while you should offer some proof of this superior understanding of the case you seem to feel you possess?

You've never offered even a smattering of evidence that you had any understanding of the case at all, so a majority of people here are superior to that by default. But then as far as my knowledge goes, your strategy seems to be just to insist that I must not have any because I disagree with you. I've shown you to be wrong on claims you've made dozens of times (if not hundreds by now) over your history here under the "perrymason" alias and your previous ones. Your sole response to everything I or anyone else says that shows you to be wrong is to stick your fingers in your ears (well, except for that time you threatened to hack into Chris Scott's computer and destroy it, got yourself kicked off, came back under a new alias, and then somehow managed to not get kicked off again once you revealed that you were the same person).

Provide one piece of accepted evidence for Mary having left her room after midnight. Last time I asked you this you brought up Hutchinson...like he was viable, and believed beyond that same week.

And, again (considering that this was all pointed out already, you pretending it wasn't means you are either delusional or a liar), you certainly do not know that his testimony about Kelly being out of her room and picking up a client was not believed past a week. You know nothing of the sort. All we know is that at some point -- as already spelled out to you in extensive detail previously -- police decided that his testimony would no longer be useful in attempting to catch the killer. We don't know if it was because her time of death wasn't reliable enough to know that Hutchinson's sighting was the killer or not, or if he had identified someone as the person he saw who for whatever reason satisfied the police that he couldn't have been the killer, or any number of other perfectly valid explanations that would in no way prove that he didn't see Kelly out that night. You insisting that Hutchinson's testimony is not accepted evidence means nothing.

Provide one account of Mary ever bringing a client into Millers Court. Sorry...a serenade doesn't count as a "trick".

Well, see, again, if you insist that the fact Mary sang means that she wasn't entertaining a client, then not only are you woefully ignorant of the kinds of things that happen with casual prostitution, but you've clearly demonstrated that any evidence anyone provides about anything can be dismissed just because you refuse to let it "count." What do you think happened in that room that night? She was a prostitute, not running some fireside theatre event.

Name one person who says Mary feared eviction.

Name one instance where Mary paid money to McCarthy given to her by Joe Barnett or Joe Flemming for her arrears.

Are you on crack? Seriously, use your head here. Your bizarre insistence that neither of these things happened does not mean they are true, and even if they were true that in no way would mean your conclusions are the only sensible explanation.

Name one of the Canonical 5 that was prostituting after already having food or booze and a bed paid for that same night.

Polly Nichols. Totally boozed up and had the money for a bed three times that night, but decided she'd rather continue prostituting. Your argument that Kelly wasn't prostituting herself that night is naive to the extreme.

actually understanding what you read, or properly interpreting it, or writing things in an accurate unbiased manner don't seem to be among your strengths.

Coming from you, that's a positively glowing recommendation. Anyone you would consider to be accurately interpreting things, based upon the bizarre and baseless nonsense you keep pushing, would have to be seriously lacking in pretty much any actual knowledge about the case or even a smattering of common sense.