Did Mary know her attacker?

[Chava]

Actually I just checked. Chapman was boozed-up as well but not totally pie-eyed. Stride is the only one who may have been sober or near to sober on the night she died. Although she was known to drink, and she did have 6d that she'd earned cleaning that day so could have afforded a couple of drinks.

Stride had no alcohol in her system, right?

Hi Paul,

To my recollection no, but Im checking the inquest data just as a reminder...

He, Phillips, does say this..."There was no perceptible trace of any anaesthetic or narcotic"....ah, here it is, the direct quote..." A Juror:" Was there any trace of malt liquor in the stomach?" - Phillips: "There was no trace."

Again, Im not trying to make alcohol a relevant factor in the victims or the killler's selection criteria, just pointing out that at least two victims, were stone drunk before midnight, and neither had the visible funds to be that way...nor is there any evidence available that says they worked their last nights respectively. We know for sure Kate didnt from 8:30 until 1am anyway.

Cheers Paul.

[paul emmett]

Stride had no alcohol in her system, right?

The answer is yes Paul, solely to appease. I didn't mean to divert attention from discussing Mary though, just responding to Suzi's comments.

Your right to point out that Mary Ann was also drunk Chava, I hadn't meant to summarize how many were bombed though, just to point out that in the case of Catherine and Mary Kelly, they were bombed quite early comparatively, and when neither had any money to get them in that state, and when we do not know that they had worked to earn any money. Polly was working that night.

Best regards.

[Chava]

But wasn't Polly Nicholls drunk as well that night?

About half-past two on Friday morning witness saw deceased walking down Osborne-street, Whitechapel-road. She was alone, and very much the worse for drink.

Only Chapman seems to have been sober--or at least not documentably drunk. But she was known to drink to excess as well. Chapman stayed cosily by the doss-house fire until she had to leave to 'get some money'. We know she occasionally hooked as well as selling bits and bobs, but I can't help wondering why she waited so long to go out on the street that night. If I was a JtR conspiracy theorist I'd be suggesting here that at least two of these women felt confident in getting their lodging house money late at night and so might be off to do a spot of blackmail. But sadly, although that makes a great crime novel, I don't think that's the case here!

But I think I've been spending too much time with Kelly and I don't think she can tell me much. I'm off back to the beginning. I believe profilers think it's the first kill that tells you the most, and I'm beginning to suspect something I never believed before. Viz that Tabram was the start of the series...

[paul emmett]

If Mary stays in, then its a 50-50 shot her killer is known to her.

Hi, Michael.

Do you just say this to appease your critics? Doesn't it have to be more like 96-4? IF!

I do agree about Eddowes: 2 versions of MJK's name, and a Dorsett st. address, pawn ticket date problems, the she was meeting someone theory, and the old "I think I know who he is"--all could lead us to an understanding of her left turn.

Hi Suz,

Interesting you mentioned Kate's mysterious "immaculate inebriation" too...in that it was a state arrived at without any funds..but I do think Kate, although clever and probably my favourite among the Canonicals, worked only when the need was dire....and that could be a need for a bed, that she and Kelly had shared for some time, or for booze and food.

Which means I suspect if she was stone drunk by 8pm, she had probably been doing more drinking than working any clients, and her drinks were likely bought for her...just like Mary's apparently were, the night she dies.

You're right Suzi, interesting that victims number 4 and 5 seemed to be drunk their last nights respectively, without having any money,.. and also that victim number 4 uses 2 variations of victim number 5's name as her aliases, in her last 24 hours.

I think if we could find out where Kate was, and what she was doing from the time she last sees Kelly....which despite his statements I believe was Friday night,...until her arrest for fire engine impersonating..., my bet is that we would be a lot closer to understanding why she turns left out of Bishopsgate, and why she is killed less than 40 minutes after her release.

I believe in Mary Kellys case, that we could make similar inroads if we knew if she definitely stayed in that night...and what time Blotchy left.

Of course implying that there may be motives for these killings that are based on things we dont have the luxury of knowing for certain. Like, for example and only in a fictitious scenario....lets say Kate got money from some bloke because she really did say to her ex-landlord she was turning the Ripper in for the reward, and someone spotted her some dosh on that story....only the wrong ears got wind of her story that she tells to get the advance....and decides to eliminate her as soon as her can get her alone, or passes the news on to someone who could make trouble for her if he thought she was a rat. Overly Dramatic of course, and fiction....but Im sure you see my point.

If Mary stays in, then its a 50-50 shot her killer is known to her.

Neither of those to me seem like very non-descript women, struggling along with their aches and pains and having to work hours to get enough for just a bed. The first victims did...and Ill add Martha to that list. Pardon me for saying so, but basically unattractive, middle aged prostitutes, who needed to be outdoors even if there was a killer loose killing whores, cause they had nowhere or no-one to go to anymore. It was work outdoors and risk Jack, or sleep outdoors and die of exposure.

Very grim.

But Kate goes Hopping every year...sounds optimistic doesn't it, heading off with hope for a windfall this year...which of course it wasn't that year. And she can knit.....Mary can sew, and Ill bet she helped Maria wash the laundry that afternoon. Kate looked years younger than her age, Mary was years younger. They seemed hopeful....like they didnt have to die alone as street whores.

They seem to be the two to root for I think, like the only ones out of the bunch that could have actually been happy, with a few breaks their way, and AA.

My best Suz.

[paul emmett]

The fact that Mary was at 'the singing stage' at that time of night cannot be considered unusual- nor can Kate with her mysterious 'afternoon out'
- WHY both of these two were in 'this state' is a total mystery...........crack these and we've got it.........well especially with Kate!
Suzi x

Hello, all.

I don't know, Suzi. I think with Kelly we need to crack why she was singing. Clearly there is a controversy on this thread over whether Blotchy is a trick or not. Some say he has to be just a friend because MJK does nothing but sing to him. And while that seems logical, upon reflection, I find it suspect too. No amount of alcohol--let alone a quart of beer--is going to make me listen to any of my friends sing about death, mother and violets for over 75 minutes. Is Kelly stalling? Does Blotch have unique proclivities? What??

[Suzi]

Hey Brad,

In the case of the desperately poor prostitutes, which was most of the Canonicals, life was hand to mouth on a daily basis. There was no "salt a bit away for a rainy day" money, or plan for future bills or to pay down past ones money, there was maybe enough after a few clients to get a bed or some food, and some just drank it away as soon as it came in.

Each day's goal was to survive that day. Once again...since its seems this point is taking a while to settle in....on the night Mary is killed, none of the motivating factors for whores to work the streets diligently are present. She is also sloshed when she gets home before midnight, and it is raining hard, when her lights are out and her room is quiet. And McCarthy himself said on the stand, "arrears were got as best one can".

Mary had no obvious need, or any precedent showing us she works when she doesn't have to,...ongoing arrears ring a bell?... to go out in the rain that night.

My best regards.

Hi Mike
I'm sure that Annie and Pol were most certainly 'hand to mouth' Liz I cannot be sure of, nor Kate either.Now Mary had a roof (albeit 13,Millers Ct) over her head. The fact that Mary was at 'the singing stage' at that time of night cannot be considered unusual- nor can Kate with her mysterious 'afternoon out'
- WHY both of these two were in 'this state' is a total mystery...........crack these and we've got it.........well especially with Kate!
Suzi x

[Limehouse]

I think it is reasonable to explore whether any of the victims had some familiarity with the killer. Some have suggested that, after the first couple of murders, women would have been less likely to go down a dark alley with a stranger - thus lending weight to the idea that they knew the killer.

However, it should be remembered that several of the women were said to be at least slightly intoxicated on the nights they were attacked and this may have made them less cautious.

The killer could have been a man who had recently started to 'hang around' the places the women frequented. He may sometimes have offered them a drink and engaged them in a short conversation, before shrinking back into the crowd. He may have been only just familiar enough to be reassuring, they may have 'trusted' him due to his appearance or his mode of speech. I am not saying that he stalked them - just walked among them for a while. His vicitms may still have been picked at random - he knew where to look to come up trumps, but his slight familiarity may have made them too trusting.

If Mary knew her killer and was therefore prepared to riosk taking himn back to her room, I think this scenario is the most likely.

I believe that some prostitutes in Ipswich were slightly familiar with Wright in this way. May be that was what made them willing to get into his car after several of them had already been murdered.

[Sam Flynn]

Mary had no obvious need, or any precedent showing us she works when she doesn't have to go out in the rain that night.

We have the precedents set by Mrs Cox and Prater. Why should Kelly have behaved any differently to them, or any other streetwalker?

[celee]

Hey Brad,

In the case of the desperately poor prostitutes, which was most of the Canonicals, life was hand to mouth on a daily basis. There was no "salt a bit away for a rainy day" money, or plan for future bills or to pay down past ones money, there was maybe enough after a few clients to get a bed or some food, and some just drank it away as soon as it came in.

Each day's goal was to survive that day. Once again...since its seems this point is taking a while to settle in....on the night Mary is killed, none of the motivating factors for whores to work the streets diligently are present. She is also sloshed when she gets home before midnight, and it is raining hard, when her lights are out and her room is quiet. And McCarthy himself said on the stand, "arrears were got as best one can".

Mary had no obvious need, or any precedent showing us she works when she doesn't have to,...ongoing arrears ring a bell?... to go out in the rain that night.

My best regards.

Hi Perry,

I would think that more presure was put on residents to collect over due rent then, hey if you got you got it, if you dont you dont, it does not matter. What matters is what Kelly thought was pressing. Maybe the next drink, maybe eating or maybe she just wanted money. I never claimed Kelly needed an urgent reason to go out. I imagine any would do.

I have read that Kelly was scared of the Ripper and talked about it that night, not sure if it is true, However the only reason she would have to be frightend of the Ripper is if she was going to entertain.

I am unclear about Kelly's working status. I am with you I do not believe she worked all that hard at prostituting herself while Barnett was with her. However others claim she did.

Kelly was a flawed women. We can not assume that she would act a certain way. Just because you might need an urgent reason to go out in the rain does not mean she did. Some people when they drink all bets are off. The urge to drink is strong.

Is more probable that Kelly was a prostitute that worked out of her home and met her fate or she was an inocent victim who just by hapenstance met her fate.

Your friend, Brad

[c.d.]

Hey Brad,

In the case of the desperately poor prostitutes, which was most of the Canonicals, life was hand to mouth on a daily basis. There was no "salt a bit away for a rainy day" money, or plan for future bills or to pay down past ones money, there was maybe enough after a few clients to get a bed or some food, and some just drank it away as soon as it came in.

Each day's goal was to survive that day. Once again...since its seems this point is taking a while to settle in....on the night Mary is killed, none of the motivating factors for whores to work the streets diligently are present. She is also sloshed when she gets home before midnight, and it is raining hard, when her lights are out and her room is quiet. And McCarthy himself said on the stand, "arrears were got as best one can".

Mary had no obvious need, or any precedent showing us she works when she doesn't have to,...ongoing arrears ring a bell?... to go out in the rain that night.

My best regards.

Hi Michael,

You seem to be making contradictory statements here -- you are saying that life was hand to mouth on a daily basis for someone like Mary yet you are saying that she had no need to go out because her needs were met for that day[/B]. But there is still the problem of her rent and now she is without the money that Barnett used to provide. Also she would be depriving herself of a weekend night which was probably the best time to make money. You seem to want to ignore these realities.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

we do have on record that her live in lover resented her whoring herself on the streets.

...or, at least, that he said so. The fact that Barnett allegedly felt that way suggests that he had more than hypothetical reasons for his resentment.

Hey Brad,

In the case of the desperately poor prostitutes, which was most of the Canonicals, life was hand to mouth on a daily basis. There was no "salt a bit away for a rainy day" money, or plan for future bills or to pay down past ones money, there was maybe enough after a few clients to get a bed or some food, and some just drank it away as soon as it came in.

Each day's goal was to survive that day. Once again...since its seems this point is taking a while to settle in....on the night Mary is killed, none of the motivating factors for whores to work the streets diligently are present. She is also sloshed when she gets home before midnight, and it is raining hard, when her lights are out and her room is quiet. And McCarthy himself said on the stand, "arrears were got as best one can".

Mary had no obvious need, or any precedent showing us she works when she doesn't have to,...ongoing arrears ring a bell?... to go out in the rain that night.

My best regards.